SLAVE LABOUR USED IN SOVIET RUSSIA TODAY

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 August 1948, Page 6

SLAVE LABOUR USED IN SOVIET RUSSIA TODAY

By Wickham Steed.

. Of all the problems which worry the Western statesmen and peoples, the problem of Soviet Russia is the most persistent and acute. It is even more acute than the anxious [question whether things are moyiing towards peace or war; for if (the Russian problem could be 1 stated in terms reassuring to the [West the idea of war would recede (into the .dim background. [ So plain is this fact that three (public men of acknowledged (authority in Western lands —Genleral Smuts, of South Africa, (President Truman, of the United I States, and Dr Antonio Salazar, (Prime Minister of Portugal since 11932—have dwelt upon it in important speeches. Different in 'many respects though their stanclI points are, they revealed a wide measure of agreement in their analyses of the Russian problem.

Widespread Distrust The problem itself has not been simplified by rumours that the rulers of Soviet Russia may be contemplating a change in tactics which have hitherto seemed to justify the epigram that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is: “All mischief, short of war.” So widespread is the distrust of Russia that hypothesis of change in her tactics is discussed in a spirit of doubt whether, after having failed to wreck the European Recovery Programme by open opposition, she would not be trying to be apparently co-operative, yet subtly obstructive, methods to hamper its application. The hypothesis of impending change in the Russian tactics has not been rendered more tenable by the resignation of President Benes of Czechoslovakia and his replacement by a Communist nominee. The imposition of a Communist constitution —which President. Benes firmly refused to sign—upon a people preponderatingly non-Communist, whom Thomas Masaryk and Edward Benes restored to fredom after three centuries of servitude, has strengthened the suspicion of Russian aims in every Western democratic country. It has also accentuated misgivings of the Wester Socialists, many of whom clung tenaciously to the belief that Russian Communism was after all, merely a somewhat advanced form of Social Democracy and ought therefore to be regarded with friendly tolerant eyes. . Foremost among British Socialists of this confiding type were editors of an English weekly review The New Statesman and Nation. Even before the British Foreign Secretary welcomed the Marshall Plan and Soviet Russia opposed it, they accused Mr Bevin of siding with the U.S.A. against Russia and of subordinating the British foreign policy to that of Washington. The Russo-Communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the subsequent death of Jan Masaryk surprised them disagreeably and caused them to wonder whether they might not have been, mistaken. On May 15 the New Statesman and Nation published a review of a new book amounting to the indictment of the Soviet Union _ called “Forced Labour in Soviet Russia.” It allowed the reviewer—one of the most competent British writers on Russian affairs —to express iris conviction that slave labour forms an essential part of the Russian Communist system and to conclude that “forced labour as an institution could not now be abolished quickly without ruining Soviet economy.”

“Not Very British”

Against this damaging conclusion a partisan of Soviet Russia, who beais the not very British name of Rothstein, protested vehemently, declaring that the author of “Forced Labour in Soviet Russia” had not produced a single Piece of evidence in support of this indictment. Other competent writers then dealt severely with Mr Rothstein and chargd him with not having made in his protest, a single statement that would bear examination. This controversy lasted several weeks; and it leaves me, who am always ready to weigh evidence for or against any opinion I may hold, with the impression that many millions of unhappy human beings are undoubtedly herded by Communist Russia into camps where they are forced to labour, often to die, under conditions far worse than Tsarist Russia inflicted upon its political exiles. I learned something of Tsarist conditions both from revolutionary exiles and from other political offenders who had escaped from or survived them. Even as described by Lenin’s widow—hardly an unbiassed authority—in her account of Lenin’s exile in Siberia, they were not barbarously cruel. I doubt whether the same could truthfully be said of conditions in Soviet forced labour camps today. Apologists of Soviet Russia denounce such doubt as unwarranted and malicious. But so long as the Soviet rulers refuse to publish any statistics of their slave labourers or to permit any inspection of the camps, protests and denunciations can carry little weight.

Meanwhile, the chief editoi* of “The New Statesman and Nation” who has been allowed to visit Communist Hungary, has recorded some impression of his visit. They are enlightening even if as I imagine, he has no knowledge of Magyar language through which alone trustworthy information on Hungarian affairs can be gained. This I say from experience; for it was not until I had learned enough Magyar to study those affairs at first hand that I could see behind the deceptive facade which the old Hungarian oligarchy presented to Western Europe. Now, I fancy, a Communist oligarchy representing hardly one quarter of the people, are showing another no less deceptive facade to trustful visitors. New Religion

Nevertheless, the editor’s impressions are enlightening. Hungary, he says, is undergoing “forcible conversion” to a new Communist religion. And the effect of his experience was to deter him from repeating to the English-speak-ing audience at Budapest the criticisms of Mr Bevin which he has printed each week in London. Instead he tried to explain the difficulties which confront the British Government today and the strength of the British tradition of moderation, compromise and fair play which extends to the working class. His remarks pleased a greater part of his audience but sorely disappointed the Communist zealots. Perhaps he may now revise his own opinion of the new Communist “religion.”