RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1929, Page 12

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

DEBATE IN THE LORDS. (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) LONDON, December 4. In the House of Lords, Lord Birkenhead on moving that the diplomatic reSitton of the Soviet ft present was undesirable, poitned out that . he alone was responsible for his motion. He denied that a resumption would have been justified on the ground oftrade. The United States was nowise ent to commercial advantage, but it had resolutely declined to.recognise the Soviet Government, which had not showed the slightest intention of doing what the Foreign Secretary, „ Mr. Henderson, had described as the condition precedent” to a full r , esui ? p tmn. Nobody knew authoritatively whether the Soviet claimed to have the pow_er to control the Third International Instructions had been sent out with, the object of inflaming revolution among the South African natives, months after the opening of the discussion with Mr. Henderson. If the Soviet had no power to prevent these, where was the advantage of resuming relations therewith? If it had the power, but refused to exercise it, why fool ourselves into the belief that staple and hopdurable relations could be established with such a people? These attempts made to stir up revolution in a part of the Empire would have been impossible without the assent or complicity

of the Soviet. Ever since Mr. Henderson’s conversations with M. Dovgalevsky at London, there had been an aggravation of all of Russia’s anti-Bri-tish activities. Yet in face of this, he understood that the Government was continuing the resumption policy. Lord Brentford, who spoke following the Archbishop of Canterbury, took the view that the Soviet’s whole principles—political, moral and religious—aro such that Britain could in nowise participate therein. Lord Melchett said that the Third International was the master of the Moscow Government. It was carrying on a world war that was more deadly than if it were carried on by guns, shells and poison gas. The British business people were capable of dealing with Russian trade without any diplomatic recognition. Lord Cecil said he regarded recognition as an important step to the world peace. He said that it was a gross exaggeration to describe the Bolshevik propaganda as being “more deadly than war.” Its most striking feature was its utter futility. Lord Melchett said that Soviet propaganda was responsible for troubles

in China, India, Egypt, and Palestine, and our own general strike was directly due to Bolshevik propaganda. Lord Glasgow: What about the Communist Sunday schools? Lord Cecil: They are on the verge of collapse. Lord Parmoor, replying, said that though the United States had not recognised Russia diplomatically, there was an American Commercial Mission in Moscow, and there was a Russian Mission in Washington. The Soviet propanganda had failed absolutely throughout the British Empire—not owing to the recent breaking off of relations, but because of the common sense of the British democracy. Lord Birkenhead: lam convinced by Lord Cecil’s and Lord Parmoor’s speeches that my previous views must be entirely wrong, and that Russian pi opaganda is either wholly innocuous or is positively beneficial to Britain. I api not sure whether we ought not to subsidise it. • L ?! d Birkenhead’s motion was carried by 43 votes to 21.