Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1939. SEEKING TERMS WITH RUSSIA.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 May 1939, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1939. SEEKING TERMS WITH RUSSIA.

♦ ASSURANCES have been offered in London of late that discussions between Britain and Russia on the question oJ. an agreement to take common action against aggression are beiim- conducted with the utmost, cordiality. That is news to be welcomed, as far as it goes, but these discussions seem to be dragging, perhaps needlessly, and certainly in a way that is rather disappointing, taking account of the self-evident importance of building up a strong peace bloc as soon <,ts possible.

Mr Chamberlain and other British Ministers have been noticeably reticent, as to the details, or even the broad lines, ot negotiation, but a recent cablegram quoted Kentei s. agencj, normally a dependable source of information, as learning iiom Russian quarters in London that the Soviet regards the current British proposals as unsatisfactory, “as they do not go far enough.’’ The Soviet, it was added,

Dresses for a pact of mutual assistance covering both direct and indirect attacks, not only on the territories of the guaranteed States, but on that of the contracting parties.

Some allowance must be made for the possibility of importance being attached legitimately to undisclosed details ot the negotiations, but at a broad view and taking account of the major issues at stake, a liberal and comprehensive pact of mutual assistance with Russia certainly must be regarded as highly desirable.

One of yesterday’s cablegrams stated that it was hoped in France that if Britain and the Soviet failed to reach an agreement, French proposals would meet the case. These proposals, as they are outlined, look to an agreement for mutual aid between France and Russia in the event of either being involved in a war arising out of the anti-aggression scheme, and assume that in such an event Britain would be involved automatically through her alliance with Prance. It is by no means obvious that an arrangement of this kind would be preferable io a direct mutual understanding between Britain and Russia.

It seems to be established very clearly that no fully effective peace bloc can be established in Europe that does not include Russia. Much as she is still suspected and mistrusted by some influential sections in Britain, Russia has given apparently convincing proofs that she is sincerely• intent on maintaining and upholding European peace—her intentions in Eastern Asia admittedly are more open to speculation. In addition, so far as land and air forces are concerned, Russia is probably the strongest military Rower in Europe today and she is certainly unsurpassed in her comparative invulnerability and in her tremendous reserves of economic power.

In his book, “The Military Strength of the Powers,” in which he cites many leading authorities, Mr Max \\ erner classes Russia as the strongest air Power in Europe and observes that in a defensive coalition with France and Britain, the Russian effectives would he about three times as strong as those of the French and British armies together.

As the Red Army is at least as well equipped per unit as the armies of the Western Powers, and in some respects even better equipped (he adds), we may assume that its volume of armaments (in accordance with its numerical superiority) is also greater. ...

The Red Army would also represent the most powerful weapon of offence within a European defensive coalition, because it possesses the most powerful concentration of the most important modern weapons of offence: war planes and tanks.

An impressive weight of evidence supports these and other conclusions of a similar kind and goes far to demonstrate that there could bo in these days no more terrible folly than that of allowing minor difficulties to stand in the way of the conclusion of a firm agreement between the democracies and Russia to act in combination against aggression.

Some people in Britain and elsewhere may be •inclined to see in a virtual alliance with Russia potential dangers almost as groat as those now raised by the policy of aggression of the totalitarian States. 'Pho future of humanity would hardly ho safeguarded, however, by declining co-operation with one ol lhe most powerful nations of the world and leaving it- to tall back' upon a policy of isolation, which no doubt it is well able to pursue. Humanity’s best hope must be in building up the strongest possible peace organisation with the material available. In lhe extent to which it 'is effective, an international peace organisation will not only provide for the amicable settlement of differences between nations, but will tend increasingly to influence the internal life and development of individual nations and so to establish the best safeguards that are possible of the future of humanity at large.