THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE
So .—In your article " The Unholy Alliance," you throw doubts on the veracity of a number of people who mistrusted Ru.sia, or rather as adopting the attitude of being wise after the event. This may be true of Fleet Street and its " circles," but many of us have known that no reliance could be placed on Russia. May I ask you what you mean by, "it has been well concealed" ? The best answer to that sneer is given through Sir Patrick Hastings' letter in The Times of September 8th. The intentions of Russia have been visible for years: a World War, and is there much point in saying the obvious when it is evident no one will listen? And I ask if you, Mr. Editor Sir, would have published anything against Russia ; I think not, and may I quote from yours of August 18th?
" but Russia will intervene on just grounds to liberate oppressed nationalities and free the international Proletariat from the tyranny of Fascism."
and now to declare that the moral standard of Stalin is only a shade less black than Hitler's, and that it would be rash for anyone to speak about Russia's intentions, vide The Spectator of September 15th. Look back on the last twelve months, the visibility may be bad but the attitude of Russia, at the time of the Munich Crisis was that of a dog in the manger, you said it was of the most correct. Then at the Rape of Prague it was visibly equivocatory, and though you may not know it she has been allowed to buy armaments from the Skoda works.
Still the Labour and Liberal Parties in the House of Com- mons, yourself and others of Fleet Street, would not leave it alone until our representatives sat for weeks on the steps of the Kremlin. Our diplomacy was inept, we were to blame for not reaching an agreement, and now you say "our • diplomatists are not equipped and never can be to deal with such situations."
Admit you were mistaken, a dignified admission, but do not say of others " if the expectation was in fact entertained it was well concealed," please read again Sir Patrick Hastings' letter. To those who mistrust " nothing here surprises." To trust as you did and then declare " nothing here surprises " is being foolish, not even wise, after the event.—I remain your
[We did not say that nobody had foreseen Russia's action. We said, with perfect accuracy, that a number of people, who had hitherto concealed any such opinion, had hastened to explain that they had always known what would happen. As to our correspondent's quotation from our issue of August ath, if he will look again he will discover that the words quoted represented the views, not of The Spectator, but of the Moscow journal Pravda.—ED. The Spectator.]
Previous page
