RUSSIAN RELATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 26 February 1927, Page 3

RUSSIAN RELATIONS

[Australian & X.Z. Cable Association.] THU SOVIET FEELING. LONDON, February 2d. From diplomatic quarters in touch with the Soviet Embassy in Condon, tne “ Daily Telegraph’s ” diplomatic correspondent understands that the ) Russian feeling is one of acute depression at the vigorous tone of the British note. This is, however, tempered by the thought that things might have gone even worse for the Soviet Government. for until this note had been received, the Soviet Embassy staff in Lpndon was not sure that an immediate sevreance of diplomatic relations k would not he the decision of the British Government. Mr Hodgson, the British Charge ’d Affairs at Moscow, who is at present in London, may not return to his post until the repercussions of the note are

visible/ The Soviet alarm is being shown by the manner in which moneys standing ir* to its credit, or to that of its London agents, has been withdrawn from the London banks. These Russian withdrawals are said, in financial circles, to amount to some. .£2,500,000. COMMUNISTS IN BRITAIN. . LONDON, February 24. in the House of Commons. Sir \ v Joynson-Hicks (Home Minister), in answer to a question, said that he was keeping a close eye on the activities of certain Communist agitators in Britain, wno were paid by tho Third International, and, if necessary, he would seek further powers to deal with them.

-MOSCOW COMMENT. MOSCOW, February 24. The full text of the British Note is now published here The paper “ Issvestin,” in nil editoral, says: “The British note misses its mark. It contains no specific charges which could justify either its presentation, or its threat of the abrogation of the trade agreement, or even the severance of ordinary diplomatic relations. The main charges against the Soviet Government made during the ’past few months ill the Conservative press, such us the alleged support by the Soviet Government of the British miners’ strike, and the alleged infringement by the Soviet l nion of British interests in China,'are not reflected in the Note, which, this time, does not repeat the accusations contained in the memorandum of the British Government last summer. Regarding the charges against the politicians of the Soviet Union of calling for a world revolution, and the charges of making statements abusing Britain, the Soviet Government has never given any undertaking to anybody to prevent Russian citizens, whether private or members of the Government, from voicing ill their speeches their firm belief in an inevitable world revolution when such utterances are made bn Soviet territory. It may be asked what does tlie British Government say about Mr Winston Churchill's speech in Rome when he openly called for the overthrow of the Soviet regime? ’’ The “TzvesEin” also cites extracts from the speeches of Lord Birkenhead anti Mr Churchill, and it proceeds; “Tt is the Soviet Union that can speak of systematic abuse by the British politicians ! ”

Pointing out what f£ calls “ the un- , foundedness and intolerable tone of the noli*.” the paper says; “If this noto reflects a concession to tho ‘ dfeliards,’ this circumstance would explain its origin ; but it would not justify the sense of its presentation.”