BRITAIN AND RUSSIA

Hokitika Guardian, 1 March 1927, Page 2

BRITAIN AND RUSSIA

SOVIET REPLY, [Australia & N.Z. Cable Association.] London. Feb. 27. .Most of the newspapers comment on the Soviet's reply to the British note. The “Daily Express” says the note contains much that is hypocritical and impudent. Attempts to foment a rebellion in Britain have been supposed hv fluids from Russia, and there has been direct and indirect anti-Brit-ish propaganda* in Britain and elsewhere. hut there is no need for Britain to tear up the documents and lose the business in hysterical anger. A form 11 open rupture may ultimately he inevitable, tlie Government rightly believes the moment for such has not arrived.

The “Daily Herald” states that Labour will fight vigorously against the breach with Russia, not only because it would be bad for trkde and dangerous to peace, but also because the chief cause of the Tory agitation is hatred of the Soviet simply and solelv because it is based on auticapitflili.st philosophy. AIOSCOAY. Feh. 27.

Commenting on the Soviet’s reply to Britain "Isvestia” declares the breach of regulations on the grounds outlined in the British note is unjustifiable by anybody. We shall not he responsible for, or provoke any breach, which we consider is very undesirable LONDON PRESS COMAI EXT. LONDON. Feh. 27. The Times ill a leading article urges the Government to ignore the Soviet’s replv, which, it asserts, contains merely a mixture of misstatements, false charges and vague misstatements, false charges »md vague professions of pacific intention. I lie matter, it sacs, should momentarily he allowed to rest. Anv protracted controversy would merely complicate the China situation, which although plainly connected with Soviet .intrigue, should he handled separately.

The .Morning. Post, coinineiitiiig on the Russian reply to the British Note, i iys: “Sir Austell Chamberlain's protest is morelv so many wasted words. Af. T.illtvinoir. Soviet' Foreign Minister. in composing (os rejoinder, had a sharp eye to eompaigning interests among his friends, the British Laboui Parly, The note leaves the British ft’orcign Office wiijh the alternative of entering into an undignified alteration, or of leaving Al. Lithvinoff’s distortions on the main issue unanswered so that the Labour Party can sav tliev are unanswerable.”. The Dailv ALiil characterises the Note ms “insolent, mendacious and diffuse.” , _ • The Times suggests that the Russian trouble be allowed to rest for the moment. as a protracted controversy would merely complicate tlie Chinese situation which is better handled b\ itseli, GERAfAN sarcasai. BERLIN. Pel). 27. The Berlin newspapers give prominence to the Soviet’s reply, and comment on it in an aggressive and sarijpstie tone, under such headings as “Aloscow Stocks England.”