POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXXIV, Issue 4, 28 October 1924, Page 3

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

LONDON, Oct. 2(!. The- Foreign Office lias issued the text of a letter which it has addressed to the Russian t?liarge-d'Affaires drawing attention to a, letter by M. Zinovieff, president of the executive committee of the Communist International, addressed to the central committee of the British Communist Party, containing instructions to work for the violent overthrow of existing institutions in Britain and the subversion of his Majesty’s armed forces as a means to that end.

The Foreign Office informs M. Zinovieff that the British Government cannot allow this propaganda, and must regard it as direct interference in British domestic, affairs. It says: “No one who understands the constitution and relationships of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection with the Soviet Government. Such conduct is not only a grave departure from the rules of international comity, but a violation of the specific and solemn undertakings repeatedly given. ’’

The Foreign Office cites the agreement of June 4, 1023, relative to propaganda, and points out that the treaty recently concluded made still further provision for the faithful execution of analogous undertakings which, shall be carried out in letter and spirit, and cannot accept the contention that whilst the Soviet Government undertakes obligations, a political body as powerful as itself is to be allowed to conduct propaganda and support it with money, which is in direct violation of the official agreement. The Soviet Government either has or has not the power to make such arrangements. If it has the power it is its duty to carry them out and see that other parties are not deceived. If it has not the power, and if the responsibilities which belong to the .State in other countries are in Russia in the keeping of private, irresponsible bodies, the "Soviet Government ought not to make agreements which it knows it cannot carry out.

Finally, the Foreign Office requests the observations of the Soviet Government on this matter without delay. The letter is signed, in the absence of the Secretary of State, by Mr. J. D. Gregory. HUMBUGGING EXPLANATION.

The Daily Express interviewed M. Rakovsky (Soviet representative in London), who declared that M. Ziuovicff’s letter is an amusing forgery and denied that it emanated from the Communist International headquarters, adding; “I have no idea who wrote it. It is a great election manoeuvre on the eve of polling. The contents do not conform to the Communist International tactics. The Soviet Government cannot be made responsible for the action of the executive of the Communist International. lam surprised that the Foreign Office has not waited for a reply from us before giving the alleged communication publicity.” • Mr. Inkpin (secretary, of the Communist Party in Britain) denies that the party received M. Zinovieff’s letter. He expresses the opinion that the document is a complete forgery. A similar statement was issued by M. Eakovaky’s secretary.

TEXT OF LETTER.

HOW TO PROMOTE REVOLUTION.

. (Received Oct. 27, 9.45 a.m.) LONDON, Oct. 26. M. Zinovieff’s letter has been pub lished. It says: :

“The majority, of the British bourgeoisie is evidently against the AngloRussian Treaty. The proletariat of Britain,' whicii pronounced its weighty word when the breakdown of the past negotiations threatened and compelled the MacDonald Government to complete the -treaty, must show the greatest possible energy in the further struggle for ratification and against the endeavours of British capitalists to annul it, “It is indispensable to stir up the masses of the British proletariat and to bring into the movement the army of unemployed proletarians whose position can be improved only after the loan has been granted to the Soviet Union for the restoration of her economics and, when business collaboration between the British and Russian proletariats has been put in order, it is imperative that the group of the Labour Party sympathising with the treaty should bring increased pressure to bear on Government and parliamentary circles in favour of the ratification of the treaty.’’ Tlie letter then declares: “The settlement of Anglo-Russian relations will assist in revolutionising the international and British proletariat, not less than a successful rising in any of the working districts in England, as the establishment of close contact between the British and Russian proletariats, the exchange of delegations and workers, etc., will make it possible for us to extend and develop the propaganda ideas of Leninism in England and ~ her colonies.

‘‘Armed warfare must be preceded by a struggle against the inclination: to compromise which is embedded among the majority of British workmen and against the ideas of a peaceful revolution for the extermination of capitalism. Only then will it be possible to count upon the complete success of armed insurrection. “In Ireland and the colonies the case is different. There is a national question and this represents too great a factor of success for us to waste time on prolonged preparation of the working 01088.“ The letter, which is dated September 15, adds: “From your last report evidently agitation and propaganda work in the army is weak and in the navv very little better.’’

it suggests that nuclei should he established in all units of troops, particularly in . the large centres, also in the munitions factories and military sto v e depots. The latter should be especially given attention as, in the event of danger of war, with the aid of the latter and the contact of the transport workers it would be possible to paralyse all bourgeois military preparations and turn an imperialist into a class wait The letter suggests the formation of a group of military specialists to be the future directors, of the British Red Army. INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS. AS TO ORIGIN OF DOCUMENT.

LONDON, Oct. 26

The documents issued by the Foreign Office continue to be an absorbing topic of interest. Historical truth demands that the first point to bo cleared up should ho whether the letter signed by M. ZinoviefT is genuine or a forgery. Tbe Observer points out that the only clear official statements yesterday came

from the Soviet and Communist side. On the other side there was either silence or pretended ignorance, leaving the public in a state of contusion. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, questioned at Swansea, refused to discuss the matter and other prominent Labourites either condemned the Zinoviefl document as a fake, or emphasised the firmness of the Foreign Office in dealing with it.

It is understood that a cable has been sent to M. Zinovieff regarding the authenticity of the document, hut no reply lias yet been received. In the meantime M. Rakovsky (Russian Charge d’ Affaires in London), has replied to the Foreign Office in the terms previously cabled. Interviewed by the Observer iie said he had sent the British Note to Moscow on Friday night and explained that it was unnecessary for him to have an answer from Moscow before answering the Foreign Office Note, because “the Moscow Government has nothing to do with the Communist International and because I am convinced the document is a forgery. I am a Communist myself and know this is not a Communist document.”

Leaving the question of forgery, and assuming the Zinovieff document genuine, as everyone must until evidence is produced to the contrary, a number of intriguing questions arise. For instance why was the Government’s condemnation not issued earlier? Secondly : What will be the effect on the election? Regarding the first point there is a direct conflict of opinion. The Zinovieff document is dated September 15. The Foreign Office states it was received much later, hut refuses to give the date for fear of betraying the source. Very reliable evidence indicates that the document was immediately transmitted to Mr, MacDonald and other Cabinet members, who in due course communicated its purport to the army and navy chiefs in order to put them on their guard. The suggestion,of the Labourites regarding subsequent events is that the Government learning that the Zinovieff letter was about to be published for. the purpose of influencing the electors decided to issue the document itself with a condemnatory Note to Moscow, otherwise it would have regarded its precautionary measures as sufficient.

The opponents of Labour, however, say that the Government onlv issued it because it feared it would be forestalled by the Opposition press. Regarding the elections the Observer says it is absurd to suppose this episode, however explosive as a newspaper sensation it is, will much influence them. Liberal and Conservative propaganda have already exhausted their resources in anti-Bolshevik denunciation. The general opinion still is that the Conservatives and Labourites will gain and the Liberal numbers be ruthlessly reduced, TIMES SEVERELY CRITICAL. OP MR. MACDONALD’S

ACTION.

(Received Oct. 27, ll.li> a.m.)

LONDON, Oct. 26. The Times, in a leader commenting on the British Note in regard to the Zinoyieff letter, castigates Mr. MacDonald for his belated discovery and asks: "How is it Mr. MacDonald’s discovery was made on the eve of the election? For months past, both before and since the signature of the Soviet treaties, the Bolshevist leaders have been loudly and contemptuously proclaiming their designs for the* overthrow of the British-Empire, but Mr. MafDonald professed not to believe them, yet he must have known the true facts. Why therefore did lie gamble yvith the power and prestige of the British nation by concluding these shameful treaties with inch openly, defiantly and continually declaring their intention of overthrowing the whole British system?

“If he did not know with whom he was dealing and has only just discovered the real, true nature of the Bolshevist aims, then his whole action in concluding the Soviet treaties and throwing the country into an election in which these treaties are the chief issue shows astonishing lack of responsibility as a Minister of the British Crown and guardian of the interests of the Empire. “It is hardly credible that the nation would re-entrust the conduct of great Imperial affairs to a leader who, on his own confessions, allowed himself to be cajoled and outwitted by the worst enemies of our country.’’