BRITAIN AND REDS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9847, 28 October 1924, Page 5

BRITAIN AND REDS

IS ZINI)VIEEE’S LETTER A FORGERY? PREMIER REFUSES TO DISCUSS MATTER. RAKOVSKY CONVINCED DOCUMENT NOT GENUINE.

United Press Association—Copyright,

LONDON, Oct. 26. The documents issued by the foreign Office, continue to be the absorUm gfcopic of interest. Historical truth demands .that the first point to he cleared up should be whether the letter signed by Zinovielf is genuine or a forgery. The Observer points out that the only clear official statements yesterday came from the Soviet arm Communist side. On the other side there was either silence or protended ignorance, leaving the public in a state of confusion.

Leaving tile question of forgery and assuming the Zinovielf document is genuine, as everyone must until v,vicience is produced to the coiitiary, a number of intriguing questions arise. For instance, why was the Government's condemnation not issued earlier? Secondly, what will Le .the effect on the election ? Regarding the first point, there is a direct conflict of opinion. 'The Zinovieft document is dated September 15, The Foreign Office states it was received much later, but refuses to give the date for fear of betraying the source. Very reliable evidence indicates that the document v.as immediately transmitted to Mr MacDonald and other Cabin et members, who in duo course communicated the purport to the Army and Navy chiefs, in order to put them on their guard. The suggestion of La bo rites regarding subsequent events is that the Government, learning that the Zinovielf 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 they would have regarded their precautionary measures sufficient.—A. and N.Z. C.A.

ZINOVTEFF’S LETTER. BRITISH BOURGOISE AGAINST TREATY. WORKMEN MUST BE IMBUED WITH REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS LEADERS FOR BRITISH RED ARMY SUGGESTED.

LONDON, Oct. 26. Zinovieffs letter lias been published. It says a majority of the British bourgoise evidently is against the Anglo-Bussian treaty. The proletariat of Britain, which pronounced its weighty word when the breakdown or past negotiations was threatened and compelled the MacDonald Government to complete the treaty, must show the greatest possible energy in The further struggle fur ratification, anu against the endeavors of British capitalists to annul it. It is indispensable to stir up tiie masses of the Britisn proletariate and bring into the movement tire army of unemployed proletarians, whose position can be unproven oniy alter a loan has been granted the Soviet Union ior 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 Labor party sympathising with tiie treaty shouid bring increased pressure to bear on the auu Parliament aiy circles in favor or ratification of the treaty. The letter then declares that a settlement of Anglo-Russran leiat.ons will assist in revolutionising the international and British proletariat not less than a successful rising in any working districts of 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 propaganda ideas of .Leninism in England. and the Colonies. Armed warfare must be preceded by a struggle against the inclination tj compromise which is embedded among the majority of British workmen against the ideas of revolution and peaceful extermination of capitalism. (July then wiii it be possible to JEunt upon the complete success ot armed insurrection, in ,Ireland and the Colonies the case is different. There it- is a. national question, and tins represents too great a factor of success for us to waste time on prolonged preparation of the working class. . 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 navy very little better.'’ It suggests a nuclei should be established, in all units of troops, particularly in the large centres, also munition factories and military store depots. The latter should be especially given attention, as in the even of danger of war with the aid of the latter and contact with transport workers it would be possible to paralyse all bourgoise military pa rations and turn an Imperialist into a class war. The letter suggests the formation of a group of military specialists to be the future directors of the British lied army—Reuter.

SENSATION OF THE BAY. s EFFECT WILL BE MOMENTOUS. (Received Uct. 27, S p in.) ! V LONDON, Oct. 20. The documents issued hv the Foreign Office are the sensation of the day, and are described as the most amazing ever published during a British Parliamentary election, itus realisecl everywhere that tiie effect tacicon will ho momentous, probably wipinir out all othr topics unt.l 1 oiling Dav. Since publication, however, there have been several developments which require clearing up. The document from Russia bears three names at the foot—-Zmovieir, president of the Presidium, McManus, a member of the Persidiuin, and Ivunsinen, the secretary. ~ The Dailv Herald says: Mr Artlun McManus, when in England, acted, until recently, as the British representative on the Presidium o, the Executive Committee of the Communist International Central Committee of the Communist Party ot Britain.” It says the document- is a forgery and that no such document inst hack from Moscow, says that he has been received. Comrade McManus signed no such document. The very heading, “Third Communist Intel - national” gives it away. The Daily Chronicle, cditoiallv, sa-vs: “It is not difficult to guess whv tiie Government suddenly issued tlie letter to the press. Ine reason was that it had leaked out and was to have appeared in the British pness next morning: Faced by _ exposure. Cabinet apparently decided to make the exposure themselves with such self exculpation as they might get from publishing an indignant Note to Moscow in reply thereto. The Morning Post says it had been known and hinted publicly that a- revelation of a startling, nature, uas about to be published by the newspapers concerning a conspiracy by Bolsheviks here. The Government has now stepped in with the obvious intention of minimising its own tolly and culpability, and. P.wM“J ed condemned Zmoviefl s .l“ttei. 1“ document is a summons tor an armed insurrection in this country for the purpose of overthrowing its institutloThe Daily Telegraph says: “What-

ever may have been the reasons prompting Mr MacDonald to authorise the publication must have been overwhelming in strength, for the effect is to shatter to p.ecea his own Russian policy. The whole document is one of the most ruinous reve ations that ever biastc-d the prestige of. a Ministry.” LONDON, Oct. 25. Conservative and Liberal organs are making capital of the apparent delay of the Foreign Office in answering Zinovicff’s letter It is nr.tlioritat’vely pointed out that there was not the slightest delay between the rece’pt of the letter and me despatch of the British replv having regard <f the tune necessary for consideration of the letter and the steps to he takn to deal with the situation . It is considered undesirable to state the -exact date the British government received' the letter. The reply was previously submitted to Mr MacDonald, who fully approved and no question of publication from another source forced the hands of the Government.

CURZON’S HEATED REMARKS.

DETESTABLE AND DAMNABLE”

LONDON, Oct. 25

Lord Curzon, at Leicester, said the copies of Zuiovieif’s letter were handed to Mr MacDonald and Air Henderson when they reached England a month ago. A letter came into the hands of the newspapers, otherwise we should never have heard of the Government’s reply to the most wicked, pernicious, damnable, detestable document ever printed. The amazing thing was that it had been reserved for Air MacDonald to make the exposure himself. Mr MacDonald, in a speech at Swansea, did not refer to the Zinovieff correspondence. Interviewed, later, he said the time was not ripe l'or a statement tliereanent. He will probably deal therewith in his speeches. Air dynes, at Northampton, said the document, if authentic, imperils the arrangements with Russia, but there was nothing new m the organisation ot political bonabsirerls on the eve or tiie election. Air Tnoiiias, in a speech at Belpcr, referred, sarcastically to the reniaiKabtc disclosures m me newspapers as showing the efforts being made to deceive me peopie. no anew not wiietehr ti.e letter was genuine or not.

Mv Ron son by, interviewed at Sheffield, said io was not unlikely me Zinovielf letter was a loigeiy. ne had learned mat, although tno note by Kahovsky was puoirsiied m Air Aiucitoi.aid’s absence, me ioie-gn Grace was aware of Air Aiaeßoi.aiu s determination not to allow subversive propaganda and, accepting its authent.city, he published Ziriuvrelf’s letter. Ivanovsky's letter, mentioned earlier as addressed to Air Aiaeßonard, ierers to the mutual Anglo-Soviet agreement last year, providing for the strengthening of friendly relations

and me settlement or any incidents bv direct conversations and. resorting to Notes or.lv if the conversations failed. Describing Zinovieff's letter as a- issue or absurdities, lie points out that the Communist International has never been described as the Hurd Communist International because there has been no first' or second, while Zinovielf is made to .sign himself ns president of the Presidium cf the Executive Committee, whereas he always signs as the president of the Executive Committee.

llakovsky pretsts against this using of false documents against the Soviet Union, also against the violation of the agreement above mentioned and concludes that he is eonv.neecl the British Government will take steps to investigate the authorship of the document.

A Communist meeting in Trafalgar Square passed a resolution demanding that the Government denounce the Zinovieff letter as a forgery'and make a withdrawal of the provocative Note to Moscow with analog os and dismiss the official responsible for the Note. When the singing of the “Bed: Flag” started, the crowd sang the Naiional Ar.them.

REDS IN GERMANY

CALL FOR A REVOLUTION

BERLIN, Oct. 27. Berlin’s Communist organ publishes a manifesto by the executive of the Moscow International, signed by Zinovielf. in commemoration with the anniversary of the Communist revolt at Eamburg, calling on the German workers to enter into close relations with the Communist troops for the organisation r.f a revolution. It concludes by calling for cheers for the German Communists as the advance guard of the German proletarian and world revolution.—A. and N.Z.C.A.

NOTE A FORGERY. SOVIET DEMANDS APOLOGY. LONDON, Out. 26. A Soviet Note declares that the letter is a forgery and demands that Britain apologise. It proposes arbitration regarding the discovery of the forgers and urges their prosecution. —Reuter.