MOSCOW’S HYSTERIA

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19919, 15 August 1927, Page 8

MOSCOW’S HYSTERIA

AMAZING TELEGRAMS BULLYING BRITISH TRADE UNIONS. A BLUFF THAT FAILED. (From our London Correspondent) LONDON, June 30. The labour correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, in a recent issue of that journal, is very outspoken in regard to Moscow’s effort to whip the British Trade Unions into line in respect of the situation which followed the Arcos raid. He says:— The curious panic which the Russians have lately displayeu' fuller about the fear of war is illustrated by the hysterical appeals they have been making to British Labour. For the last month the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions has been bombarding the General Council of the Trade Unions Congress with hysterical requests for the immediate calling of the Anglo-Russian Committee. The correspondence has now been published in Moscow, and if the suspicious sec in it only hardly concealed Communist propaganda, it is perhaps more charitable to regard it as an exhibition of what the psychologists might call polemophobia. The excuse on which the correspondence is published is that trade unionists have become anxious at the silence of the Anglo-Russian Committee in face of the danger of war and “the onslaught of the capitalist Governments” on the Soviet Union. The Russians, it is added, “consider that the urgency of the present situation makes it essential, without any regard for formalities, to call a meeting of the Committee, in the shortest possible time, for joint discussion of necessary measures to stop the war. ’ f The British show less alacrity.

“Call on the Working Class.” On May 14 the Russians sent a message to the T.U.C., in which they declared. “The latest events prove our worst apprehensions regarding the attack which is being prepared by the Imperialists, with England in the lead, against the Soviet Union (the raid on the Peking Embassy and on Arcos and the Trade Delegation are instanced). . . The English Conservative Government is definitely taking off the mask and carrying out a policy of definite rupture first of commercial and then of diplomatic relations, thus passing to more aggressive action ... At this most serious moment all efforts should be strained towards calling upon the working class to withstand this dangerous policy.” The T.U.C. replied that it had already protested to the Prime Minister but could not yet arrange a meeting of the Anglo-Russian Committtee. On May 25, after the break with Russia the T.U.C. agreed to an early meeting. On June 3, however, the Russians cabled again declaring that they considered. “The situation very serious for the intention to thrust war on the Soviet Union is obvious. The only thing which is not clear is from which side and how soon the attack will be launched. Those who really want to fight war cannot wait with folded arms until the moment when war “unexpectedly” comes upon them . . . The workers of the Soviet Union want to know what the (Anglo-Russian) Committee intends to do to struggle against approaching war, and in the event of its occurrence.” A Threat. The Russians therefore insistc ’ ■ • an early meeting. Apparently the T.U.C. was not quite so concerned about the war danger as the Russians, and no answer was returned. On June 10 the Russians broke out again in a minatory telegram:— “You have not given any definite answer to our repeated suggestions about convening the Anglo-Russian Committee, notwithstanding the extreme urgency of the situation. Our organisations are inquiring about the reasons for the passivity of the Committee, which compels us, in the event of failure to receive from you a definite answer by the 14th inst., to make public our correspondence.” The T.U.C., whether influenced by this threatening cable or not one docs not know, then agreed to a meeting at Berlin on June 17 and 18 between the chairmen and secretaries of the two bodies, “for a preliminary discussion of the matter you propose referring to the Anglo-Russian Committee.” This annoyed the Russians, who replied that although they did not object to a preliminary meeting. “In the name of our organisation we categorically insist upon the arrival of all members of the Anglo-Russian Committee in Berlin on the same date, and the holding of a plenary meeting. “Events are rapidly developing, and

no delay is permissable. Awaiting an urgent reply, absence of which will be regarded by us as consent and all Russian members of the Anglo-Russian Committee will be in Berlin on the 17th.” “Wolf!” But the British were not to be rushed. Mr Citrine replied for the T.U.C. that there could be no full meeting until the British General Council had given its authority, and there would be no meeting of that body until June 22. The Russians then moderated their demands and fell in with the proposal for the meeting of officials in Berlin. This has taken place, as arranged, between Mr Tomsky and Mr Dogadov on the Russian side and Mr George Hicks and Mr W. M. Citrine on the British. It is not fully explained why the Russians have thought it necessary to put themselves in the wrong with the British T.U.C. by publishing the correspondence simultaneously with the Berlin meeting. Probably they realise that the cry of “Wolf” has been rather over done, and there is not much to be got out of the British.