OURSELVES AND RUSSIA
By VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH, M.P.
The man in the street is very ignorant, even now, about Russia. The country was so far away ; Marshal Stalin seetned such a mysterious figure locked away in the Kremlin. Diplomats used to say that the Russians were a very secretive race, but we can_hardly expect it to be otherwise. Did we really expect Russia to come to us, hat in hand, after we had so consistently snubbed her for years? Our policy towards her has been one of aloofness, verging on rude- ness. We sometimes seem to forget that we are under a deep debt of gratitude to Russia, and not for the first time. In the early days of the last war, when Paris was in deadly peril, the Russian armies, ill-led and worse equipped, made such a determined attack on East Germany that numbers of German divisions had to be diverted from France. Paris was saved, but Russia suffered severe defeat and grievous casualties. Again, had Germany not attacked Russia and had Russia stayed aloof in this war, the best we could have hoped for would have been a stalemate. However, Russia is not only in the war, she is in process of defeating some 200 German divisions. In spite of this invaluable support, there is still a small though powerful minority in this country violently opposed to our Ally ; it consists of certain Church elements ; some regular soldiers, the motive ling presumably professional jealousy ; old-fashioned die- hards and that dangerous class which still prefers a Nazi to a Russian at any price.
During the period between the two wars British foreign policy reached a new low revel ; between 1931-1939 it was so spineless that it is hardly surprising that few Germans thought we would fight. Our handling of the Abyssinian question was so inept that we were thoroughly humiliated ; again, the failure of our non-intervention policy did us no credit as Fascist armies poured into Spain. It is to be doubted if the Munich policy will win many laurels in history. In only one respect in' the between-wars period has British foreign policy been consistent, and that is in its persistent hostility to the U.S.S.R. In the early days it was hardly surprising ; the brutal
murder of the Czar and his family shocked the civilised world, while Lenin's clearly stated intention of working for the World Revolution caused grave if unnecessary alarm. It is true to say that no country which is equitably governed need ever fear outside intervention— apart from force—however insidious the propaganda may be. A sound social system is one which assures good wages, leisure in which to spend the money, holidays with pay, improved educa- tion, &c. It is only backward countries which fall victim to propaganda, and they deserve all they get. We had an open quarrel with Russia over the Arcos raid. No doubt the Government thought that they were dealing' the U.S.S.R. a heavy blow in severing rela- tions, but in reality the only sufferer was the British working man, as this shortsighted policy merely led to increased unemployment.
As a nation we do not always realise that the progress made by the U.S.S.R. since its inception in 1917 is little short of a miracle. They started literally from scratch and by the time the Germans invaded their territory—a period of under 25 years—they had probably become the world's second greatest industrial nation. I say " probably," because no one outside of the Russian higher councils can possibly know. This by itself is a staggering achieve. ment; but alongside the Russians were carrying out a colossal armament programme. They alone among European nations appear to have taken Mein Kampf seriously and to have adopted adequate precautions to save themselves and the principle of democracy from Fascist domination.
The overwhelming proportion of our people must now realise that the previous attitude adopted towards the U.S.S.R. was-radically wrong. Had our foreign policy been directed towards a rapproche- ment with them; had we established cordial relations with this nation which alone of the great Powers has a consistent record in the League of Nations, then I believe that this war would never have taken place. Similarly, I am of the opinion that unless we secure truly friendly relations with the U.S.S.R. then the prospects of a lasting peace are not hopeful. Now what steps are being taken by the Government to achieve this object? I do not know, butl should like to see a representative body of British industrialists proceed to Russia forthwith to• establish contacts with a view to a future trade pact. Do not let us forget that the great march of Russian industry was originally financed out of German credits. A portion of the money lent by the City to Germany was used by her to finance Russian trade, and the U.S.S.R. satisfied her requirements, especially in heavy machinery, in the German market while our workmen were idle. Now, when this war is over, the full damage 'caused by " scorched earth " and German destruction can be assessed. It will be found to be enormous, and not even Russia with all her resources can make good the loss alone. Our visiting industrialists, therefore, in their capacity of commercial travellers, should report to the Government the immediate needs of the U.S.S.R. The Government can then settle the necessary credits and prepare schemes to assist this rep!acement work in particular, paying close attention to the problem of conversion to other purposes of what will be redundant plant, such as aircraft- production. Such a scheme can only be of mutual benefit and should be put into operation at once. •
I believe that great value would accrue if parties of younger people especially were organised to pay visits to the respective countries.. An obvious beginning would be an exchange of visits of ex-servicemen, followed possibly by a party representative of the Scout movement. A committee established on a broad basis should be set up to discuss the lines on which such visits should be made and to explore the difficulties which must inevitably' lie in the path of any such scheme.
I am, however, of the opinion that it is through the medium of sport that the two nations can best be brought together. The British are a sport-loving race, and with all due respect to our cricket enthusiasts, Association football is our national game. It is not difficult to visualise the immense interest that would be aroused if Russia were to send a representative football team to this country. Games would be played against some of the leading League sides, with international matches at Wembley, Glasgow and Belfast—the tour to be run rather on the same lines as an Australian Test Team visit. As the chairman of a famous football club, this idea appeals to me, and if a Russian team plays against Arsenal F.C. they may rest assured of a hearty welcome.
These may be simple suggestions that are open to criticism, but any suggestion that leads to a more friendly and intimate relationship between the two countries can only be to their mutual advantage. It may be said that there is a vast difference between Great Britain and Russia ; of course there is, but it is a difference of method, not of aim. Both countries are determined to secure a lasting peace ; they are equally determined not to tolerate Fascism at any cost. What- ever private opinions we may hold about Russia, let us remember that the heroic Russian resistance has made an Allied victory not remote possibility, or even probability, but an irrefragable. certainty.
Previous page
