"Time to stand up for Britain". Interview: Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[voiks]

INTERVIEW: Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"Time to stand up for Britain"
THE TIMES | Monday May 23 1983 | By Bernard Levin

In your Templeton Address you said that the tragedy of the modern world is that man has forgotten God. When and how did this begin to happen?

This is something that has been happening for a long long time. In the West it has already been happening for over three centuries. In Russia it began later but there, too, it began before the revolution. Our educated classes have been part of such a process for nearly two centuries, whereas the uneducated classes were affected for only about ten years before the revolution. And this was the greatest single factor that produced the revolution.

It really began perhaps in the wars of religion which began undermining religion and faith. The Renaissance is another period; it is an enormous process which really stretches over several centuries. And even at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment it still hadn't clarified itself fully. But it was a process that accelerated, that went ever forward to that goal and which certainly became much more pronounced in the 20th century.

The centre of this is the belief that man alone la sufficient to himself?

That began first of all as a reaction the the rigidity and austerity of the Middle Ages. But it is a process which once it had begun was inevitably going to go ever wider and ever deeper. My conviction is that the goal of Man's existence is not happiness but spiritual growth. But this conviction is regarded as something strange, something almost insane, though perhaps only 150 years ago it would have seemed a perfectly natural conviction.

Have not the mass of the people a right to enjoy the material possessions that previously were enjoyed by only a few?

I want to distinguish between material sufficiency - that to which everybody has a right - and consumer greed. Material sufficiency is something that has existed in Europe for many cen-turies. Perhaps we have got a different scale for those of us who have been through the Gulag Archipelago. Rut what happened was a kind of veering round in human awareness in its attitude to material values. In our time, somebody who is very strict and limits himself can be surrounded by any form of material comfort or even luxury and yet remain totally indifferent to it because it is not the material which is the basis of our life. The honor is not that universal Yell-being has led to moral decline. But the moral decline has led to the fact that we now indulge too much in material well-being.

Is it possible in a democratic society to set a limit to people's indulgence in well-being?

Democratic society in the last two centuries has gone through a very, very striking and powerful development. What we used to call a democratic society a few centuries ago is not at all the same as that which we call a democratic society today. Two hundred years ago, when democratic society was being created in certain countries, there was a still clear conception of the Almighty, of God. And the very idea of equality was taken in fact from religion, from religious concepts; in other words, that all men are equal as the children of God. And nobody would have thought of trying to prove that a carrot was the same as an apple. People are fundamentally different in their possibilities and their capabilities but they are equal as children of God. And thus, democracy comes into its own, has a full meaning up to the point at which men start to forget God. In the last two hundred years we have really turned away from God, and democracy has lost its higher centre. Moral criteria were the forces that contained man, that were the inner brakes, as opposed to institutions.

In the last two hundred years we have really turned away from God

Is there something dark in the heart of man himself that cannot be eradicated whether it is an age of faith or not?

Yes, there is. And the path of mankind is a long path. And the historical centuries that we have lived through are only a small part of our total historical way. Yes, we have been through the temptations of the wars of religion, and we showed ourselves to be unworthy; now we stand before the temptation of the material, more than a sufficiency of the material, of luxury, of everything, and again we show ourselves unworthy. Our historical process is really-consists of-man standing before the things which are temptations to him and of showing himself able to overcome them.

I take you think highly of the present Pope and his work?

Yes, I think very highly of his personality, the spirit which he has brought into the Roman Catholic church and his constant and lively interest in all the various problems all round the world. In one of the Encyclicals of one of his predecessors it was said that the voice of the times is the voice of God. The present Pope does not agree with this axiom and fights it, for the voice of the times can be a false voice. We must not serve that voice but check it and correct it.

But in the Roman Catholic church some priests in oppressed nations - I am thinking particularly of some of the dictatorships of South America - have felt it their duty to support insurgent movements. What do you say to them?

When I speak and when I support and praise the activity of the Pope in our contemporary world, what I mean by that it that he is constantly guided by an awareness of the Divine. In other words, yes, he considers it proper to speak of this or that question, hut he is always aware of the Divine. Whereas those priests of whom you have spoken who are active in South America and Central America have in fact fallen to one of the temptations that socialism spreads before us. Socialism, which in its very root is totally opposed to Christianity, loves to pretend that it has taken much from Christianity and given it some concrete form, concrete shape. The ironical thing is that even atheist literature in the Soviet Union uses this very same argument, saying look, look, our socialist programme is in effect a Christian programme.

But may not a priest resist oppression without himself being in any way a supporter of communism?

Yes, yes, they can, but what I am saying is that they are caught within the net of this temptation, this trap. The trap consists in the fact that involvement in such work takes place on a totally worldly level. They are entirely absorbed by the social struggle which the Pope is not because he is always aware of the Divine dimension and the Divine dimension is in fact the governing criterion.

Some of them would argue that being involved in the social struggle is, in fact, carrying out Christ's teaching.

No, they are wrong there. One must take part in social struggle in the name of the soul of every other person and the soul oi every organization. Whereas if we are involved simply in a struggle for material rights, that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nine years in the West have made me into a pessimist

You have drawn attention to the fact that in the oppressed lands of the East spiritual regeneration is growing: ore oppression and suffering necessary for people to turn to things of the spirit?

I would like to divide the question, the question of suffering and the question of oppression. Yes, suffering is essential for our spiritual growth and perfection. But suffering is sent to the whole of humanity and to every living being; it is sent in sufficient measure so that if man knows how to do so he can use it for his growth. Now, if a person doesn’t draw what has to be drawn from suffering but instead it embittered against it he is really making a very negative choice at that moment. Now, if one speaks of oppression, the horrifying oppression that we see for example in the USSR it realty goes beyond the possibilities of human endurance. It is an experience that really goes beyond common suffering. Millions are simply crushed, physically and spiritually crushed, annihilated; but those who have passed through that oppression are then spiritually so strong, so mature, that they become really our hope in the communist countries. And I'll add to that. Nine years in the West have made me into a pessimist; looking from the East I used to ascribe to the West far more strength, far more determination and steadfastness whereas now I would no longer guarantee that the West would withstand invasion by communism, withstand being taken over, subverted, by communism. It is possible that the whole struggle of humanity against communism will take far longer than we originally believed and my greatest hope is in those who have already gone through the horrifying decades of totalitarian oppression and have not been broken and have survived.

But it sounds as though you arc almost saying that until we pass through the same oppression we will not regenerate ourselves either.

I wouldn't like to put it quite as brutally as that. I wouldn't like to make a forecast, “yes this is the only way it can happen". If only Western society could suddenly mobilize itself against communism then it needn't happen. As I said, such terrible oppression isn't essential - is not universally essential - but for this to happen the West must hear the voices of those writers, those publicists, those leaders, who say “we are now already in mortal danger, we are in fact in greater danger than we were in 1940 when the German planes were flying over us”. I am very sorely afraid that in the Western context if a writer, a publicist, wrote that he would be mocked and laughed at. And if a political leader were to say this he would never be reelected.

There is a terrible paradox in our world: those who have no freedom long for it, but those who have freedom do not seem to care about it.

I used to think that it was possible to transfer, to share, to convey the experience of one nation to another, at least by means of literature, but now I am beginning to think that no one can receive the experience of another without having actually gone through it. One must have a heart full of compassion and a heart and a soul full of sense and sensibility in order to be able to take upon oneself, to receive, the sufferings of another.

Is it possible that there are people who cannot bear freedom in themselves, and long to be slaves?

Yes, today's Western Europe is full of such people.

What causes such a condition?

Lacking a consciousness of God, of the Divine, they lack an awareness of reality. The West is full, it's brimming over, with information, you would have thought everything and anything could be understood, but in the eyes of our Russians who live under the Soviet regime the thing that amazes them, that we simply cannot understand, is why doesn't man in the West understand this?

Is it possible in the real world for a modern advanced society to live by spiritual and religious precepts?

For a well-developed, economically well-developed society, that is the most difficult thing of all. But there is simply no other way.

But if the more advanced we become, technically and materially, the more difficult you say it is, then is not the goal constantly being pushed further and further away?

No, though the danger of losing that goal grows. Such is the destiny of mankind that the more we lose control of ourselves the more dead ends into which we get ourselves. We are not quite in the dead end but it is time we started thinking about it. We hear constantly rights, rights, it is always rights, but very little about responsibility.

How do you explain the fact that for years and years some of the greatest scientists, and also artists and professors, were convinced, and some still are, by Soviet communism?

Those in whom the intellect has taken precedence over the spiritual, the heart, they are the ones who arc gullible, who fall for the temptation of the clever wiles of Marxism. I am sure that Isaac Newton, for example, if he were alive today would certainly not be deceived by Marxism!

I have always believed myself that it will not be the leaders of thought who save us but the ordinary man. Do you agree?

I would see the dilemma not in such simple terms. Those people who could turn around humanity or a society, we see them, so to speak, on a vertical line, and perhaps quantitatively we find more of them at the bottom simply because they are more numerous, but one certainly can’t leave out of that scheme the people at the top of the ladder. The whole of history shows that any turn around, historical or social, in any important turn around the forerunners of it are always one or two or three people who perhaps are forerunners of that process by a century or more. We can’t do without these forerunners, these leaders. But it is not the false leaders who have followed the lure and call of Marxism who are the genuine leaders. They will find themselves in a laughable and humiliating situation and many of them will repent but it will be too late and they shall weep.

If we assume that there is no war, how do you see the future of the West?

I refuse even to consider such a perspective because I consider a war - not a nuclear war, but a war - as inevitable. In other words, I include in this all the explosions from within, all the so-called national liberation wars, and I think quite a lot of countries in Europe are very close to such explosions. And this kind of situation is frequently favoured by the very leaders of those countries. We have seen how Brandt weakened Western Germany how Palme really went out to help North Vietnam, and what Papandreou is now doing to Greece, and there are many, many other examples. War doesn’t necessarily come from the outside, it comes also from the inside and not even necessarily in the form of an actual insurrection; it comes in the form of the political blindness of the political leaders. And so it seems to me totally unreal to think in terms of a status quo in the world; there won't be a status quo - not for one year can we see a status quo.

Do you believe that socialism must in time inevitably degenerate into communism?

I am absolutely of the same opinion as our wonderful scientist Orlov, the Orlov who has been in a prison- camp for many years now. He published an article shortly before his arrest, an article in which he shows that any socialism, even the softest form, the most "democratic'’ form, socialism, if it is consequential, logical, if it moves forward, if it doesn’t stray to one side or another hut if it follows its own inner logic, will inevitably come to communism. And we see absolutely everywhere, in any country where this happens, the socialist will always give way to the communist. They will not stand their ground.




I want to talk now about nuclear disarmament. The campaign in this country is now very powerful for unilateral disarmament. What do you think that implies?

First of all, let's look at it at the universal level. I consider nuclear armament, chemical armament, bacteriological armament as utterly repulsive and horrific. I would never sit in judgment over anyone who condemns nuclear armament. Rut we have got another problem. The West carries Ore moral responsibility of a decision taken 40 years ago to manufacture and use nuclear armaments. Now the West without nuclear armament has nothing at all. Everything is put simply into nuclear armament. The fault lies at the inception, at the moment when the decision was taken to rely on nuclear armament, to stake everything on nuclear armament. That decision has kept the West safe for twenty, thirty years but now it is really like a boomerang - it comes right back at it.

I consider a war - not a nuclear war but a war - as inevitable

Now the second aspect is, at the personal level, the extraordinary blindness of society and young people. For half a century you have had the chance to open the eyes of society and of the young, and Western young people simply have no idea of the real situation. Try asking them why isn't there such a movement for nuclear disarmament in the Soviet Union. Either they won’t even understand the question or they won’t care. What they say is we shall disarm unilaterally and then the communists wilt follow suit. Now here we see not so much disinformation as a complete blindness of understanding; there is also a weakening, a total erosion, of will. Go to these young people and ask them. All right we agree to have unilateral disarmament but will you go into the army tomorrow in order to die - into an ordinary conven-tional army - and if they are truthful they will say oh no. Today, resistance to nuclear armament is really a very convenient pretext to disguise, to hide, if not their moral cowardice at least their moral weakness. In fact, they don’t want any kind of armament, any kind of work, they just simply do not want to resist at all.

Finally, the third level of all this, there is of course the active participation of Soviet money and Soviet participation and Soviet organization. The communists have enormous experience here. Already in 1917 Lenin gave five or ten roubles to every person for participation in demonstrations against the provisional government. Stalin organized a so-called movement for peace in those days when he didn’t have an atomic bomb and he, too, had money to spend on this. And, of course, this principle continues. But just to finish answering this question I want to underline one thing: the problem isn't really reducable just to Soviet organization and participation. If only the West had not relied tor several decades on nuclear arms and if the young were steadfast of will and well-informed, no Soviet action would achieve anything.

Some nuclear disarmers in this country say that since they can do nothing about Soviet arms, the only way they can do It Is by arguing against our arms, since it has to start somewhere.

It looks very good for them simply to protest against nuclear arms which are horrific, yes. And what they are, what they forget, what they disguise behind that, what is soft-pedalled, is their own unwillingness to defend their own country. The Soviet leaders in this situation don't even need to use nuclear arms. They will simply take conventional arms and will simply capture everyone with conventional arms and no resistance. And these young people who are so brave in their demonstrations and who join hands over a distance of miles, they will be told you cannot assemble in numbers more than three, even more than two. If they are told, right, no assembly in numbers of more than two or three, they will obey.

Some say that since a nuclear war would be a catastrophe for the whole planet, surrender, even for those who hate communism, would be preferable to a nuclear war.

I shall only say about the famous axiom "Better to be red than dead" that there is no alternative in it because to become red is really in fact to die a slow death. The free people of the West have missed sixty-five years. They have stood there fully armed and not struggled. When they give in to communism they will find themselves as slaves, and what is more moribund slaves. That’s when they will begin to fight but in different conditions. And what is so amazing is that the West appears not to hear the absolutely explicit condemnation to death which has been pronounced. In 1919, the Comintern was created and its leaders, Lenin and Trotsky, who at that point had absolutely no nuclear arms, they hardly had any rifles or bullets to put into them, but none the less they declared a condemnation to death for the Western world; and the West laughed. Sixty years ago, the whole of educated Russia, the cream of Russian intellectual development, the whole intelligentsia, everybody, said “look, this is something quite unlike anything you have seen before”; the West turned a totally deaf ear. Fifty years ago the logs of wood from the camps with things written in the blood of those who were imprisoned up in the north, those togs of wood somehow came to the West. Forty years ago millions of Soviet people again told of the horrors. They were not only not listened to but in their hundreds of thousands and millions were simply given back and betrayed to captivity and certain death in the Soviet Union. Thirty years ago, Kravchenko in the famous trial hearing in Paris revealed the true nature of the Soviet regime and he wasn’t listened too either. History does not forgive such multiple mistakes.

Although we were sentenced to death sixty-five years ago, we have still survived. Why should we not go on doing so?

Because there is no comparison between the situation when the Kremlin didn’t even have enough rifles and today’s situation where it has got the best rocket stations in Cuba, in Nicaragua, the best naval bases in Angola, Mozambique, South Yemen. We see that this process is not only a constant process but one that is accelerating with terrific speed.

Do you think that the emergence of Solidarity is a sign that there is real hope or is the fact that it was crushed a sign that there is no hope?

In this whole phenomenon, there is more hope than disillusion. It is a movement which gives us hope first of all by its scope and by its spiritual direction which rests not in socialism but in Christianity. Poland was able to manifest this thanks to the strength and force of its church but it is certainly a sign of what could happen in the other communist countries. But as regards Poland, the West really behaved as though it was seeing a stage performance, and there is some similarity with the Western attitude towards Afghanistan; for the West is constantly hoping that there will be some kind of a miracle in the East, which will relieve the West of the need to defend itself. Maybe instead of Brezhnev, we will have the good liberal Andropov or some other dove; maybe the Polish Solidarity movement will change things absolutely in Poland, then in Lithuania, then in the whole of the Soviet Union. But these events must not be looked upon as a spectacle; they must be looked upon as a call, an appeal to mobilize inner forces. For example, in Poland the Western creditors need not have wiped out the Polish debt. There is this psychology in the West - we are helping the people - it dates back to the time of Roosevelt when whole factories were sent in kit form to be assembled in the Soviet Union. Since then the West has always been in fact strengthening the communist governments.

Now let’s look at Afghanistan. The war has been on for three years. During all this time, the West, apart from a kind of generalized sympathy, has not done anything concrete for the country. If the West really understood that all the communist governments of the world are its mortal enemies and no kind of thaws, no kind of smiles, will ever change this situation, but that on the other hand all the subjugated peoples are its allies, the West could long ago, by its actions in Afghanistan have brought about a very different situation. You would by now have had two, three, four regiments of ex-Soviet soldiers ready and willing to fight this way. But the Western governments, including the American government, are terrified of the Kremlin’s anger.

Secondly, at the end of the Second World War the West undermined the faith and trust of all our people's in the East. We believed that the West was our ally whereas the West gave up those who had fought communism, gave them up to sure death and destruction. This story must not be forgotten.

Suppose that Jaruselski could improve matters for the Poles to the extent that Kadar has done for the Hungarians, would you welcome this or would you argue that kings must get worse before they can get better?

No, I wouldn’t put ii in that way, I would certainly welcome any improvement in the situation of the Poles but, first of all. I would not overestimate what Kadar has done for the Hungarians. When Czechoslovakia had to be invaded Kadar invaded it quite cheerfully. Every communist leader has certain limits, within which he can achieve very little, If, for example, Jaruzelski worked to prove himself a patriot and really did try to improve the conditions of the Poles, it he really were doing that then in no time at all he would be removed and somebody else would be put in his place.

The Soviet leaders can see that the system doesn’t work, they can’t feed their people, they have to maintain a gigantic system of oppression, they know they are hated by millions, why do they go on with it?

They see that their system works very well indeed, because it has such geopolitical successes to its credit that no conqueror in all history has ever had such gains to his credit. Yes, all right, the domestic economy is falling apart, but when crisis comes the capitalist world will always help them. But how the people live, what the people have, is really not their aim or their goal. It is a governent which has no thought of how the people live. The people are dying, well let them die. But they will have other peoples to rule over.

A society like that, based on lies, surely cannot exist for ever: "A house builded upon sand.” Do you agree with that, and if so, how do you envisage the disintegration beginning?

Of course, it can’t exist for ever and ever. Of course, future historians will say that communism existed from year X to year Y. But because, for two-thirds of a century, the West has been making mistake on mistake in Us relations with communism, I have now come lo the very pessimistic conclusion that communism still has quite a chance of spreading over the world. And viewed from the outside, one could use the image of a lunar eclipse, when the shadow covers the earth and then moves across. That shadow has covered the USSR. China, then gradually it will move away from those parts and start covering others and eventually will leave the earth.

Is it possible to say when you might expect this to start happening?

No, neither the form nor the time are open to human understanding or conception - we don’t know. From the very moment when communism was installed, became a power in the Soviet Union, ever since that very start, that very moment, the most intelligent Russian people have always been saying “this is for five years, this is for ten years; this can’t go on... this is so horrifically absurd that it can't go on." And the West looks like a fortress, like a rock, but we have seen that this absurdity has gone on and on, and the West is weakening and weakening. So, I will not say anything about the possible time or the possible form. But I am absolutely convinced that communism will go like the eclipse that I spoke of. Even our culture which has been under communism for sixty-five years, we have seen that with all its armaments and weapons, communism has not been able to crush Christianity out of our country. I personally am convinced that in my lifetime I will return to my country.

I am convinced that in my lifetime I will return to my country

The leaders of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 and the Czech spring in 1968 all came from within the Communist party. Do you think U is possible that there art such men in the Soviet Union who are biding their time and working their way up through the hierarchy?

First of all, I want to distinguish between your Hungarian example and your Czech example. The Czech model has no future, no perspective; this was an attempt by people who considered themselves totally and fully communist, to give communism a so-called human face, which is impossible, even if the Warsaw Pact hadn't invaded Czechoslovakia, or even if Dubceck and his group had utterly lost all influence.

Now the Hungarian model js one full of hope and perspective. Because in the Hungarian model we saw the rebirth of national feeling instead of self-defence and self-affirmation. (I must say, in my own life, the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the total inaction of the West were profoundly shocking experiences for me. I lost my faith in the West.) So the Hungarian model shows that even within the communist system, even through its leaders, there can come a sense of national self-preservation. In the same way as a sick body can suddenly come up with the antibodies to fight the sickness. But what should be said is that at that moment, the moment of the Hungarian uprising, the communist system had only been in force for about eight years. Hungary had not yet been broken by the communists. Among the communist cadres there were stilt people who had not been totally broken, whereas we m the Soviet Union have hart that system for over 65 years. In other words, two or three generations had come and gone; moreover, in the communist hierarchy there is a constant process of selection. As soon as an honest man, a man of principle, appears, the system simply rejects him, and either he leaves it or he perishes. However, I have a firm conviction that our nation as an organism is not dead yet and, therefore, the young living shoots come out in the most unexpected places. It is instinct through which a nation saves itself. And through my work I know, I can sense, there are many many people who think as I do. I do represent people in Russia. If I didn’t represent anyone, the authorities wouldn't fear me.

In the 1930s, the West only woke up when war broke out. We have to wake up before war breaks out now. What will wake us up?

I wouldn’t like you to be awakened by the ceiling falling on your heads. I would like the loud voices of outstanding people, writers, publicists, political leaders, to find the courage to say “look, the ceiling is cracking, it might fall”. And they should not be afraid of being told “oh no this is too extreme, this is too ridiculous”.

The time has come to limit our demands to learn about self-sacrifice

What about externally? What would (he communists have to do, what would the Soviet leaders have to do, for us to resist?

I don’t know. So far, we haven’t seen a single country for which the West would actually stand up and fight. Maybe the United States would go to war for Israel. I don’t know whether Europe would fight for its oil. It is not the degree of danger that will stimulate you, it is the degree of inner awareness. What could be more striking, what could be more evident, than the way in which the Khmer Rouge destroyed, annihilated, its own people? Or for example, the Vietnamese boat people who drowned? Will you find any compassionate feeling for that?

If you were advising President Reagan what would you tell him?

I must say that President Reagan really doesn’t need my recommendations and advice. On the contrary, he keeps on getting public advice from leading American publicists and various newspapers of such a nature that even the asses' ears would collapse. I don’t think Reagan’s problem is a lack of understanding, but he has to struggle against the blindness and the shortsightedness of public opinion. He can't even manage to get across to that public opinion that at the moment in Central America we see the creation of an actual front against the United States. When Reagan said that he was in a position of confrontation, extreme confrontation, with communism, he was jeered and hissed for having brought about the collapse of detente. Whereas, in fact, what he had done was probably to take only one small step in the direction of what he intended. American public opinion is such that - well I'll give you an example from navigation. Now when you hear an SOS signal you must ask: “Who are you, do you have a democracy?” All right, if they’re a democracy, let’s go and save them. If it’s a communist SOS then we really must save them because we must avoid any unpleasantness. But if it is an undemocratic Western regime, they can go to the bottom and sink! This is madness. There are those who actually stand in the front line under fire, and what is demanded of them is democracy. In Salvador the elections took place under machine gun fire and indeed, yes, the voters were mown down by machinegun fire. The American Congress and American public opinion shout “there isn’t enough democracy - start talks with the bandits, let’s have more and more elections under machinegun fire”. And those are the sort of examples which really make me think of the West as a madhouse.

What would you say if you had the opportunity to broadcast to the Russian people? What would you tell them?

I am a publicist really involuntarily, against my own will. If I could broadcast to my people I would read them my books, my novels, because in my interviews, my articles, I can’t give even one hundredth of that which I have put into my novels.

Is there anything special that Britain, apart from the West in general, can do?

I think British history has shown more than once that the British have a remarkable faculty, a remarkable ability, to mobilize themselves in moments of danger. Maybe it is Britain which could do one or two of the things I have talked about. But if there could be moral mobilization in Britain, now, before the ceiling falls down, then the standing up to be counted of Britain, even just Britain alone standing up to be counted against communism, would make an enormous impression on the communists. I he communists in their greed to seize control of the world are, in fact, very clever in the way in which they discriminate and know perfectly well which are the weak bits which can be swallowed first. And where they find themselves confronted by steadfast will, they retreat. They even retreat in the face of their own prisoners, their very own prisoners who stand fast.

What final message in this Interview would you like to give?

I would just like to call the British to come to their senses before it is too late. The time has come to limit our demands, to learn about self-sacrifice and to learn how to sacrifice oneself for the salvation of one's country and for society.

Thank you very much.

©Times Newspapers Limited, 1983

Источник: THE TIMES, 23.05.1983
Скриншот PDF
Google-перевод см. «Время встать на защиту Британии». Интервью: Александр Солженицын

См. также:

- «Время встать на защиту Британии». Интервью: Александр Солженицын / THE TIMES, 23.05.1983 // voiks
- Интервью с Александром Солженицыным. Из газеты «Таймс» (1983) / "Стрелец", 1984, №1, с.38-43. // voiks
- Александр Солженицын. Интервью лондонской газете «Таймс» (1983) / Солженицын А. И. Публицистика: В 3 т. Т. 3. - Ярославль: Верхняя Волга, 1997. - Т. 3: Статьи, письма, интервью, предисловия. - 1997. - С. 120-136. // voiks

- Cold War: Bernard Levin interview with Solzhenitsyn, The Times ("Time to stand up for Britain") // www.margaretthatcher.org voiks