7 JUNE 1946, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

" RUSSIA UNLIMITED "

sllt,--If Mr. Crankshaw thinks that the " unexpressed conclusion " of my argument is that we should fight a preventive war against Russia now, I have clearly failed in lucidity. May I briefly re-state the argument in the very simplest terms? Russia has shown by her actions that she is pursuing an expansionist policy, using a combination of military force and Communist infiltration. There are no obvious natural limits to this policy. Were it not checked, it might lead to the eventual domination of the world by a Russian-directed Communism. It can be checked by " physical and moral firmness " on our part. " Physical firmness " does not mean that we should attack Russia. It merely means we should tell the Kremlin that any new forcible penetration on its part would be defensively resisted. This could lead to war only if Moscow, like Hitler, willed war—and I am sure Mr. Crankshaw will agree with me that the Kremlin does not will war. In all probability, therefore, such a policy on our part would lead to a stabilisation of spheres of influence as between Russia and the West, and thus give the maximum hope of peace in present circumstances. " Moral firmness " is needed because, through her Communist instruments, Russia might otherwise gain her ends by infiltration alone. In my view, we have to fight and win an ideological battle with the fundamental tenets of Communism wherever we still have influence—and we have to do it not in the interests of American capitalism but in the interests of our own way of life. I write as a social democrat. Where, in all this, is there any " muddle "?

When I say that for the time being we may as well recognise that the world is going to be divided into two parts—Russia and the rest—I am merely taking note of existing facts. These facts are apparent enough without a certificate from the British Prime Minister. I don't like such a " monstrous consummation " any more than Mr. Crankshaw does. But Russia plainly intended things to be this way, and has made them this way. Non-co-operation with the West is her deliberate choice. If and when she changes her policy and shows signs of co-operating, I shall be ahead of Mr. Crankshaw in rejoicing. In the meantime, I think that one-sided compromise has gone dangerously far. For the moment, the alternatives for us are appeasement or deadlock. If Mr. Crankshaw's last paragraph means anything at all, it means that we—" the eternal accommodators "—should go on giving way indefinitely. I prefer dead- r, North Square, N.W.