STALIN “REAL WAR PROFITEER”

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 10 January 1940, Page 6

STALIN “REAL WAR PROFITEER”

“PETER THE GREAT II” SOVIET’S CRIME AGAINST FINLAND OPINION OF M. LEON BLUM M. Stalin is described as a “real war profiteer” and as “another Peter the Great” in this article by the former Socialist Prime Minister of France (M. Leon Blum). By special privilege the Soviet claims to be able to go to war without abandoning the status of neutrality. And t' - world looks on. In the three months of this war atrocities have accumulated day by day. To torpedo a steamer conveying women and children was atrocious. The machine-gunning of towns, villages, and fugitives from planes was equally atrocious. At the moment thousands of unfortunate persons in Warsaw and parts of Poland occupied by Hitler are dying from starvation, cold, bullets, and mishandling. It is virtually impossible to imagine the horror of this terrible drama. But the raid of the Red Army on Finland has aroused disgust exceeding the case of Poland. Why? Because never in history has there been a disproportion of forces so monstrous. Never, therefore, aggression so cowardly. No justification can be found for this crime. Finland is governed by freethinking, openly confessed Democrats, well pleased to live at peace with the Soviets. M. Tanner, the Socialist Minister, who was sent to negotiate in Moscow, and has been violently attacked by the Soviet Premier (M. Molotov), is known to Labour and co-operative movements throughout the world for his level-headed, good sense. M. Stalin’s crime against Finland is a striking and naked illustration of brutality, animal greed, and the abuse of force. This is why it arouses the nobler passions of mankind. HOPES TO BENEFIT FROM RESULTS I must admit that up to the last minute I thought that M. Stalin would confine himself to threats. It is true that I am not so naive as to suppose that he would be deterred by moral scruples, but hitherto his whole behaviour has shown that he wishes to abstain from open belligerence in Herr Hitler’s camp. To-day I still believe that M. Stalin does not desire to intervene i. i the war openly on the side of Hitler’s Germany. If he has staked a claim, this is because he thinks that in the present state of affairs it is unlikely that developments will arise definitely involving him in the wider war. Unfortunately, facts favour his argument. Whatever the emotion and anxiety of the other Scandinavian '' ites, they have so far remained neutral. The Allies therefore cannot intervene to support them. Russian operations will doubtless be confined to Finland. The Finnish people are fighting for liberty heroically and desperately, but it is so far clear that they will fight alone. The smaller States of Europe, whose future is a veritable issue of tho war, are paralysed by their fears of isolation. The Allies have no right to reproach them, for the Allies bear a certain responsibility for the material and psychological process which has resulted in the destruction of the conception of collective security. Stalin is no mere spectator, nor honestly neutral. He is in agreement with Hitler, while fundamenatlly distrustful of him. He will therefore support Germany, hoping for benefit from the results.’ CHOICE MADE Stalin is a real war profiteer. Whenever he sees the possibility of annexing new territory in a strategical position he will do it. When he can gain any kind of material or political advantage or fish in troubled waters —without being compelled to declare his belligerency—he will act immediately, using the Red Army, radio, or the Comintern. A month ago I wrote that to decipher the Russian mystery I had deliberately excluded the revolutionary explanation of plans for universal Bolshevism. For 20 years the Russian propagandists in all countries have untiringly reiterated that the Soviet State and the Comintern represent two entirely different and distinct conceptions. The real problem is to discover whether the fundamental fact is the Soviet State or the Comintern. Does the Comintern absorb the Soviet State, utilising the material and political forces of Russia for the revolutionary purposes of universal Bolshevisation, or does the Soviet State absorb the Comintern, utilising the whole force of revolutionary propaganda for the sole end of national expansion and conquest? According to the answer Stalin is master of the Cominte i as of the Soviet State. He appears as a successor to either Lenin or Peter the Great. The crime perpetrated against Finland tends to prove that the world has to cope with the Soviet State, not the Comintern: that the guiding principle is based on Russian imperialism, not universal revolution. If the final goal of Sta'in were universal revolution, he would not risk such a brutal, unashamed attack on every sentiment of justice. He would at least take precautions. He would invent some kind of ideological pageantry for the credulous to preserve a semblance of the revolutionary ideal. It is impossible to imagine a revolutionary upheaval not based on the conception of a collective uprising and the type of propaganda designed to attract the masses.

M. Stalin no longer takes this trouble. He has therefore made his choice between Peter the Great and Lenin.