RUSSIA’S REVERSAL

Evening Star, Issue 23501, 15 February 1940, Page 18

RUSSIA’S REVERSAL

NATIONAL IDEALS AND PRACTICES SUPPOSEDLY A FORCE FOR PEACE NOW IN ROLE OF AGGRESSOR Addressing the eighth Congress of the Soviets in December, 1920, Lenin, the founder and guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics, said: “ The object of our whole policy and propaganda has been not to drive the nations to war, but to put an end to war ” (records the Melbourne ‘ Age ’). On that statement) was built .the Soviet foreign policy; even as recently as six months ago it was believed that Russia was one of the most potent forces in the world. To-day Russia is branded an aggressor, the dofiler of a small nation, whose integrity she professed a year ago anxiety to protect. Contrast between the ideals and the practices of dictator-controlled nations is so great that little surprise can be caused by any action they may take as part of a policy of aggrandisement. In that respect Russia is no different from Germany, but the philosophy on which the Soviet Republics is founded is so pronouncedly anti-imperialist that the sliock of the Finnish invasion has been greater on world thought than Germany’s annexation of Austria, “ protective ” invasion of Czecho-Slo-vakia and over-running of Poland. Lenin propounded Russia’s “ Monroe doctrine ” in the words used above; after his death overthrow of the Trotskyists was based largely on the plea that Trotsky would bring the Soviet Republics into armed conflict with the western world. , This is a strong point made by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in their standard work, ‘ Soviet Communism : A New Civilisation,’ in defending the dictator power assumed by Josef Stalin. “It seems to us,” they say, “ that a national leader so persistently boosted and so g nerally admired, has, in fact, become irremovable against his will, so long as his health lasts, without a catastrophic break-up of the whole administration. Chosen originally because he was thought more stable in judgment than Trotsky, who might, it was felt, precipitate the State into war, Stalin is now universally considered to have justified his leadership by success.” Most pro-Soviet publicists protest that Russia is not ruled by a personal dictator—that its government is a proletarian dictatorship. The Webbs emphasise more strongly than any other propounders of Communist philosophy that Stalin is dictator. Yet even they hedge the point. Unlike Hitler and Mussolini, Stalin has no legislative ch-'ij to leadership; actually, he is only Secretary-General of the Communist Party, a paid servant. The Webbs observe that “ although Stalin is, by the constitution, not in the least a dictator, having no power of command. and although he appears to be free from any desire to act as a dictator, and does not do so, he may be thought to have become irremovable from his position of supremo leadership of the party, and, therefore, of the Government. Why is this? We find the answer in the deliberate exploitation by the governing junta of the emotion of hero worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat.” STALINIST AMBITIONS. * Stalin is personally ambitious; his reading of the Communist ideal is more practical than was Lenin’s or Trotsky’s. All his actions have been directed to making Russia a great nation, rather than an example to the world of what can be done by a Socialist republic, worker and peasant controlled. The Structure .of Soviet Government is a huge pyramid; ‘‘democratic centralism ” is the Webbs’ description. Idealistically, its base should be the Communist Party; built upon it the local, district, and national governing organisations. Stalin’s should he no more than an administrative seat at the base. But the Stalin regime has inverted the pyramid, so that alh things flow to the party, and so that his seat is all powerful and placed wherever in the pyramid he desires. Stalin himself has said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is ‘‘substantially the dictatorship of the party, as the force which effectively guides the proletariat.” Few can be found to deny that Stalin controls the party —and thus the nation.

Perhaps it would be impossible to continue the present form of government in Russia without a dictator. Lenin himself had envisaged dictatoreliip long before 1917, describing it as “ a power not bound by any laws.” Terror was ono of the foundations of his dictatorship, yet ho was a simple man, who scorned show, adulation, and demonstration. Stalin thrives on these things, particularly terror and demonstration. In his book ‘ Russia Under Soviet Ride’ N. A., do Easily says that since Stalin’s advent to power the “ spirit of plebeian simplicity which distinguished Lenin and gave his rule at least the outward appearance of 1 the people’s rule ’ has disappeared.” This writer claims that the dominating class in the U.S.S.R. is the intelligentsia, the army and navy which in recent "years has grown in power, threatening even that of Stalin. In large part this threat explains Stalin’s army purge of two years ago. W. G. Krivitsky, a former Russian secret agent, asserts in a recently-published book, ‘ In Stalin’s Secret Service,’ that this purge resulted in the execution of 80,000 officers: the morale of the Red Army was, he says, completely shattered by these executions, and" it will be a long time before the army can function effectively in n major war. This may explain, in part, the defeat of the Red forces in Finland; certainly the attempt to conquer ice-bound areas with troops ill-clad, ill-nourished, and unhoused against terrible winter conditions suggests bad leadership. • De Easily says that being the undisputed master of the country’s destinies, Stalin has seen to the securing of physical force of the armed forces, on which his power rests. “ Moreover,” he adds, “ Stalin does all in his power to transform the army as a whole into a passive and obedient instrument in his hands.” Defence was the primary motive for building up the huge army and air forces of Russia. In 1934 Stalin said: “We never had any orientation towards Germany, nor have we any orientation towards Poland and France. Our orientation in the past and our orientation in the present is towards the U.S.S.R. and towards the U.S.S.R. alone.” Out of his own mouth Stalin is condemned by his actions since—the pact with Germany, the “ mopping Up ” of overrun Poland, the ruthless invasion of Finland. , In 1934 Russia became a member of the League of Nations—the great peace nation joined the councils of peace. In his book, ‘ Light on Moscow,’ D. N.