The Evening Star MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1941. RUSSIA’S FUTURE ROLE.

Evening Star, Issue 24002, 29 September 1941, Page 6

The Evening Star MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1941. RUSSIA’S FUTURE ROLE.

A British-Amerioan delegation is at present in Russia for the discussion of common war interests. No specific statement has been made regarding the subjects which the conversatio”" will embrace, but it is to ho assumed that they will include both the most practicable and most needed ways by which her allies may give aid to Russia and the part which that country may be expected to take in post-war policy. Russia does not need men but she needs equipment to make up for destruction which she has suffered, and the questions that arise here are what she needs first and how to get it to her most speedily over the long distances that must be covered by any route. As regards co-operation after the war, the Soviet has already given its adherence to the Eight-Point Charter designed first by Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt, and subscribed to since by the representatives of the other democracies. Mr Maisky declared that the Soviet Union was in complete agreement with the charter, the application of whose principles would secure the most energetic support from it. At the same time he insisted, rightly, that the first thing was to win the war. As she is bearing a main share of the burden of figbting, it fofllows that Russia will have a main part in the determination of the settlement that will follow it. The part of America will aUso be most important. As the ideology of (Russia was expressed by Mr Maisky it would be difficult to distinguish it from that of the democratic countries. If he made the most of common sentiments the allies of Russia will not be disposed, at this time, to make the most of differences. Regard for the “ self-determination of nations ” was hardly shown by the Soviet in its conduct of two years ago towards Baltic neighbours, but it is true that, viewed over a long period, Russia has not been an aggressive country in the manner of Germany. Her Constitution may still provide, even as Mr Maisky explains it, for “ freedom of anti-religious propaganda ” but not “ freedom of religious propaganda ” (despite freedom of worship), but there is evidence that that difference has greatly diminished in practice. In July last it was reported that “ Government-sponsored atheist propaganda has been discontinued.” The campaign against religion, which was an earlier expression of Soviet zeal, was most discouraged by its non-success. Communism should not operate as a barrier to the most desirable relations with Russia at this time when, it has been said, “to all appearances Communism in Russia is becoming almost an irrelevance. It is Nationalist Russia, not—or only incidentally—revolutionary Russia, that is fighting this war. ... To visualise post-war Russia means looking across a wide gulf from which a great mist rises, but the likelihood that Russian nationalism will have regained vigour at the expense of revolutionary internationalism raises interesting possibilities. It would be well in line with Stalin’s decision. in 1927, when Trotsky stood for nothing but world revolution, that a revolutionary Russia in a capitalist world was a quite practical proposition.” As long ago as 1935 Sir Samuel Hoare. speaking as Foreign Secretary in reference to (Russia, laid it down that “ any State sincerely desirous of maintaining the peace of Europe, whatever may be its Government, will have our collaboration in that design.” The principle bas been reaffirmed repeatedly, and no other could be followed.