POST-WAR INFLUENCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 40, 18 February 1943, Page 3

POST-WAR INFLUENCE

POSITION OF RUSSIA BRITAIN MUST HAVE FIRM UNDERSTANDING (Special Correspondent—N.Z.P.A.) London, Feb. 15. The outstanding Russian victories which are changing the whole course of the European war are having a not unsurprising but nevertheless interesting result in causing AngloRussian relations to be increasingly discussed. It is stated everywhere by the man in the street that Britain should maintain close ties with Russia after the war. This opinion is based not only on admiration of Russia’s magnificent victories but also having regard to her post-war position.

“Who can doubt,” asks Mr. Hamilton Kerr, M.P., discussing the question, “that the Soviet will enjoy an enormous influence in post-war Europe. The Russian Army will be the largest land force on the Continent. Supported by vast numbers of ‘tanks and bombing planes supplied by her immense Industry and filled with the glorious memories of Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad, the Russian armament will be a tremendous instrument in the hands of its leaders. If peace is to be maintained in Europe, if Germany is to be prevented from attempting to revive her broken fortunes, it is important that we should have a flrm understanding with the Soviet.”

Mr. Kerr points out that the basis for an understanding already exists in the twenty years' alliance. He sees no cause for economic rivalry between the two countries and is of opinion that many Britishers have an entirely false picture of the Russian mind regarding politics. He considers the Russians are ardent patriots before they are inter-nationalist dreaming of a world order and that Soviet postwar foreign policy will have self-in-terest for its first principle.

This leads him to believe that Russia is less likely to make demands on Poland and Czechoslovakia if Britain and America provide grounds for confidence that they will support her in the event of a future war with Germany. “But should Britain and America fail her then undoubtedly she will attempt to organise her own security just as France after the collapse of the Anglo-American guarantee.” He also considers the AngloRussian agreement necessary to each other in the post-war world both in Europe and the Far East. The Spectator maintains that the formal agreements must be supplemented—as they are being—by an unclouded understanding between the peoples, and adds: “It calls for a conscious and deliberate effort, for the traditions of the Anglo-Saxon and Russian peoples are too different for full comprehension between them to be easily achieved. Certain trends in each country have been over-em-phasised in the order. The contrast between Russian communism and British capitalism is not the last word in the definition of distinction. Even If it were so when this war began it is certainly not so to-day.” It is noted in more than one quarter that certain interesting changes are occurring in the Red Army. Since the German invasion it has been the subject of universal admiration and the names of the new marshals and generals have been given the widest publicity—a completely new feature for Russia. It has ben observed that the grey colour of anonymity which overhung Russian life at least before the purges seems to have been dissipated and that Investitures aga?a take place in the Kremlin, Mlile the decision to restore gay epaulettes which have not been worn since 1917, being regarded as symbols of Csarism have been declared by one com mentator as “most astonishing and significant.” The Economist comments that the war has undoubtedly produced new shades of ideology in Russia which may bear upon her attitude towards the problems of post-war co-opera-tion with the Allies.”