THE DISARMAMENT OFFER
SIR,—A point which no one seems to have mentioned regarding the Russian demand for a reduction in armaments is that even if everyone disarmed totally peace would not be assured in the conditions existing today. It would only mean that Russia could pursue her cold war with even greater impunity. The Russians have shown that they do not need tanks, guns and bombs to subjugate their neighbours_ Propaganda, the stirring up of disaffection, the placing of Russian-trained Communists in key positions, and then government with the secret police and enforce- ment of their will by drastic purges—these are Russia's weapons today. This method of expansion can go on without the use of a large and well- equipped military force, and once the possibility of counter military action by non-Communist States is reduced or removed, Russia could wage her cold war more openly and more energetically still.
This plan is to be " tested for sincerity." It seems to me that Russia might safely, from her point of view, agree to reduce her force by one- third- if we did likewise (though how anyone would know whether she carried out the agreement I fail to see). Would such agreement on her part be considered a sufficient indication that she was sincere ? Unless Russia ceases all Communist and anti-foreign propaganda and disbands Cominform as a start, it appears to me that the Assembly is only wasting its time discussing Mr. Vyshinsky's motion, and that to adopt it is merely to play into Russia's hands.—Yours faithfully, A. J. BELL. Medway House, Partridge Green, Sussex.
Previous page
