The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1939. "UNPRINCIPLED" RUSSIA

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20084, 2 November 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1939. "UNPRINCIPLED" RUSSIA

For any but the purblind political pervert for whom the sun rises and ' sets in Rod Square, M. Molotov's ad- ; dress to the Supreme Soviet Council ! must have dispelled any illusions rej garding the honesty and sincerity of j Russia. M. Molotov's arrogance and I dictatorial attitude are paralleled only j by Herr Hitler himself, and he has made it more clear than ever before that the Soviet is attempting to emulate the Nazi method of force and I aggression. Past policies and prini ciples have been bluntly and frankly ] discarded; pacts and pledges are calj tously ignored; there is no sympathy | for the oppressed, but actually boast-

ing of oppression; and, instead of the past pretence of peaceful intentions, open warmongering and bellicosity. Faithful to his Nazi ally, M. Molotov accuses Britain and France of being responsible for the war. With a disregard for facts that would do credit to the other Fuehrer, M. Molotov chooses to forget that only a few months ago he was berating the Allies because they failed to conclude a pact which would have involved Russia in the war against the Nazis whom he now defends. The only possible inference, surely is that the Soviet, an aggressor at heart, never had the slightest intention of entering a nonaggression pact. However, the question of war guilt is indisputably established by unchallengeable documentary evidence, and it is more to the point at the moment to consider the Soviet's own policy and own motives. With delightful naivete, M. Molotov refers to "the traditional policy of unprincipled Russian and German manoeuvring" which had "suffered complete bankruptcy." "Unprincipled" is a particularly apt term to apply to Soviet policy, and M. Molotov makes it clear that nothing better can be expected in the future. The tragic case of Poland provides the first and most striking illustration. Until a few months ago, Russian leaders had insisted that Russia had no ambitions outside her own territory—and most people were prepared to believe them. In pursuance of that policy the Soviet pledged itself to respect the integrity and independence of Poland. The moment the opportunity offered, however, the solemn treaty was flagrantly broken and to-day M. Molotov speaks of Poland as "this monstrous product of Versailles," and openly boasts that it was crushed and shattered by Russian and German armies. Molotov places his own troops before those of Germany and ignores the fact that he waited until the Poles were beaten to the ground before the great Red Army was sent to stab them in the back. And now, boasting of the Soviet's glorious victory, Molotov proclaims with Hitler that "Poland will never rise again." In other words, so long as Molotov and Hitler hold sway there will be no freedom and no democracy but only dictatorship from Moscow and Berlin.

Germany, said M. Molotov in defence of his partner in crime, "is now striving for peace." Elsewhere in his speech he said that "a strong Germany is necessary to European peace." How does he reconcile these statements with the assertion made during the negotiations with Britain and France that peace could only be secur-

i ed by an alliance to restrain further j German aggression? Or, if further i comment is required, let it come from ! Russia itself. An instruction issued j to the foreign section of the Comin- | tern in April, 1935, said: "We know j that Hitler means war." Later in the | same year, the Soviet newspapers, con- | trolled by M. Molotov's Government, j wrote: "Clearly, Germany is the ! enemy of peace and security. Hitler's \ is not a programme of peace, but of I war, war both 'in the east and the ! west of Europe." In 1937, the Pravda, ; one of the leading Soviet newspapers, ' remarked that "there is no crime against the world and civilisation which Germany is incapable of preparing." In 1939, only a few months ago, M. Stalin declared: "There are two focal points of danger—Japan in the Far East and Germany in Europe. j It is difficult to say which is the more menacing war danger." In the same speech M. Stalin said: "We stand for the support of victims of aggression who are fighting for the independence of their countries." To-day, Russia is ] in alliance with "the enemy of peace

and security" in the "crime against the world and civilisation," and instead of fighting for the independence I of other countries is robbing them ; of it. The Soviet, in defiance df all her | pledges, has already wrested inde- ; pendence from Poland, from LithuI ania, from Estonia, and from Latvia. j Now the eyes of the world are anxi- | ously watching the fate of Finland, | after which—and it might be Hitler speaking instead of Molotov —there will be no more demands to make. In the meantime, however, Molotov, the head of a State which is "fighting for the independence of victims of aggression," makes "demands" against the sovereign Slate of Finland, and if [ Finland is not reasonable, says M. | Molotov, "it would be harmful both to I the cause of peace and to the Finns | themselves." That, of course, is not I a threat to independence—only a j promise of war! Then M. Molotov ! recalls the "demands" issued to Turi key, demands, incidentally, which i would have required Turkey, too, to

join the treaty-breakers; and for Turkey, also, there is a thinly-veiled threat that she will pay dearly for refusing to accept Russian dictation. Russia demands!—demands the right to subjugate and dominate free peoples whose independence she has guaranteed. It is no wonder that M. Molotov talks glibly of the "unprincipled" policy of the Soviet. Russia is clearly following almost precisely the technique of the Nazis, and the amazing thing is that, those who were the first to condemn Germany and demand her restraint will yet condone similar conduct by Russia and contend that Russia can do no wrong.