WAR AND PEACE.

Evening Star, Issue 21993, 1 April 1935, Page 12

WAR AND PEACE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr MacManus’s letter is welcome, as he states his case without abusing his opponent. If the Communists were acting with the abolition of war as their only objective no one could take exception to joining them in their effort. But their own literature proves that this is not so. Their activities against war are the same as, and for the purpose of assisting, their “ revolutionary front against Capitalism.” Another statement of theirs is that every effort must be made to weaken the defence in Capitalist countries to clear the way for revolutionary action. Seeing that these motives are admittedly behind the “ Anti-war, and Anti-Fascist Movement ” it is quite obvious that it is not for peace for the sake of peace but disarmament in Capitalist States for their own benefit. Mr MacManus seems to question our “ imputation.” We, of course, can only base our opinion upon statements in Communist literature. If this mistates the motives behind the party’s activities in this direction, we cannot be blamed. On© other motive, very clearly stated, is that this movement is a good way for the party to get in touch with sections of the people who would otherwise have nothing to do with it. We entirely agree with Mr MacManus when he says “ the movement for peace must be big enough to embrace all advocates of peace, whatever their views, and must extend to and include Russia as well ns every country. It must.” he adds, “ b© universal and therefore international.” That is what we have also said repeatedly, and we are glad to have Mr MacManus on the same side in tin’s opinion. But this “Antiwar and Anti-Fascist Movement never includes Russia in its agitation for reduction of armaments. It, as a matter of fact, points to the huge and ever growing Red Army as the mainstay of peace, but to Britain’s much reduced forces as endangering peace. New Zealand’s two aeroplanes are pointed to as making for wni\ Russia’s hundreds or thousands of pianos as making for peace. This is inconsistent, and indicates that the Communists, who claim to be the principal organisers of this movement, are not sincere, and are not prepared to agree with Mr MacManus’s view as to international accord. Your correspondent can do much good by insisting that the movement embrace every country, including Russia, and we trust he will do so. It is the only way.—We are, etc., New Zealand Welfare League. Wellington, March 29.