SOVIET AND POLAND.

Grey River Argus, 22 May 1942, Page 8

SOVIET AND POLAND.

[To The Editor.] Sir,—l beg space in your pages to dispute some of .the opinions expressed by Lucio in your issue a May 16. At the outset, I want to pay Lucio a tribute for the way he stated his arguments which provided evidence of considerable ability and intelligence. At the same time cannot resist the impression that lot some reason he is biased and pi ejudiced against Communism, Communists and Russia, and allows tn s bias and prejudice to-affect his judgment of international affairs. He writes: “Let us get lyings straight and put things in their proper perspective calmly and without hysterical investive.” Very laudable sentiments with which I heartily concur, and an attitude of mind which is all important at the present stage in the world's history, when great political and social changes are afoot. But after giving lip service to such lofty sentiments, he is unable to sustain the effort, for he falls from grace by resorting to “hysterical invective” without a vengeance in his concluding sentence, when he writes: “There is no reason in the w'orld why Communism should be shoved down our throats by violent local partisans of the cult.” It is a pity that an otherwise good statement of a certain viewpoint should have been smashed by such expressions. When describing the Russian war effort as not a Communistic effort, Lucio introduces a strange type of logic which I find hard to explain in one with such marked ability, and I can only attribute this to the writer’s anxiety 1 to build a case against Communism in very difficult circumstances, for the resistance of the Russians to the Nazi onslaught has made it difficult for the anti-Com-munist. Lucio describes the Russian war effort as receiving .its driving force from the old-fashioned national spirit. Later, when describing the Russian advance into Poland, the Russian effort was then a Communistic one. It is evident that, in Lucio’s view, when the 'Russians are doing something one views with disfavour it is then a Communistic effort, but when they are doing something one favours it is then not a Communistic effort. Frankly I am unable to follow this kind of reasoning and it certainly does not harmonise with the nom-de-plume over which he writes.

Lucio expresses the opinion that there was collaboration between the Nazis and Russia at the time of Russia’s entry into Poland. This view was widely held at the time of the event, and was zealously propagated by certain interested parties both German and Allied, who were more concerned about damaging Russia’s prestige’ than in spreading the truth. Historians of the future who write up the story, will, no doubt, accept Molotov’s statement to the Supreme Soviet denying that there was any secret agreement between Germany and Russia as to the disposal of Polish territory. To place on the Russians’ shoulders the full responsibility for the starting of the present conflict is to take no account, of the strenuous efforts over a number of years made by the Russians through the League of Nations to build a system of collective security/ If. at the time of Germany’s attack on Poland, Russia was standing nearer to Germany than to the Allied Powers, the fault lay at the doors of the British, French and Polish Governments, whose policies of hostility based on political myopia, drove Russia away from them, and towards Germany. Poland, right through,- refused to allow Russian soldiers to take up positions in Polish territory. It was not the NonAggression Pact between Russia and Germany that lost Russia’s assistance to the Poles, but the non-mak-ing of an Anglo-French-Soviet Pact that brought about that result. There is this virtue about the Communists at least: it can be said they have a plan for the economic regeneration of the world A plan that is successfully operating hi onesixth of the world’s surface; a plan that has abolished many of the major evils that are a trouble in the rest of the'world; a plan that has enabled the Russian people to resist the onslaught of the greatest military machine the world has ever seen. The plan .is the common ownership of the means of production and planned production for use. Without this plan the finest national spirit possible could not prevent the rout of all the peoples who have been in the way of the German war machine. What have the critics of the Communist to offer ? Nothing but meaningless slogans. Robbing the corpse, R.R.R.-Red, R.R.’R.-Revo-lution, Atheistic Communism, etc.; nothing of any value to the warweary peoples of the world, nothing that could give them any hope that never again would they have to face what they are going through now. Lucio refers to Mr. Roosevelt’s and Mr Churchill’s well-knowm antagonism to Communism. Their antagonism did not prevent them from making brotherhood with them and a solemn compact to destroy Nazidom and all its works. It is also reassuring to note that Mr Eden included Russia in the group of nations who are to guarantee the peace of the world after victory has been achieved. It is to be hoped that there will not be a repetition of the hostility that was shown to the Soviet Union by all diplomatic circles during the period between the two wars, because no unbiased investigator can help but arrive at the conclusion that this was the main factor in the prevention of the building of a system of collective security that could have prevented the present conflict. I am etc., HONESTAS, May 18th.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —“Truth it has been stated possesses within herself a penetrating force unknown alike to error and to falsehood. I say truth and you understand my meaning for the beautiful, words- Truth and Justice need not be defined in order to be understood in their true sense. I believe firmly in the triumph of Truth, that is what upholds me in the time of trouble.” Those noble words, uttered by Anatole France re* echo in the hearts of true humanity to-day. We, the peoples of the universe are experiencing our time of darkest trial and to win through to the light of better understanding and victory, truth must always * be our slogan. After scrutinising Lucio’s letter thoroughly, I* am prepared to believe that his misrepresentation of facts regarding the Soviet Union’s responsibility for the second World War, is the result of a paucity of knowledge of events which led up to the invasion of Poland by the Red Army troops. If Lucio’s knowledge of international affairs is as limited, as it appears, he would assist the war effort more fullv if he devoted his time to a study of events leading up to and culminating in the present conflagration, instead of rushing into the press with statements which, apart from their lack of truth, tend to cause disruption amongst the rank and file of democrats who are standing shoulder to shoulder in the fight against the dreaded scourge, I* 5 a seism No State has a more honourable record for constructive peace efforts

than the Soviet Union, no people spoke and worked with more enthusiasm in support of collective action than the citizens of this mighty country. (Before and after her entry into the League of Nations, the conduct of our great ally has consistently been above reproach. Was it not Russia, alone of all the great nations, who offered to support Czechoslovakia if they decided to resist Nazi aggression, even to the zero hour ?

Of course we may expect Lucio to deny this statement, but we have positive proof in speeches delivered by Dr. Benes, former President of that unfortunate country, wherein he asserts emphatically, that the Soviet Union even to the eleventh hour, placed at the disposal of his Government her total resources if Britain and France did likewise. History has recorded for all time, the disgraceful betrayal of such a loyal and democratic people, and truth, the supreme Judge, will prove that the Soviet Union’s actions during this crisis were as always, praiseworthy for their sincerity and honesty of purpose. Space does not permit of a really comprehensive reply to Lucio’s allegations re. Russia’s invasion of Poland, but so serious are the charges made by the correspondent that I feel compelled .to enlighten him briefly on the subject. Here are the words of an .influential British newspaper, recognised as being the mouthpiece of the British Government. Printed October 2, 1939, the article reads: “That the Russian armies should stand on this line, i.e., (the new oorder line) was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against Nazi aggression.” To accuse the Soviet Union of stabbing Poland in the back, is really a monstrous accusation. 1 Who has failed to read of that historical conference, whereby the representatives of France, Britain, Poland and Russia gathered in an effort to present a united front against Nazi aggression. Who will deny that the Soviet Union offered whole heartedly to support Poland if p she resisted an attack ? None can deny, that Polish leaders, whilst asking Russian assistance, refused dogmatically to allow the gallant Red Army to meet the German hordes on Polish soil. History again has recorded facts. Britain and France upheld the Polish attitude. Therefore, Russia was forced to the logical conclusion that the Capitalistic Powers were once again prepared to attempt the destruction of the first Socialist State. Rightly or wrongly the Soviet Union held the view that Germany would march through Poland into Russia proper, rightly as it turned out.

The Pact signed by Russia and Germany was the result of .impression fostered at this conference and was not as Lucio would have us believe, a collaboration of ideals. It was a pact which enabled the Soviet people to prepare for invasion which they felt was inevitable. How well this task was accomplished may be safely left to the judgment of all true Britishers, and how essential to the Allied cause none but the most biased could fail to appreciate. What is behind the actions of certain individuals, who even in the Empire’s most critical hour make public statements which tend to cause mistrust and hatred between the people of two Allied nations ?

Lucio has asked, why do the Communists refrain from advocating a Soviet second front against Japan ? Perhaps it would be as well if the present Russian Ambassador to America, Maxim Litvinoff . answers that question himself. 'Recognised by all high authorities as being the most brilliant and successful diplomat of our time, his words surely carry a power of conviction. This is what he says: “It must be plain even to those who are politically speaking, babes or blind, that all that is going on now is the result'’ of a vast conspiracy by a handful of international gangsters calling themselves Axis Powers. Hitler’s allies without Hitler would no longer constitute a grave danger and could be polished off quickly. Therefore we intend to smash the Hitler hordes till they are completely destroyed. We should be rendering our allies and the common cause poor service did we, for a moment, relax oui- efforts in this direction now.”

Dawn breaks over the East, and in that fresh dawn men see the promise of a new world, not a Utopian world, but at least a world freed from poverty and exploitation, and with hightened possibilities for all to work together for the common good, and a world where mankind realised at last from much that binds it to the earth, may find within itself a nobler and more enduring goodness and beauty. I am etc., A. TURNER, Reefton.

[To The Editor!. Sir, —Your correspondent Lucio, raises a very interesting point when he says that the “Russian people are not fighting for Communism.” This reminds me of an article I read some time ago in “Zealandia.” The article declared that the wily Soviet leaders when giving the people arms to fight the Fascists, were careful not to tell them they were fighting for Bolshevism. One wonders if the Russians knew what they were fighting for in,the days following the October revolution, when under Bolshevik leadership they threw’ out the invading Imperialists, as well as the landlords and the system associated with them.

Lucio also seems to be very concerned over the fact that in Soviet Russia every one isn’t a Communist. It could be pointed out that in Australia, at the time of the elections when the Communist candidate, Dr. O’Day, contested a seat, the Communist Party membershin, in Australia was about 4,000, vet O’Day polled in, the vicinity of 80,000 votes. However. the noint concerning the people of New Zealand to-day, is not what politics the Russian peojple prefer, but the fact that they are fighting for the destruction of Fascism, and it is on that basis that the British peoples stand with these in the Soviet Union. With the Russian people defending our interests as well as their own, it ill-becomes writers of anonymous letters to slander these preat Socialist fighters. Since commencing this, letter I see where Lucio has loosed a second barrage. In his second letter we Communists are now appeasers. I suspect Neville Chamberlain would be very annoyed with Lucio. Mr Chamberlain was proud of being in the Conservative Party. But Sir, I have chased Lucio’s red herring far enough. Let us get back to the tasks of the day and the circumstances which gave rise to this controversy. That is the Question of co-operation with the Communists. Let it be said that we in the Communist Party are willing to stand side by side with whosoever desires and works for the defeat of Fascism. , ~ If co-operation with the Communist Fartv of the Soviet Union, on the part of the British Government, is in defence of our country against foreign Fascism, does it not follow that co-operation between the Communist Party of New Zealand and other Parties and organisations in this country is also in the interests 01 Now Zealand’s defence and national unitv? If Cr. Hannan does not stand in the anti-Fascist camp, where then does he stand ? This can also be asked of Lucio. I am F. G. THOMSON.