Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1944 RUSSIA AND POLAND

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 7 January 1944, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1944 RUSSIA AND POLAND

AS the Red Army drives forward 1 across the 1939 Polish frontier, the Poles are uncertain whether the Russians come as liberators or as fresh oppressors with territorial ambitions. That is the fundamental cause of a renewal of tension in Polish circles and some uneasiness among Allied diplomats now that .military progress has forced one of the war’s most delicate political and racial questions again into the foreground. We are entering the period when successes on the battlefield bring new risks, which, unless approached with the utmost care, could make some embarrassing dents in the united front lined up at Moscow and strengthened at Teheran. The background of the RussianPolish dispute is sombre enough to suggest that it will not be settled easily. It is a legacy of the last war. The Russians have maintained that the eastern frontier laid down by the treaty of 1920 was unjust and imposed upon them, although they agreed to Polish possession of the disputed area after the Battle of Warsaw in 1920, and never raised issue again until Hitler’s aggre* sion gave them the opportunity. Racial, religious and security arguments have been used to buttress their claim. On the other hand the Poles maintain that the eastern provinces were part of their ancient kingdom until the latter part of the 18th century, when the partition in which Russia shared took place, that the largest section of the inhabitants were Poles and that Roman Catholicism was the dominant religion. Aggression against Poland by Germany in September, 1939. brought not only the misery of defeat by the Nazis but the realisation that Russia had used the occasion to resurrect her dormant territorial ambitions. The treaty of 29th September, 1939, between the Germans and Russians, established a demarcation line which gave to Russia virtually the territory she had claimed. When, the following year, Russia herself became a subject of Nazi aggression, she negotiated with Poland on the basis that this partition agreement had lost its validity. Later a good-neighbour understanding was reached while Russia also subscribed to the Atlantic Charter, including the clause renouncing territorial aggrandisement. An unfavourable turn in relations took place last year with allegations about the treatment of Polish officers. This resulted in the breaking off of diplomatic relations which have not since been officially restored. Underground movements in occupied Poland also contributed to this extreme step. Bitterness between pro-Soviet partisans and the military underground movement organised by the Polish Government in exile reached substantial proportions. Their two secret radio stations, “Kosciuscko” lor the partisans and “Swit” for the military underground, were issuing regular communiques, not so much about resistance to the Germans, as about their own murderous and fratricidal warfare. Fortunately this in-

ternecine strife has died down and the Polish official statement issued from London and printed yesterday states explicitly that instructions were given in October to the military underground to continue and intensify resistance against the German invader and avoid conflict with the Soviet armies entering Poland. This was done in the belief that the Soviet Union would not fail to respect the rights and interests of the Polish Republic. The exiled Government prefers to view the advance of the Red armies as bringing nearer the hour of liberation, when full justice will be done. The first condition of this is held to be re-establishment of Polish sovereign administration in the liberated territory of the Republic and protection of the life and property of Polish citizens.

So much for hopes. What of their realisation? The approach to this ticklish problem has been coloured by the conferences in Moscow and at Teheran and also by the signing of the Czecho-Russian treaty in which a place has been left for Poland. M. Stalin has said that Russia welcomes a strong and independent Poland. He has not said whether this involves restoring to her the eastern provinces. Such a well-known authority on foreign affairs as Joseph C. Harsch, of the “Christian Science Monitor,” comments that the diplomats who have been in conference with the Russians know pretty well what their reaction to this issue will be and that it is likely to cause some disillusionment and food for criticism of the results of the conferences. »He points out that the new-born Russia is a young and vigorous nation without that tolerant attitude towards self-determination by minorities which is now—but was not always—characteristic of Britain and America. According to Western practice it would be settled by a plebiscite, but Harsch holds out little hope that this would be a free one. His opinion is that Russia means to have the dis--1 puted territory. This view and the | point about the plebiscite receive some confirmation in the extract published to-day from a bulletin issued by the Russian Embassy in Washington. Britain and United States would prefer that the whole question of frontier changes should be postponed and are exercising their influence in this direction.