FIRMER TREND

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 56, 8 March 1946, Page 5

FIRMER TREND

GOOD PRESS IN BRITAIN PEOPLE BEWILDERED BY RUSSIAN POLICY (Special Correspondent—N.Z.P.A.) Recd. 6 p.m. London, March 6. Mr. Churchill has had a good Press in Britain for his speech at Fulton. The immediate reactions, more particularly to the tone of his remarks on Russia, are distinctly favourable, for they come at a time when the public are wondering just where Russian policy is leading. There is a feeling that Mr. Churchill’s speech, following hard upon those of Messrs. Byrnes and Vandenburg, may mark the beginning of a new and firmer trend in the relationhips between the Western Powers and Russia. On the question of fraternal association between the Empire and America and the mutual use of military bases there is more reserve. The first American reactions to the speech indicate that opinion might be against a military alliance that would “impose on America the duty of enforcing Britain’s foreign policy.” This point is picked upon by “The Times,” which says: “Tradition may have been modified under the stress of war by the growing American realisation that the integrity of the British Isles is an element, and perhaps an indispensable elment, in American security. But there is no reason at all to expect American action or even universal support from American opinion for the defence of essential British strategic and economic positions in the Middle East, in Asia, or in Africa. To most of his fellow-countrymen there will seem to be logic and good sense in Mr. Churchill’s plan. But it is still understejidably easy to excite prejudice in the United States against specific commitments overseas, and nothing would be more dangerous or more calculated to put American friendship in jeopardy than to attempt to frame British foreign policy on the presumption of assured American backing.

“Anglo-American friendship is an essential element in British policy. It can never be its sole all-sufficient foundat on or an excuse for failing to pursue indoendent action along lines which British interests and British prosperity require.” There is no tendency here to deny that Anglo-American relations are not on the same friendly footing to-day as they were a year ago. There is a feeling, however, that Mr. Churchill’s speech comes at a time which is suitable for mending matters.

Russia’s reaction to the speech are awaited with interest, more particularly in view of the recent censoring of Mr. Bevin’s offer of a 50-year treaty. GREAT GOOD OR GREAT HARM. Mr. Vernon Bartlett, M.P., in the “News Chronicle,” expresses the opinion that Mr, Churchill may have done great good or great harm. If blunt speaking in dealing with Russia is best, then good will have been done, but if the Russian fears of the capitalist States can only be removed by patience, extending almost to appeasement with America, the speech will confirm the Soviet leaders in their worst suspicions. t * Certainly Britain’s Communist I “Daily Worker” has little time for Mr., Churchill’s remarks. It says: “Thei speech at Fulton was an open call fori a new anti-Comintern pact, for an Anglo-American axis directed against the Soviet Union. This is not the first time in history that an attempt has been made to unite thp forces of world reaction under the banner of j anti-Communism and to terrify mil-i lions with the Red bogy. Mr. Churchill j comes on the scene too late. The newj Europe against which Mr. Churchill poured a torrent of abuse, lies, spleen and malice is arising on new democratic foundations, and workers, peasants and intellectuals are becomng masters in their own land. This grim speech is a challenge to the British people and to its Labour Government. H marks the beginning of a desperate Tcrv endeavour to drag the I Government deep into the pool of 1 anti-Soviet intrigue and Imperialistic adventures. It is also a warning. Mr. Churchill revet ed what th® ultimate outcome of the present. fore : gn policy of the Government will he unless the engines are quickly reversed.”

It is only being objective to point out that the “Daily Worker” is in the minority opinion in th s country. So far the Labour “Daily Herald” is pre-occupied with assessing the Socialist position in the local body elections, end has not commented on Mr. Churchill’s speech. The “Manchester Guardian” regrets that since the war Britain and! America have not marched consistenly in step. It argues that an unhappy fact is that the Anglo-Saxon countries must now stick together “because the 1 1 beral c vilisation for which they stand is threatened by new forces which are in some ways as evil as Nazism. There is no apparent limit to the Russian desire to expand its nower and doctrines. Every step, from Manchuria to Bombay, Germany and France, is evidence enough. Mr. Church’ll is surely right when he says the Russians admire strength above all things. It is for the western democracies, that at present the Russians despise, to show that strength.”