Pravda ‘asks:

ae

~ Wry is it then that we have

4. Considered it necessary to

build up our strength and to de-
Vote so much of our national re-
Sources to rearmament. when we
Would rather devote them to im-

‘Proving the standard of living of
“all of us?

To be frank with you, it is
_, “4use of the. policy which has
es, ‘been Pursued by the Soviet gov-
-*fnment since the end of the war.
rae the end of the war, we had
hoped that the wartime coopera-
7€n between the great powers
fond’ continua and . becomé
“Strengthened in peace. We ex-
ae Pected and strove for cooperation

with you in the United Nations.

But alas our hopes were dis-
appointed. They were changed to
doubts by your government’s re-
fusal to cooperate in Germany
and in the economic rehabilita-
tion of Europe. These doubts
were confirmed as we watched
the imposition of Communist re-
gimes in Eastern Europe and the
establishment of the Cominform.

For if, as your leaders tell us, —

Communist and non-Communist
states can live together in the
world, why is it necessary for
your government to pursue a
policy and to found organizations
whose only purpose seems to be
to stir up trouble and interna-

MR. Morrison asserts that the
—* Labor government is for
Sttengthening peace, that it does
__ Rot in any way threaten the Soviet
_ Vnion, that the North Atlantic
Pact is not an aggressive pact, but
4 defensive one, and that if Bri-
tain has taken the road of an arms
Te, this is because she has been
—“empelled to do so, inasmuch -as
s Soviet Union did not demob-
llize its Army sufficiently after
the second World War.

S ie bere is not a grain of truth
‘Rall these assertions of Mr.
nee -rrison’s:

lt the Labor government is
Teally for the preservation of
Peace, Why does it reject a five-
_ Power peace pact, why does it
_ / ®PPose a reduction of the arma-
Ments of all the great powers,
Why does it oppose the prohibi-
tion of the atomic weapon, why
Goes it pérsecute those who
‘Shampion the cause of preserva-
Hon Of peace, why does it not ban
War propaganda in Britain?

Mr. Morrison wants his word
to be taken for granted. But
““®viet people cannot take any-
%ne’s words for granted, they

‘emand deeds and not declara-
tons. * | i

Tison’s assertions that the USSR
‘id not demobilize its army suffi-
Clently after the second World
“Yar. The Soviet government has_
Already stated officially that it
ei demobolizea 32 age groups, that.
army is at present approxi-
Mately the size it was in peace
time before the’ second World

American armies on the contrary
te double the size they were be-
fore the second World War.
_ Nevertheless, unsubstantiated as-
_ Sertions are continually advanced
against these irrefutable facts.

Perhaps Mr. Morrison would
like the USSR not to have an
army sufficient for defense? An_

rT

Equally unsound are Mr. Mot- ©

War and that the British and

Morrison on foreign policies

tional hatred?

We saw that, while we had de-
mobilized and disarmed, your gov-
ernment had retained vast armed
forces and military establishments
in being. Gradually we came to
realize that the lack of balance
in military power between the
Soviet Union and ‘the Western
powers was endangering our very
existence, and that the lack of
balance must be redressed. We
did not want to turn over our
resources to a new defense pro-
gram, we wanted to carry on with
our economic recovery. But we
concluded that we must be strong
enough to make clear that aggres-
sion, from whatever quarter it

Pravda on foreign policies

army is in general a great burden “Communists came to power in the

for the national budget, and the
Soviet people would willingly go
to the length of doing away with
a regular army were it not for
the danger from without. But
the experience -of 1918-20, when
the British, the Americans and
the French (together with the
Japanese) attacked the Soviet
Union, attempted to sever the
Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central
Asia, the Far East and the Arch-
angel region from the USSR and
tormented our country for three
years—this experience teaches us
that the USSR must have a cer-
tain’ minimum regular army
necessary to defend its indepen-
dence from imperialist invaders.
There is no instance in history of
the Russians attacking the terri-
tory*of Britain, but history has
witnessed g whole series of in-
‘stances of the British attacking
the territory of the Russians and
seizing it.

Mr. Morrison asserts that the
Russians declined to cooperate
with the British in the German
question, in the question of Euro-
pean recovery. This is quite un-
true. Mr. Morrison can hardly
believe this statement himself. In
reality, it is. known that it was

not the Russians, but the British —

and Americans who refused to
cooperate, since they knew that
the Russians would not agree to
restoring fascism in Germany, to
converting Western Germany in-
to a base for aggression.

As for cooperating in the mat-
ter of European economic recov-
ery, far from rejecting such a
“cooperation, the USSR on the
.contrary, was the one to propose

servance of the sovereignty of
the European countries without
any dictation from abroad, with-
out any dictation from the United
States of America, without the
enslavement of the countries of
Europe by the United States of
_ America. Be

Equally groundless are Mr.
Morrison’s assertions that the

it on a basis of equality and ob-

people’s democratic coutries by
violence, that the Cominform en-
gages in the propaganda of vio-
lence. Only those who have get
themselves the aim of slander-
ing the Communists can permit
themselves to make such allega-
tions.

Actually, as is known, the Com-
munists came to power in the
people’s democratic countries as

‘a result of general elections. Of

course, the peoples of those coun-
tries threw out the exploiters and
all kinds of agents of foreign
secret services. But again, such

_ has been the will of the people—

the voice of the people is the

voice of God.

As for the Cominform, only
people who have lost all sense of
proportion can assert that it en-
gages in the propaganda of vio-
lence. Cominform literature has
been published and is being pub-
lished. It is known to everyone.
It completely refutes the slander-
ous fabrications about the Com-
munists. ‘ ;

In géneral it must be said that
the method of violence and acts
of violence is not the method of
the Communists. Quite the re-
verse: History proves that it is
the enemies of communism and
all kinds of agents of foreign
secret services that practice the
method of violence and acts of
violence.

One need not go far afield for

examples. Quite recently, the Pre-

mier of Iran, the Premier of Leb-
anon and the King of Jordan
were assassinated within a short
space of time. All these assas-

sinations were perpetrated with —

the aim of forcibly altering the

regime of these countries. Who.

assassinated them? Was it, per-

‘haps, the Communists, the sup-

porters of the Cominform? Sure-
ly it is ridiculous even to ask

such a question. Perhaps Mr.

Morrison, being better informed,
could help us to clear up this

‘matter.

Mr. Morrison asserts the North
Atlantic pact is a defense pact,
that it has no aggressive aims,
that, on the contrary, it is di-
rected against aggression.

If this is true, why did the in-
itiators of the pact not invite the

_ Then why reject 5-power pact?

might come, could not succeed
against us if we were to fulfill

our purpose of avoiding war. For
that is our main purpose — to
avoid war, to preserve peace. It
is the purpose of all our foreign
policy. and of all our diplomacy.

Peoples everywhere are today
afraid of war. We should like
to see the causes of this fear re-
moved and all grounds for sus-
picion and distrust between na-
tions eliminated. On behalf of
the British government I can as-
sure you there is no reason to
have any fear of our policy to-

ward the people of the Soviet -

Union.

I hope what I have written so
frankly will help to bring about
a better understanding between
our peoples and that, now Pravdg
has opened its columns to me, I
shall have further opportunities
of putting the British points of
view before the Russian people
and of answering any observa-

tions which Pravda may wish to
make. 3

,

I send you the friendly greet-
ings of my fellow-countrymen and
our sincere wish for the genuine
cooperation of your country in

advancing the peace and progress
of the world.

Soviet Union to take part in it?
Why did they fence themselves
off from the Soviet. Union? Why
did they conclude it behind the
USSR’s back and in secrecy from
it? Has the USSR not proved
that it can and is willing to com-
bat aggression, such as Hitlerite
or Japanese aggression? Surely
the USSR did not fight against
aggression any worse than, say,
Norway, which is a party to the
pact. How then are we to ex-
plain this surprising incongruity,
to say the least?

Ifthe. North. Atlantic. pact is

ae defense pact, why did the Brit-

ish and Americans not “agree to
the Soviet government’s proposal
to have the nature of this pact
discussed in the Foreign- Minis-
ters’ Council? As is known, the
Soviet government offered to:

have all the pacts it has conclud-

‘ed with other countries discuss-
ed in the Foreign Ministers’

Council. Why are the British and
Americans afraid to tell the truth
about this pact and why did they
refuse to have the North Atlantic
pact discussed? Was it not be-
cause the North —.

Atlantic pact
contains provi-
sions about ag~
gression against #
the USSR, and
the sponsors of
the pact are
compelled to
conceal this
from the public?
Was it not for.
that reason that
the ‘Labor gov- |
ernment  con- #,

ain’s conversion
into a military
air base of the
(United States of
America for at-
tacking the So-
viet Union?

That is why F
the. Soviet peo-
ple regard the
North Atlantic
pact as an ag-
gressive pact di-
rected against
the USSR.

This is borne
out most strik-

ext of

PUTT TT Ti Tr

é

i

In Britain

ingly by the aggressive actions
of the Anglo-American ruling
circles in Korea. For over a

year now the Anglo-American:

forces have been tormenting the
freedom-loving and peaceful peo-
ple of Korea, destroying Korean
villages and towns, murdering
women, children'and old folks.
can these sanguinary actions of
the Anglo-American forces be
called defense? Who will claim
that the British troops in Korea
are defending Britain from the
Korean people? Would jt not be
more honest to call these actions
military aggression?

Let Mr. Morrison point to a
single Soviet soldier who has dis-
charged his gun at any peaceful
people. There is no such soldier!
Then let Mr. Morrison explain
properly why British soldiers are
killing peaceful citizens in Korea?
Or, why, for that matter, British

soldiers are dying on foreign soil.
far from their native country?

That is why the Soviet people
regard present-day Anglo-Ameri-
can politicians as instigators of
a new world war.

3 ;

‘Belt tightening is the order of the day in Britain.

high— and so are profits. This is the result of the
Labor government’s rearmament policy.

Morrison-Pravda exchange 3222228222

‘
PACIFIC TRIBUNE — AUGUST 17, 1951 — PAGE 5

\