RUSSIA, POLAND AND AMERICA
Sia,—Mr. A. J. P. Taylor, in a letter published in your issue of January 28th, is of the opinion that Poles "can have the friendship of Russia the moment they renounce their rule over peoples of non-Polish stock." He seems to favour the idea of a racially homogeneous State ; unfortunately, the fact remains that nearly no State in Europe is racially homogeneous (even the ideal democratic State of Europe, Switzerland, is a federation of three races). Czechoslovakia, mentioned by Mr. Taylor as the country which has secured the friendship of Russia, is by no means a racially homogeneous State: she had a large German minority, a considerable racial group of Carpatho-Ruthenians (who are as much akin to the Czechs as Ukrainians are to the Poles), and a Hungarian population. Russia herself is in fact a huge Empire comvrising some 18o different races like the Tartars, the Tadhzyks, Turkmen, &c., and cannot be regarded as a racially homogeneous State ; for that reason she cannot claim to be a purely " Slav " country. Why only Poland should be a racially " pure " country? Why to adopt the ethnographic principle to Poland only? The principle of racially "pure" countries was advanced by Hitler and the Nazi propaganda, and we know by now that this theory did not bring about peace and stability.
I am by no means blind to many blunders and high-handed actions committed by the Poles in Eastern Galicia ; I admitted them in lectures and articles published in this country even at the risk of being unpopular with some of my countrymen. I would like to stress the fact that many Polish writers had openly admitted Poland's faults in dealing with the Ukrainians ; and we are still waiting for some signs of reciprocity from the other side, I mean from the Russian writers on the subject of the Ukrainian people. But at the same time it should be stated in all fairness that Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia had their own Press, their representatives in the Polish Diet (Seym), their co-operative movement, like the Maslosoyuz which have ranked among the best organised in Europe, their theatres, their Fulttikal activities centred in such associations as the Shevtchenko Association (who was a great Ukrainian poet). In a recent discussion of the Ukrainian problem in the columns of The Scotsman a Ukrainian writing about the position of the Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia expressed the following viewpoint: "In all fairness, I must state that before this war Ukrainians in Poland had found incomparably greater freedom for the development of their peculiar national characteristics than under the Soviets."
The Kingdom of Poland had rather a good record for toleration ; intense Polish nationalism is to a great extent the result of the foreign oppression. This should be Understood by the many British critics of the Polish "chauvinists." Ireland provides another example of that intense nationalism. Mr. A. J. P. Taylor is sure that by adopting the Curzon Line the Poles can secure their freedom and independence. But even some British papers, to quote only The Economist and The Observer, are rather doubtful whether this is a frontier issue, and they are asking bluntly whether the future independent existence of Poland is not being
involved?—Yours sincerely, Z. GRABOWSKI. 105 Hallam Street, W. r.
SIR,—Mr. D. W. Brogan's article on "America, Russia and Poland" in The Spectator of January 2Ist, whilst in some respects enlightening, may remind us that the U.S.S.R. is not the only country towards which we are in danger of exhibiting a servile attitude. It may be pointed out that the most important result of Britain's "recovery of ground" after the Munich episode was not, as the article would almost persuadeaus, the effect on America of her later firm stand against fearful Olds, Or the fact that the Americans ceased pointing to the beam in Britain's eye whilst ignoring the very large mote in their own. The risk of "estranging" or "angering and disillusioning American opinion" is certainly not to be lightly run. But there is also a risk of a less unwavering maintenance of our own ideals if our attention is too closely 'fastened upon the opinions of our powerful friends. According to the accounts of the well-informed, including Mr. Brogan, the wooing of U.S.A. opinion demands very assiduous study of American politics, with all their complications and subtleties in a Presidential year of which we (fortunately) have no experience in this country. We are to comprehend the influences Of racial feeling and the " deplorable " effect which Russo-Polish policy Is bound to have on American opinion. This is surely not a preoccupation to make into a major guide for policy here. Nor should we be shaken by the danger of " American " or "Pacific Firsters " having a "Zinoviev Letter to play with." Is there any genuine risk of British motives for loyalty to Poland which have faced the earlier shocks of the war requiring the enforcement of adaptation of policy to the .ntncate windings of American party politics in a Presidential year?
Mr. Brogan's further d'splay of distrust of British faithfulness to Poland, in his exhortations not to forget the devotion of Poles to our hardpressed.cause while Russia was courting Germany, seems, to say the least, uncalled for. We may feel that some Russophil circles are too blindly intrenched in the position that Russia must always be right. But has British policy done anything during this war to merit Mr. Brogan's sneering suggestion that approval of a ieturn to the policy of Catherine II or imposition of a Government chosen by Moscow will only be prevented by fear uf a!ienating America and distracting the Dominions? Herr, indeed, is a display of servility, unpleasing and superfluous. Let Britain remain true to her principles and loyalties, respecting, but not bowing to the ground, before the opinion of other nations.—Yours, &c.,
22 Tufton Court, Westminster. Thum D. OAKELEY.
SIR,—Allow me to thank you for the two gratifying articles which appeared in your issue of january 21st. I refer to the leader and that of Professor Brogan: "America, Russia and Poland." For so long trw Truth has been treated like an enemy alien and confined under stricter rule than those under 18 B, that it is with a sigh of purest pleasure that one sees a corner of her face again. All England's lovers must grieve to see how weak and ignoble she can be, and for what? The end justifies the nvans, perhaps, but where such weakness is indicated, .:an the end ever be achieved?
I hope you will continue to declare so clearly the realities which our leaders prefer to obscure. When even an insult like that of the Pravda peace-talks story can be swallowed with a meek smile it is time to despair. If we are drawing near the end of this war we are as surely approaching the declaration of the next. It is not an agreeable thought.—Yours faithfully, HERO MORRIS.
i8 Rectory Chambers, Old Church Street, Chelsea, S.W. 3.
Stg,—I am writing withogt the necessary books of reference, but is it not a fact that Poland was bound by a Minority Treaty, and that some' years before the war she repudiated her obligations under that treaty so that the League of Nations Minorities Commission was precluded from enquiring into the grievances of the Ukrainians under Polish rule? is it not also a fact that Poland's treatment of her Ukrainians was considered by a large number of well-informed persons to be brutal and oppressive? Can it be that Russia's present attitude is partly influenced by these considerations?
Your leading articles in the last two numbers of The Spectator, while professing to set forth all the salient facts of the last twenty-five years, are silent on this matter, nor does Professor Brogan allude to it.—Yours
faithfully, T. C. MACAULAY. King's Mill, Painswick, Glos
Previous page
