The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1940. CHANGES IN RUSSIA

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20242, 9 May 1940, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1940. CHANGES IN RUSSIA

Under more normal conditions the retirement of Marshal Voroshilov from the post of Soviet Commissar of Defence might pass more or less unnoticed and regarded merely as the “liquidation” of another of those stalwarts of the revolution who have come into disfavour with the all-powerful dictator of the Kremlin. To-day, however, changes in Russia have a world-wide interest because the alliance of the Soviet with Germany and her participation in a policy of aggression mean that any moves she makes might have far-reaching repercussions. What Marshal Voroshilov's displacement actually means no one can say with any certainty for the policy of M. Stalin is inscrutable —even, perhaps, to his own associates. It is just a year ago that the world was surprised by the announcemont of the enforced retirement of the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, M. Litvinov, which even now has not been officially explained. It was suggested at the time, however, that the step must presage some change in Soviet policy. Just how true that is has been shown by subsequent developments. For some years, M. Litvinov had been an ardent advocate of the policy of collective security. but when M. Stalin decided to abandon this and to place Russia among the ranks of the aggressors, with an alliance with Germany, it was imperative for his purposes that M. Litvinov should go. Nov/, twelve months later, the principal instrument of Soviet aggression, Marshal Voroshilov, has been displaced. That his dismissal has some significance may he taken for granted, but the reason for it is not readily discernible since, unlike M, Litvinov,

the Defence Commissar has never been in a position where lie could disclose his real policy to the world at large. It is possible, of course, that he has been disrated solely because of the relative failure of the Russian invasion of Finland. Russia had hoped to give the world an example of the Soviet, version of the lightning war, but instead, the Finns gave an unforgettable lesson, not only of their own courage, but also of the hollowness of the Russian claims of the might of the Red Army. The real victory in this struggle belonged to the Finns, and it would not be surprising if, for this reason alone, M. Stalin decided to seek a scapegoat. Anyhow, Marshal Voroshilov has gone from a post which he had fdled for 1!3 years and he is replaced by a general of whom little is known except that he led the forces .which stabbed Poland in the back after she had been ravaged by the Germans. Whether General Timoshenko's appointment indicates any change in Soviet military policy is not known, but it is probable that his chief qualification for his post is that he will be a complacent “yes"-man for M. Stalin. The change in Russia and the debate that has been proceeding in the House of Commons provide an illustration of the difference between dictatorship and democracy. In the midst of the greatest war in history, Great Britain can spare the time for a searching inquiry into the merits or demerits of certain Ministers who hold their offices at the will of the elected representatives of the people. In Russia there is no inquiry and no explanation of Cabinet changes, but 180,000,000 people must bow to the ruling of one man who himself holds office by reason of the force he commands. It is this same dictatorship which from 1937 to 1939 carried out purges in all fields of Soviet life and which did incalculable, and probably irreparable damage to the nation. Significantly enough, it was the same period which characterised a major setback to Russian progress. Under the five-year plans, the Soviet had been able to drive its workers to an extent that made possible substantial development of the backward industries of the country, hut by 1939 it was apparent that the rate of progress had been so seriously checked—largely, perhaps, on account of the diversion of finance and labour to war purposes—that it would take generations to enable Russia to raise the standard of her people to that of other countries.

It seems likely that it was recognition of this cheek to progress that prompted the pact with Germany which appeared to offer scope for the development of Russian trade and industry. but which, instead, led Europe into war. At the party congress last year M. Stalin stated that the average monthly wage of Soviet workers was 287 roubles, which is equal to the price of a good pair of shoes.. The real difficulty, however, was not in the price of goods, but in the fact that they were virtually unobtainable because the Russian system had been diverted from the production of consumer goods into the creation of a costly and unproductive war machine. The discontent of the workers would not be allayed by the knowledge that a large privileged section were drawing salaries a hundred times the average and were thus enabled to enjoy all the luxuries of life and to establish an upper class in every way comparable to that of Czarist days. Clearly M. Stalin had to take some steps in an endeavour to remedy this situation and of the alternatives open to him he chose the alliance with Germany. It may be doubted, however, whether he counted on its results. To-day, he cannot turn back, but, like all other dictators, is compelled to do something in an attempt to justify his policy. What that something will be he alone can tell, but Marshal Voroshilov’s displacement may be a pointer to events which will be awaited with some anxiety.