THE CONFESSIONS.

Grey River Argus, 1 September 1927, Page 6

THE CONFESSIONS.

OF SPY REILLY. Why did Sidney Reilly, the British spy, re-enter Soviet Russia (with a forged passport) in September, 1925? Was it. to test his “new ideas” about the possibility of “peaceful co-opera-tion” with the Soviet Government, which according to Reilly’s confession (printed recently) ho conceived in 1922? Not at w all. Reilly says: “I en tered Soviet Russia on my own initiative, because I, heard of the existence of an apparently serious anti-Soviet group in the Soviet Union.” A little later, however, Reilly let the cat out of the bag. “Before my departure I had talks with many persons belonging to quarters influential in Russian affairs, in London and America.” And in a further statement, which Reilly des cribed as “perfectly frank,” he added: “I talked about my journey with Churchill. . . ” “If I had return ed I should have communicated my impressions as to the extent to which tho group previously mentioned might represent a serious factor in the anti-Bol-shevik movement, and to what extent it deserves political and financial support.” But was this the only pur poso of Reilly’s visit? It is the only one mentioned in his confession. But luckily a letter was found on Reilly which he had just written, and which was certainly never intended for publi cation —although, like his confession, it has now found its way into the Moscow Press. This letter contains the following:—“The third measure, without which I am deeply convinced no solution is possible, is terror. A terror directed from a central point, but carried out by small independent groups or persons against individual prominent representatives of the Soviet Government.. The aim of terror is always a double one. The first and less important is the removal of dangerous persons, the second and more important is to bring the morass into movement, to put an end to lethargy, to destroy the legend of the invulnerability of authority. If there is no terror it means there is no spirit in the movement. You may say that it is easy to speak of terror when ono is safe abroad, but I tell you that I know people who have expended tremendous energy in its preparation (suitable to the present situation and tho latest technibegin immediately the necessary means that are placed at their disposal.” British Labour now has a chance of weighing up Tory hypocrisy about “Bolshevik savagery” and “Asiatic barbarism” at its true value. Further on, Reilly proceeds to give a sketch of the terrorist organisation as he sees it. “Such an organisation,” writes Reilly, “requires an exceptionally strong conspirative centre. Whether this can exist for any lingth of time in the present circumstances I don’t know.” Terrorism, lying, organisation of insurrections and preparations for war—these once again are proved by the evidence of Sidney Reilly to bo the methods of British Imperialism against Socialist Russia. Much the same methods are used against British Labour. The best way of fighting war against Socialist Russia is to fight for a general strike to clear out Baldwin, and to drive out of the Labour leadership the traitors who hold you back from fighting Baldwin. . j , .