THE SOVIET THREAT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20978, 15 September 1931, Page 12

THE SOVIET THREAT.

Sir,—Mr. Tom. Bloodworth in his letter appearing in the Hebald on Tuesday, Bth inst., made the definite statement thai "tho fact is that not a single debt has been repudiated which has been incurred by the Soviet Government." When confronted with a list of repndiations, ho now says: "It is not the fact of Russia's repudiation of her debts; it is the effect of that action on us and other countries wo are concerned about." Sir Geo. Elliot, in his able letter to the London Times, points out "the effect on us and other countries" of Russia's repudiation of the payment of either principal or interest on her debt of £2,000,000,000! Mr. Bloodworth is disposed to treat the fact that the Allies found money, and also risked life and limb to rescue Soviet Russia from Germany "as one on the jokes of the season." If Mr. Bloodworth had been in the fighting which eventually did rescue Russia from Germany, he would not so readily describe it as "one of the jokes of the season." And after all that was done for Russia by the Allies, the base ingratitude of tho Soviet leaders, and their continued repudiation of their liabilities may be to the Communist element another "joke of tho season," but bears a different aspect to those who suffer and pay for these jokes. Mr. Bloodworth says "surely Mr. Thornes knows that the expeditions into Russia by Allied forces took place mostly after the Allies had made peace with Germany, and they were undertaken with the object of rescuing Russia from tho Soviets, not of rescuing Soviet Russia." Mr. Thornes knows nothing of the kind, neither does Mr. Bloodworth. It is another of his "jokes of the season," I suppose. J. Thornes. 231, Parnell Road. Sir, —Mr. Bloodworth started this correspondence because a committee of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce advocated the prohibition of Russian goods on tho ground that Russia had adopted a policy of repudiation of international debts. On that point I am in entire agreement with him, as it is not a reasonable or logical view of the matter. If there are any reasons for non-reciprocity, that is not one of them. Mr. Bloodworth accuses Mr. Thornes and mo of wandering from the real issue as to what would be the effect of Russia paying in goods, as the Soviet Government would insist on doing, and I reply by asking what justification can Mr. Bloodworth find for stating that Russia would be allowed to do tho insisting, or that restitution must necessarily and exclusively takG tho form of goods rather than coin. Ido not consider this to bo wandering, but that is tho result of keeping bad company. Mr. Bloodworth thereupon amends his questionnaire by asking us what tho effect would be of payment in kind or gold, so that the issue, at last, is put in a clearcut and preciso form. In my humble opinion one effect, as far as Britain is concerned, is that Britain is short of the £2,000,000,000 which Mr. Bloodworth says Russia owes her. Whereas Mr. Snowden is at his wits' end how to find the huge amount necessary to balance his Budget, driving him to the diro expedient of having to increase taxation to an alarming extent, to the prejudice and hurt of all Britishers. Any other effects are beyond the ken of ordinary mortals. In one of his letters Mr. Bloodworth states that, notwithstanding tho enrichment of the United States, "the deficit in her revenue for two months is eighteen million pounds, and that there is considerable unemployment there." Is it not possible that an unwise fiscal policy, aloofness, the hoarding (not the receiving) of one-half of tho world's stock of gold, the increase of machinery, and the universal ■ economic cataclysm, may bo responsible for that state of things ? John A. Beale.