BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Grey River Argus, 26 February 1927, Page 5

BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

THREAT OF RUPTURE. By British Note. LONDON, Feb. 24. The note sent to the Soviet Governbent by Sir Austen Chamberlain, the British Foreign Minister, warning the Soviet against ?Inti-British activities cites instances, including the late Soviet Afinister to Britain, M. Krassin’s assurances of the Soviet’s desire to remove causes of difficulty and establish friendly relations, but simultaneously a regular campaign of public slander and anti-British misrepresentation is proceeding in which not even the Commissar of Foreign Affairs could refrain from participating. The Note declares that the British Government is aware of the delusion of M. Tchitcherin and his colleagues that Britain is continually plotting against the Soviet, and consequently has not ceased to guide the policy of the countries like Poland, Baltic States, and Persia, into an Orientation directed against the Soviets, and no dispassionate examination of facts, and no assurances from Britain have availed to dispel the obsession which is as illogical as it is unfounded. Tic Note declares that M. Tchitcherin himself, in a particularly hostile speech at Berlin on December 6, openly displayed preference for had over good sources of information, notably the misquotation from a British periodical. The same credulity ond hostility was shown by the War Commissar Voro shilof, iii a speech to the Soviet Army. The Note quotes a statement attributed to Kemeneff to the effect that the Communist party was unduly paying attention to internal welfare, in-

stead of concentrating on revolution in foreign countries, and finally, even mre aggressive hostility. Bukharin, addressing a party executive at AFoscow in October last year, expressed the opinion that a victorious Chinese revolution would find an immediate echo i? India. The English miners ’’strike, anu he national revolution in China seem to be chief spots for the Soviet to apply its efforts. Other citations re late to a speech by l\ara.>:i. , in. Ambassador at Pekin, and several Russian newspapers. All the complaints are given in the course of several pages of appendices. The .\ote declares that Britain does not intend embarking on a controversy r gardmg these incontro vertible facts.

OBJECT OF NOTE.

PEACE, NOT WAR. THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION. LONDON, Feb. 24. Despite outbursts of a section of the Press against the alleged milk and water character of Britain’s Note to RusTa. official circles scout the suggestions that it will quickly be followed by more peremptory demands, ending inevitably in a breach of diplomatic relations. Well informed persons declare that one must, revert to the events following the late Lord Curzon’s strong protest in 1923, for a true interpretation of the present Note. Lord Curzon’s Note was much more strongly worded, and was almost an ultimatum. It produced a tense situation temporarily, but when means were found to continue relations, it was agreed that henceforth either Government, if it felt aggrieved towards the other, would inform it of the position quickly, and not wait for an accumulation of complaints to lead to another virtual ultimatum. In other words, the present Note should be regarded as an interim presentation of a list of otw complaints, sent in a friendly spirit by virtue of the 1923 Agreement. It gives the Soviet a chance to modify its conduct befofe any strong er act is adopted by Britain. There is no allusion that it will result in the Soviet seriously amending its ways, but the mildness of the new Note is held justified as exemplifying British patience.

In the meantime, the authorities point out that the Soviet’s anti-British propaganda has spent itself out successively in Turkey, Persia, Mesopotamia, India and Poland, ultimately failing everywhere. At present it has caused a very awkward problem in China, but here also there is every reason to believe that it will fail in the long run. The Foreign Office has sent copies of the Russian Note to the Dominions, which, it is believed, were consulted because the decision is solely Britain’s responsibility. FRENCH PRE.SS COMMENT. PARIS. Feb. 24. Newspapers approve Britain’s Note, though they doubt whether it will achieve its object. “Le Gaulois” praises “Britain’s act of exemplary courage. The Note marks the reaction against a long series of blunders which Britain started by recognising the Soviet. It is a warning to. France. ’ ’ “Le Matin” states: “The Note only falls short of being an ultimatum through refraining from fixing a time limit, but the Soviet will continue to play a two-faced game. The British bull-dog might as well bark at the moon. ’ ’

“L’Oueuvre” wonders how far Britain intends to carry out the threats, and what she vTll gain in any case.

The Soviet Feeling.

MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM LONDON. LONDON. Feb. 25. From diplomatic quarters in touch with the Soviet Embassy in London, the Daily Telegraph’s diplomatic correspon dent understands that the Russian feeling is one of acute depression at the vigorous tone of the British note. This is, however, tempered by the thought that things might have gone even worse ’Ar the Soviet Government, for until thi§ Note had been received, the Soviet Embassy staff in London was net sure that an immediate severance of diplomatic relations would not be the decision of the British Government. Air Hodgson, the British Charge d’Affaires at Moscow, who is at present in London, may not return to his post until the repercussions of the Note are visible. The Soviet alarm is being shown by

the manner in which moneys standing to its credit, or to that of its London agents, has been withdraw 1 Irom the London banks. These Russian withdrawals are said, in financial circles, to amount to some £2,500,000. COMMUNISTS IN BRITAIN. ALLEGEDLY IN MOSCOW PAY. (Received February 25 at 8.45 p.m.) LONDON, February 24. In the House of Commons, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks (Home Minister), in answer to a question, said that he was keeping a close eye on the activities of certain Communist agitators in Britain, who were paid by the Third International, and, if necessary, he would seek further powers to deal with them.

Some Hard Counter

BY MOSCOW PAPER. WHAT ABOUT CHURCHILL AND CO? (Received February 25 at 10 p.m.) MOSCOW, February 24. The fuil text of the British Note is now published here. The, paper “Izvestia,” in an editorial, says: “The British note misses its mark. It contains no specific charges which could justify either its presentation, or its threat of the abrogation of the trade agreement, or even the severance of ordinary diplomatic relations. The main charges against the Soviet Government made during the past, few months in the Conservative press, such as the alleged support by the Soviet Government of the Brit ish miners’ strike, and the alleged in fringement by the Soviet Union ol British interests in are not re fleeted in the Note, which, this time, does not repeat the accusations con >tained in the memorandum of the British Government last summer. Rc garding the charges against the politicians of the Soviet Union of calling for a world revolution, and the charges against M; Bukhrain and M. Voroshilov of making statements abusing Britain, the Soviet Govcrnmnet has never given .any undertaking to anybody to prevent Russian citizens, whether private or members of the Government, from voicing in their Speeches their firm belief in an inevitable world revolution when such utterances are made on Soviet territory. It may be asked What does the British Government say about Mr Winston Churchill’s speech in Rome when he openly called for the overthrow of the Soviet regime?” The “Izvestia” also cites extracts from the speeches of Lord Birkenhead and Mr Churchill, and it proceeds: “It is the Soviet Union that can speak of systematic abuse by the British politicians! ”

Pointing out what it calls "the unfoundedness and intolerable tone of the note,’’ the paper sa!ys: "If this note reflects a. concession to the ‘diehards, ’ [this circumstance wonlif explain its oriL gin; but it would not justify the sense of its presentation!”