RUPTURE WITH RUSSIA.

Grey River Argus, 25 February 1927, Page 5

RUPTURE WITH RUSSIA.

BRITAIN’S THREAT. Re Revolution Propaganda. LONDON, Feb. 23. It is understood that despite ths despatch of a Note to Russia, it is very unlikely that the protest will b e pressed sufficiently far to .ntiiil the breaking off of Anglo-Russiai. rtlations. (Reed. Feb. 24 at 7.10 p.m.) LONDON, Feb. 23. The Daily News says that diplomatic and political circles interpret the note to Russia as a final warning from Britain that any fresh offence will be instantly seized upon as an excuse for a complete rupture. The truth, it says, is that the Government’s continued resistance to Parliamentary pressure has become impossible, and it is generally assumed that the Moscow Government will not fail to provide the incident whici. the Government arc now awaitiu g. (Received February 24 at 8 p.m.) LONDON, February 24. Opinions on Sir Austen Chamber lain’s ftiotc to Russia are curiously mixed. )The Morning Post favours stronger measures against the Soviet, but it significantly says that, it does not join in the crusade against Sir Austen Cham berlain, the Foreign Office and the “Government. This its says is partly because th(F agitation in question covers 'rather a transparent and altogether unworthy political intrigue, and partly because it is advisable to support the Government in the time of a crisis, but chiefly because we believe that the Foreign Office is not lukewarm, but that it is resolved to take its own time. ’ ’

The Daily Telegraph, in. a leading article commends the note. Its I’arliamen,it ary correspondent says: 4 ‘The view of the Foreign Office has been that the Bolshevists should have another chance, but there is comment in the Parliamentary lobby that the language of the Note is not so definite-as could be desired. ’ ’

The Daily Chronicle's political correspondent similarly records that the “diehards” are disappointed with the feebleness of the Note. Nevertheless, U says, this warning to the Soviet is final and it indicates that Mr. Baldwin, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Lord Salisbury, Lord Robert Cecil, and Lord Balfour have been beaten by Mr. ChurchTil Lord Birkenhead, Sir W. Joynson Hic'ks and Mr. Amery.”

The Daily Chronicle says editorially: “Those who preach breaking off relations and expelling the Rods should be asked seriously whether th’ey want another great war! Britain should conn ter Russian propaganda in China and in Asia generally by better propaganda of her own.”

The Daily Herald says: “The relations between Britain and the Soviet have been a history, not ot diplomacy, but of back chat, at which Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead, and Sir W. Joynson Hicks are equal to any.” The Times says: note is a strong document, but it is too much to that it will produce the impression desired. The only effective answer would be a revolutionary change in fh“ whole policy of the Soviet Government towards Britain.”

The Daily Mail describes the Note “a display of feebleness and funk, which will make the blood of every. respecting Briton tingle in his veins. ? The Westminster Gazette says: “We do not want to drift alone into something more serious than a diplof'.atic breach. ’’

Reason for Note.

ALLEGED REVOLUTIONARY PLOTTING . AGAINST BRITAIN. (Received February 24 at 10.40 p.m.) LONDON. February 23. The note from the British Government to Russia says that the relation between His Majesty’s Government and the Soviet Government continue notoriously to bo of an unsatisfactory nature, ft recalls that the Soviet on June 4th, 1923, solemnly signed an agreement not to support persons or institutions aiming at spreading discontent or fomenting rebellion in any part of the British Empire, and it fur ther recalls Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s note to M. Rakovsky of October 24th, 1924, warning the Soviet that no Government could tolerate an arrangement by which a propagandist body, organically connected with a foreign Government with which Britain was*in formal, correct diplomatic relations, encouraged, and even ordered, the subjects of that foreign Government to plot and plan revolutions for the overthrow of Britain. However, despite Mr MacDonald’s warning it has been necessary for Sir Austen Chamberlain, on more than one occasion, to draw the attention of the Soviet representatives in England to a continuous breach of this solemn engagement. So long as the present rulers of the Union of Soviet Republics—be they technically members of the Government or members of the Political Bureau which is the real dominating authority of the Union, or be its ambassadors abroad — persist in making public utterances in defamation of Great Britain, or in advocacy of world revolution, then no improvement is possible. The British Government must, therefore, again call attention to Mr MacDonald’s warning.

The note points out that this public attitude of men in high positions in Russia is totally inconsistent with the profession of goodwill given privately by the representatives of the Soviet Government in England. THE CHARGES MADE. NOT VERY~DEFINITE. LATER. The British note to Russia quotes, inter alia, extracts from the speeches of the Soviet• leader, M. Bukharin, attacking the British Empire, with special reference to China, which the note says, had received the direct approval of the Soviet Government in a speech by M. Rykov (President of the Soviet People’s Commissars) on Nevember 3 last. His remarks and quotations arc declared to illustrate the futility of the pretence that the attacks on British interests in China are not instigated and not directed by the Soviet union.

The note says His Majesty’s Government has persistently striven for the promotion of world peace. The foregoing account of grevious outrages and injuries to British interests, committed by, or through, the agency of the Union of >fc»vi<‘t Republics, shows what ipatience and forbearance in the lace of repeated and almost unendurable provocation has been shown by His

Majesty’s Government in its desire to avoid any action which might still further embitter the public feeling on either side or might add to the anxieties of other nations. The British Government, says the note, is not concerned in the domestic affairs of Russia, nor in its form of Government. All the British Governmet requires is that the Russian Government refrain from interference in purely British concerns, and shall abstain from hostile action or propaganda against British subjects; but the Brir ish Government consider it necessary to -warn the Union of Soviet Republics, in the gravest terms, that there are limits beyond -which it would be dangerous to drive the .public opinion of the country, and thak,a continuance of such acts are as in this note complained of must, sooner or later, render inevitable the abrogation of the trade agreements, the stipulations of -which have been so flagrantly violated, and even a severance of the ordinary diplomatic relations.

His Majesty’s Government trusts that this protest ajid warning will be received by the Union of Soviet Republics with the attention that they re quire, and that no further cause for complaint will be given. STORMY GERMAN’ DISCUSSION. OVER IMPORTING’ ARMS FROM RUSSIA. (Received February 24 at 7.30 p.m.) BERLIN, February 24. ' In connection with a stormy secret session of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Reichstag at which the Socialists again raised the .question of the importation of arms from Russia, it is understood the Soviet has used strong pressure to induce the German Government not to allow a public 'lobate on the matter, in view of the present tension between Britain anil Soviet.

Consequently the Chancellor, Dr. Marx conferred with all the Party Lea.l ers, and he.' aehicveTl this object. Herr Gessler (War Minister) admitted the German Army lias received the deliveries of certain munitions, as well as aeroplanes from Russia, but he said: “All these transactions with the Soviet are ended.’’

A Socialists representative, Herr Hii- | fording, declared that Moscow was trying to incite Germany into a war against Britain. Herr Schubert, representing Herr Stresemann (Foreign Minister) helittl ed the Socialists’ charges, and he as'sorted that Germany’s policy was guid "ed solely by the Locarno Pact and the Russo German neutrality treaty.