APOLOGISTS FOR RUSSIA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21468, 17 April 1933, Page 12

APOLOGISTS FOR RUSSIA

Sir, —The attack yon make on Lord Passfield (Mr. Sydney Webb) in your leading article of April 13 for the statement made by him in the House of Lords concerning the arrest and trial of the British engineers in Russia is, I think, unwarranted. I do not think there are many men held in more respect in Great Britain than Lord Passfield is, and I doubt if ever before any statement of his has been said to be "a sacrifice of reason and a menace to morality," even by those who most fundamentally have disagreed with him. We all believe that the engineers are innocent of the charges levelled against them, and we hope that the trial will prove them so, but it does seem to me, as it did to Lord Passfield, that '"the matter pould have been handled better by friendly representations instead of holding a machine-gun at the head of the Soviet." No doubt there are some who, in their enthusiasm for the Soviet cause, are willing to expl?' n away the mistakes and cruelties which have mingled with its successes. LordPassfield is not one of these. I have read several of his articles on Russia, and he did not hide or excuse the faults and failings of Soviet rule. But on the other hand there are other 3 quite equally ready to condemn any-' thing the Soviet docs. It should be remembered that these engineers have been arrested, and charged, wrongfully we believe, but the actions taken by Britain have tended to make the trial more one on the merits or demerits of Soviet methods, than on the guilt or inuocence of the men who are charged; and my fear is that the men are thereby placed in greater jeopardy than they were. I have no doubt that is how Lord Passfield fears about the matter, too. After all, Governments, whether Soviet or capitalist, are stubborn things, and if their actions ar® seriously challenged they will sometimes go to great lengths to prove their actions to have been right. Even our own Government, when challenged on some of its actions by its own citizens and supporters, does no willingly admit that it has made a mistake. How much more stubborn w°u it be if any action of its internal a - ministration, even if it concerned ■ national of another country, were cna * lenged, and our methods of aominis t ration criticised by the Government the country to which that natur belonged, 4! Tom. Bloodwobtb,