Page Four

THE ADVOCATE

October 27, 1 :

THE ADVOCATE

(Formerly The People’s Advocate)
Published Weekly by the Advocate Publishing Association, Room 20

163 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C Phone TRinity 2019.
EDITOR - HAT GRIFFIN

Oue) Vesr 00 Three Months —.-----———----$ -60

BSESNEU. SG ays hea esea eee ee eee $1.00 Single Gopy. == 3 05

Make All Cheques Payable to: The People’s Advocate

Vancouver, B.C., Friday, October 27, 1939

A Democratic Germany Will
Choose Its Own Goverment

E DO NOT know how much truth there is in the re-

markable story printed by the New York Daily News
last weelk and circulated throughout this country by the Ca-
madian Press. ‘

According to these sources the British government contem-
plates establishment in London of a “German government, to
which de jure recognition would be extended and a British
loan of $8,000,000 provided. The News adds that “four promi-
nent Germans now living in exile in England and France have
been approved as a nucleus of the new German cabinet.”
Wames of these four as given indicate that two are former Nazis
and two are former pre-Nazi German cabinet ministers.

Intelligent interpretation would indicate that the story has
been permitted to leak into the US press with the purpose of
estimating American public reaction before any official step is
undertaken by the Chamberlain government. On the face of
it the story is in complete conformity with Mr. Chamberlain‘s
political aims.

The British people are opposed to fascism. They desire
democracy for themselves at home and liberty for all other
peoples, including the German people, to resulate their own
national existence.

The Chamberlain government, which is conducting the
present war, is, however, not opposed to fascism. On the con-
trary, every effort is being exerted to win the Italian fascist
government as an ally, and fascism in Germany itself could
never have been established and strengthened to the point
which enabled it to embark upon the present war had it not
previously received the financial and moral support of the
British banking and big business interests whom Prime Minis-
ter Chamberlain represents.

Alfred Duff Cooper, former lord of the British admiralty
and prominent imperialist, confirms this viewpoint by his
statement to the press in New York. He foresees revolution
in Germany, but hurriedly adds that this “revolution” will be
launched by “the army and the conservative elements.”

The News story, printed significantly on the day Duff
Cooper arrived in New York, is an indication, however, that
the same reactionary circles, typified by Lord Londonderry
and the Cliveden set, who until the war gave every assistance
to German Nazism, are anxious to assure that if the German
people succeed in overthrowing the Hitler dictatorship they
wil have foisted upon them a reactionary government headed
by ex-Nazis selected in London.

For the British and Canadian peoples the defeat of Hitler-
ism means not only liberty for themselves but liberty for the
German people to elect their own government and manage
their own affairs.

For the Clivedenites and imperialists in positions of govern-
ment and power the defeat of Hitlerism is only a catch-phrase
to deceive. For nothing would be less calculated to aid the
German people to overthrow fascism than the report that the
German government which would replace it would be chosen
not by the German people themselves but by a foreign group
of now disappointed but recently fervent admirers of Hitler
and his fascist gang.

Tt is to be sincerely hoped that if the News story is untrue
it will be officially and emphatically denied. Further delay in
making such denials makes later disavowal subject to doubt.

The War In Asia

A T THE present moment there is a tendency for many people

to overlook the fact that we are witnessing not one but two
ereat wars unfolding before our eyes. Not only in Europe, but
also in the Far East there is war. In China the war against
Japanese aggression, the war to prevent the Chinese people
from being converted into the colonial slaves of Japanese im-
perialism has been raging for over two years. And to the people
of British Columbia in the modern world of rapid communica-
tions the war in the Far East is even closer to home.

Recently, encouraging news has been coming from China.
Consternation and great confusion were created in Japanese
military and ruling class circles by the break-up of the Berlin-
Tokio axis. The Japanese government, as a result of sharp
military defeats on the Soviet borders at Manchuria and Mon-
golia found itself compelled to sign a military truce with the
Soviet Union; and in endeavoring to renew large scale mili-
tary action for a further advance into Chinese territory it is
reported that at Changsha Japanese troops suffered the worst
military defeat since the war with China began.

It is on this background that a recent press despatch, to
which all too little attention has been paid, reported a sig-
nificant fact. It was stated that French official sources urgently
advised Chiang Kai-shek, presumably with the approval of the
British government, to make peace on the best terms obtain-
able with Japan, although such a peace now would mean that
Japan could remain in occupation of the vital parts of China
at present held by Japanese troops.

True, the words “enigma” and “mystery” have been very
much worn out by constant use in our newspapers recently,
but it is remarkable that not a single BC newspaper commented
upon the curious fact that in the same week that Premier Da-
ladier’s Zovernment demanded resistance to aggression in
Europe; it urged acceptance of the results of aggression in
China, at the same time that Daladier publicly rejected the
formula “peace on the best terms obtainable” in Europe he
privately demanded that this formula be accepted as a means
of getting an immediate truce in China.

Developments in the Far East need to be earefully ob-
served as the significance of this “mysterious enigma” unfolds.

The people of Quebec overwhelmingly registered at the
polls on Wednesday their disapproval of the reactionary anti-
labor Duplessis regime. Duplessis and his fascist advisors have
been swept from office, but the infamous padlock law remains.
Duplessis has gone. The padlock law must go, too.

THE FOREIGN POLICY
OF CABADA
MUST BE CRANGED

A Pertinent Article By Tim Buck

N ARTICLE in a recent issue of Saturday night, written by its editor, B. K. Sandwell,
raises a pertinent question which deserves a great deal more study than it is so far receiv-
ing. The article, a brief review of the conditions necessary for a lasting peace, is entitled:
“What Are We Fighting For?” It opens with the following trite, but necessary, statement that:
“Tt is extremely important that the British and French peoples of the British Commonwealth of
Nations should know, and should let the world know, precisely what it is that they are fight-

ing for in this war.”

The writer expresses the opin-
ion that “It is not enough to say
merely that we are fighting to
change the character of the Ger-
man government.” His main
thesis is that, in the world of
today, lasting peace is possible
only on the basis of genuine col-
lective security. The article con-
cludes with a plea for “estab-
lishment of a federation of na-
tions pledged
ciples,
ture

to certain prin-

which must exclude fu-
neutrality toward aggres-
sion in any Shape or form.’

The significance of this is best
realized by those who remember
the attitude of Saturday Night to
this question on occasions in the
past. During September, 1938, for
example, the attitude of Satur-
day Wight and, it must be pre-
sumed, its editor,was exactly the

reverse. On that occasion it con-

Sidered “neutrality toward ag-
Zression” (then threatening
Czechoslovakia) to be good pol-
icy: quite clever in fact.

Aside from its motivation, the
change of attitude expressed in
the current issue is revealing evi-
dence that Lloyd George is not
the only bourgeois politican who
is drawing appropriate conclu-
sions from the events of the first
month of the European war.

ANDWELL’S proposal will na-
turally demand the approba-
tion of every democrat. The prin-
eiple he advocates is precisely
the one systematically advocated
by Litvinov in the League of Na-
tions on behalf of the USSR. it
is the principle upon which the
reiterated proposals of the So-
viet government for concerted
action to prevent aggression were
based and it is the exact prin=
ciple upon which the Soviet gov-
ernment stood firm in the abor-
tive Anglo-French-Soviet nego-
tiations which preceeded the
out break of the present imper-
jalist war.

The point overlooked by Sand-
well is that advocacy of such a
policy necessarily implies opposi-
tion to the contrary opinion
which has hitherto dominated.
Wot only does it imply opposition,
but it demands an effort to se-
cure repudiation of the policy
which has proven so disastrous
for the British people.

To propose “a federation of
nations” without such an effort
is meaningless.. The fact that
the policy hitherto followed has
been discredited by history does
not eliminate the need for its
considered repudiation. On the
contrary, exactly because the
conditions of today demand a2
fundamental change, deliberate
repudiation of the old discred-
ited policies is a necessary pre-
requisite to intelligent adoption
of correct new ones.

QTUDY of British foreign policy

during the present century,
particularly as related to Euro-
pean affairs, Shows that the con-
ditions which demand the change
now advocated by Sandwell are
not entirely new. As a matter
of fact his recognition of them
may be characterized as belated,
if not reluctant.

They have been developing for
50 years. Throughout the greater
part of that half century British
foreign policy has reflected, in
varying degree according to the
particular interests in power at
the time, growing realization of
the need for collective security
without ever breaking free from
the tradition of insular security
which, until the turn of the cen-
tury, enabled Britain to stand
aloof from continental alliances
and the obligations they involve.

Isolation was the official policy
of Britain in regard to European
affairs throughout the latter
half of the 19th century. The pol-
icy was carried so ‘far that
Joseph Chamberlain declared in
1898: “We have no allies; I fear
that we have no friends.”

The startling rise of German
imperialism, in itself striking
testimony to the correctness of
Tenin’s formulation of the Law
of Uneven Development of Capi-
talism, already threatened the
stability of the existing balance
of power in Europe. The more
thoughtful among British public
men were keenly aware of the
danger of Britain running head
on into a combination of the
great powers which mifht try to
settle decisive issues of PEuro-
pean power politics regardless of
Britain’s imperial interests.

HE NEED to prevent such a

development caused a rapid
modification of WBritain’s isola-
tionist policy at the turn of the
century. The character and spe-
cific direction of the change was
never clearly stated and the ex-
tent to which it was carried out
varied from time to time. Suc-
cessive British governments
clung to the appearance, if not
the pretense, of isolation long
after the experts in the foreign
office became convinced that
Britain’s fortunes, if not her na-
tional existence, were dependent
upon HMuropean developments:
specifically maintainence of the
existing balance of power.

This conviction was expressed
more than once. In i912, Sir
Eyre Crowe, assistant under-sec-
retary for foreign affairs, de-
clared: “The continued existence
of a strong and independent
France is of vital interest to this
eountry.”

Sir Edward Grey, foreign min-
ister, went further. Discussing
the Anglo-German negotiations
in 1913 and the need to secure
agreement for limitation of Ger-
man naval construction, Sir
Edward declared: “If our fleet
was not superior to the German
fleet our very independence
would depend upon Germany's
goodwil®” Sir Edward was con-
vineed that if France should be-
come involved in war with Ger-
many, Britain would have to go
to the aid of France.

1Dese= this recognition, how-
ever, successive British gov-
ernments refused to make def
inite commitments or acknow-
ledge military obligations on the
continent. The illusion that Bri-
tain’s security could be assured
without commitment on her part
influenced all their plans and
caused all of them to endeavor
stubbornly to play the part of a
neutral even when the British
position was decisive in estab-
lishing the balance of power.

During the Moroccan crisis,
for example. Sir Edward Grey
refused to give any definite as-
surance to France in the hope
that the French, being uncertain
of Britain’s stand, would make
some sacrifices to Germany. Sim-
ilarly, when Czarist Russia be-
came involved with Austria-Hun-
gary on behalf of Russia’s pro-
tege, Serbia, in 1912. Grey re-
marked that if: “Russia in assis-
ting Serbia were to be attacked
by Germany, or France were
finally to be drawn into the con-
flict it might become necessary
for Britain to fight. . .. for the
defence of her position in Eur-
ope and the protection of her
own future and security.”

But while he thus stated his
opinion in the British foreign of
fice, he refused to make any
statement to the Russian govern-
ment as to what Britain might
do in the event of hostilities. He
promised the Russian govern-

ment “diplomatic support” but
further he refused to go.
@
HIS indefiniteness character-

ized British policy in Hurope
throughout the decade that led
up to the first world war. Suc-
cessive governments recognized
the facts stated by Sir Eyre
Crowe and Grey and stealized
also that the relation of forces
in Hurope was becomng increas-
ingly unstable but always evaded
the one thing that might possibly
have prevented the war, namely
definite commitments which de-=
fined in advance the alignment
of forces that war would involve.

In 1912, Lord Haldane visited
Germany in an effort to find a
basis for agreement between Bri-
tain and the Imperial German
government. Discussion revolved
about three issues which were
sharpening at a dangerous rate
namely’ naval armaments, colon-
ial expansion and general policy
in Europe.

The British government was
prepared to facilitate German
colonial expansion ‘at the ex-
pense of Portugal) if the Ger-
mans would agree to a limitation
of naval construction. The Ger-
mans, however, demanded more.
They wanted Britain to promise
“benevolent neutrality should
war be forced on Germany.” This
of course involved the existence
of the Anglo-French Entente and
therefore the entire basis of Bri-
tain’s general policy in Europe.

During 1913-14, the British and
German governments did arrive
at agreement upon the partition
of Portugal’s African colonies

and upon a measure of co-oper-
ation in the Berlin-Baghdad rail-
way project but the agreements,
finally arrived at in June, 1914,
were never ratified because of
the vehement protests of the
French government.

The French government object-
ed to the idea of Britain haying

concluded such far-reaching
agreements without consulting
France, and protested that the

British government had endeay-—
ored to “appease Germany” at
the expense of other countries.
As a result of French protests
ratification was delayed and in
the meantime war broke out

HROUGHOUT that period
: Czarist Russia was urging 2
more definite Anglo-French-Rus-
Sian agreement... The Czar’s for-
eign minister insisted that the
so-called Triple Entente was no
more capable of proof “than is
that of a sea serpent.” He urged
a “defensive alliance, openly an-
nounced in all the papers of the
world.” Such en alliance, he
argued, was the one thing that
would deter Germany from ag-
gression and thereby prevent war.

The British ambassador to
Russia was also of this opinion.
Furthermore he urged: “If Rus-
Sia acquires the conviction that
we are unreliable and useless
as a friend, she may one day
strike a bargain with Germany
and resume her liberty of action
in Turkey and Persia.”

The contrary position of Sir
Edward Grey was best expressed
in the admonition that he wrote
in the margin of the ambassa-
dor’s report: “ we had better
postpone discussion of anything
so long as we can.” Sir Edward
Greys attitude towards the Tri-
ple Entente always  differenti-
ated between France and Russia.
He was definitely of the opin-
ion that, if Germany did attacl:
Russia alone the most important
thing would be that Britain
should not be committed to in-
tervene.

OMPARISOW of the strivings

and motivations of British pol-
icy during the decade preceding
the war of 191418 with the dec-
ade preceding the one now
rending Europe reveals striking
parallels. It shows that one of
the things necessary to the
achievement of genuine collec-
tive security is definite repudi-
ation of the policies of the past
on the basis of recognition that
the conditions out of which they
erew have disappeared.

It reveals something else which
must be organized and thorough-
ly dealt with if the world is to
have collective security that is
really collective and really secure.
It shows that now, as then, the
obstacle to genuine collective se-
curity and peace is the opposition
of the monopolistic finance-capi-
talist groups which dominate
the economy of each country.

These groups having secured
control of the natural resources
and productive apparatus of
their respective countries are op_
posed to international collabor-
ation in the production and dis-
tribution of wealth. They are
interested rather in intensifying
the struggle between rival na-
tional economies.

These are the selfish interests

in each country which exploit
the machinery of education and
formation of public opinion to
inflame nationalistic sentiments
as part of the struggle to win
and hold markets and spheres of
interests.

These are the selfish interests
for whom governments are prim-
arily instruments for the pro-
tection of their own investments,
markets and other economic
privileges at home and abroad,
and for whom the masses are
fodder: for the factories and
mines in peace and the cannons
they have built in war.

These interests and the system
of which they are the product
and beneficiaries are in reality
the obstacles to genuine collec-
tive security and lasting peace.
The basic difference between the
working class and Sandwell in
this respect is that he, apparent-
ly, has suddenly become con-
vineed that collective security is
the means by which the privi-
leges and exploitation of these
interests can be maintained
while the working class is real-
izing that it is precisely by abo
ishing the power, privileges and
abuses of those selfish finance—
capitalist oligarchies that genu-
ine collective security and last-
ing peace will be achieved.

and

e
A
&
‘

OPINIONS:

af AM NOT a Communist but
do insist that members of 1) _
Communist pa-ty are entitled |)
the same rights under our const
tution as the Republicans. ees
“The Dies committee says it |
trying to suppress the Commu =

eT

ists, but it wont be the Comm. me

ists alone who will be outlaws |

They will merely be the first yj ap Pere

tims. Remember, the Reichst 4 ae
trials in Germany. That stare ..
with an attack on Communis: | @=
But organized labor came ney ae
The Catholic church soon follo; | ©
ed—nor was the great Lutherg |e
church spared by Hitler. ae | as
“Dies says he is going after | Re
Communists but he has alread i iro
‘gone after’ the CIO, the Interni Fie
tional Workers’ Order, the unex) jt
ployed, the American Civil Liha 4} to t
ties Union and many peace ¢ |
ganizations.” 4 a

—US Congressman John €@ |
fee of Tacoma, Wash, in ({
speech at
Fair.

* = .

LITTLE ROBIN REDBR

Little Robin Redbreast
Sat upon a »*ail; 3
Dies took him for

A Bolshevik

And wanted him in jail.

—Mike Quin, American column
ist, in Modern Rhymes in ty
People’s World, San Frand)
co. =a

= zs = a
WO-THIRDS of Poland ¢{
now Socialist, and the Re

Army is 200 miles nearer to 4

all, and pushing hard on th:

shoulder of Nazi Germany. Afig

all, the peasants and workers o

Germany, even Nazi Ge

are potential Socialists, and mii»

tant Socialism is knocking &

their doors. That is, or ought §~
be, something to be grateful fj

If the Soviet method of life hj
good then it is good that the res }

of the world should see more 9

it. Wealth and privilege ms

Sive way before it.
Meanwhile, the Soviet power

so long held at arm’s length, o@

vances her Red Army to the fore

her artists, actors, intellectuais
and collective farmers close he
hind, all imbued with the ou
purpose—the bringinse of a fe!

ter-planned method into the m

dering of life.

es

—SEAN O’CASEY, playaren
and novelist.

Sie ee

secs osttto TREN:

if OUR zeal to protect out

selves from internal aggre: .
sion we must be on guard tha
we ourselves are not guilty of SE
Sression against the civil liber
ties of our own citizens. W
must not fall victim to the im
fection of cespotism that in ree
ent years has been sweeping fi
world. {

“For if we suppress civil liber

ties we suppress democracy itsel
- - - The true American will ¢
member that whether it be pea&
time or war time, there could &
nothing more unpatriotic in thi ;
land of many neoples and mam ~
creeds than the persecution 6}
minorities and the fomenting &
hatred and strife on the basis 0
race or religion.”

—US ATTORNEY-GENERAI ©
~. FRANK MURPHY, address ©
ing the National Conference |
for Civil Liberties in Ne
York. 3

= = =

27 REACEIERS and college pra —
fessors, as a rule, are afrelé
to discuss or take a stand oF ;
really controvessial issues. Man} —
of them are now showing grenl 7
courage in denouncing Saat
and communism P
breath, for
thing to do.
doing it. A

“Tt is a hrave teacher, thoug?
that will dare take a stand in de
fense of the Communists’ righ
to be heard at the present time

“There can be no freedor
without an economic basis for it
As long as society is organizst
on the basis of the exploitatior
of the underlying population
there will be a struggle to ob
tain freedom. Today the strueé
fle is for freedom for those wh =
work but who do not own th: |
tools they work with or t©
homes they live in. The lab.
union and the political party at
the means to power. In thi
academic field the American Fe}
deration of Teachers must tak!
the resposibility for the fight Tol:
freedom.” ;

—CHARLES JZ. HANDLEY
president of the Americal:
Federation of Teachers. %

3

- « iq

in the samt 7
it seems to be tt
Nearly everybody i

667 .HE JAPANESE do not wat)
any more scares such 4)
they got in the final battle on thy
Manchukuan - Outer Mongoalias
border, when ultra-modern FR
sian tanks, equipped with flan
throwers proved . . superior
of mechanical equipment. geet
Red Army proved much more —
the Tokio warlords.” 1:

—A. T. STEELE, Chicago Dail
News correspondent in 4
anese-held Peking.

Sew York World | f

sek ha eo ca (ORION

|| [ers

sia: yaaa | vgsaugabaeaa=\ |

| 2

|

has)
Seal