tlt 1/1 TT ATT TTT TTT

Speech on China.”

A LEAFLET published by a group
of LPP lumberworkers in the
Nternational Woodworkers of
Merica entitled “For Leadership

Ith a Militant Policy” evidently
‘Ouched a sore spot. This is shown
Y the attention devoted to it by the
aily press and the statements_made
Y IWA leaders demanding, among
other things, that the LPP “keep its
" N0se out” of IWA affairs.

This LPP leaflet was objectively
“itical of recent wage negotiations
Tom which the IWA, as British
Slumbia’s most basic and numeri-
fa Y strongest union, emerged
“ithout any gains. Although it had
a soundest case for a wage in-
ha the IWA district leadership
“ommended acceptance of the
~°an formula for no wage increase.

What did the LPP leaflet say to
a caused so much perturbation
B the; WA top circles? And why, in

a4 Sweeping condemnation of this

‘ et do certain IWA leaders find

« N€cescary to make such lengthy
' *planations” as to why the IWA

tno wage increase this year?
The leaflet covered four main
ts, none of which could honestly

Biya pitted as “interference” in

Internal affairs.
le first point argued that with
militant wage policy, justified
— increases in the lumber indus-
Could have been won, as they

>

Pacific Tribune

Phone MUtual °5-5288
2 Editor — TOM McEWEN
aging Editor — HAL GRIFFIN
Subscription Rates:
One Year: $4.00
Six Months: $2.25
Published weekly at
om 6 — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.
& matadian and Commonwealth
€s (except Australia): $4.00

\

ana year. Australia, United States

4ll other countries: $5.00 one
year.

"You any good at untying knots? Mr.

Dulles has just made another

Hitting a sore spot

have been:won by electricians and
plumbers, and more recently by
longshoremen. These unions faced
up to the same barrage of monopoly
“hold thel ine on wages” propa-
ganda that the boss loggers used
against the IWA. The leaflet
pointed out that even in the U.S.,
where the wage scale in the lumber
industry is already higher than B.C.,

*

IWA members had won an approx-
imate 7 percent wage increase.

The second point urged the tight-
ening up of union organization on
the job, an action that would be
welcomed by all union men intese
ested in preserving and -improving
working conditions in the face of
speedups and unsettled grievances.

The third point reiterated the
need of broad independent labor
political action such as is visualized
in the resolution of the Canadian
Labor Congress. There should be
nothing in that for the IWA leader-
ship to take umbrage at, unless they
want to miscontrue the CLC resolu-
tion in such a way as to tie the labor
and farmer movements to the am-
bitions of right-wing CCE leaders.

The fourth point deals with cur-
rent union elections. Nowhere in the
LPP leaflet is there any suggestion
of “slates” or playing one candidate
against another. All the leaflet says
is that rank-and-file IWA members
“should support only those whose
record and present policies indicate
they will support and give leader-
ship” to the three points outlined.

If the IWA leaders resent the
contents of the LPP leaflet and in-
dulge in a spot of red-baiting to

Comment

emphasize their resentment, what
do they have to say about the Van-
couver Sun’s editorial of August 19
which lauded them to the skies for
having “avoided the economic ster-
ility of voluntary unemployment,”
a polite way of congratulating them
for not insisting on wage increases
. . and not going on strike.

Naturally the Sun, speaking for

all who scheme to “hold-the-line-
on-wages,” hold the IWA up as “an
encouraging example . . . which it
is to be devoutly hoped will catch on
in other segments of industry.”
When this neat bit of union-
busting rhétoric was being spread
around there were no indignant
statements by IWA leaders. Then
why their pique now when a few
LPP lumberworkers suggest means
of strengthening the union in order
to win more money for the pay en-
velopes of IWA members? What
the LPP lumberworkers suggested
would be a genuine “encouraging
example,” beneficial to the IWA

and all other unions in their strug- “

gle against the organized attacks of
big business.

That’s what the LPP leaflet said,
and a lot of union men have urged
that the LPP keep on saying it.

Tom
McEwen.

trip to Munich.

bring you peace with honor.”

to Hitler’s Germany.

AST MONDAY was the 20th
L anniversary of a very costly
agreement. On September 29,
1938, Britain’s Tory prime mini-
ster Neville Chamberlain arrived
back in London from his third

On that fateful day the um-
brella-toting imperialist huckster
stepped from his plane, waved a
“scrap of paper,’ the infamous
Munich Agreement to his cheer-
ing colleagues and _ declaimed,
“This means peace in our time. I

The down payment for this
“peace in our time” sellout was
the shameless betrayal of Czecho-
slovakia, a democracy which both
Britain and France had pledged
to defend against Nazi aggression,

Just before Hitler put his sig-
nature to this infamous agree-
ment he told his three imperial-
ist accomplices, Chamberlain of
Britain, Edouard Deladier of
France, Benito Mussolini of Italy,
that “this is the last territorial
claim I have to make in Europe.”

Chamberlain’s “peace in ‘our
time” lasted exactly eleven
months. Then Hitler’s Wehrmacht

marched into Poland, a first step
towards claiming all of Europe
and the world.

Munich became the symbol of
shame of all decent mankind; the
ceaseless hope of the imperialist
war conspirators that sometime,
somehow, Hitler could be en-
couraged to march against the
Soviet Union, as they had plan-
ned and aided his “destiny!”

If 24 years earlier Kaiser Bill
had referred to such Anglo-Ger-
man agreements as “scraps of
paper,” the new Munich added
something new; the art of Judas
elevated to.the status of a for-
eign policy, with small nations
like Czechoslovakia as sacrificial
offerings to the Nazi wolves, in
order to save the skins of the
Judas tribe.

It is” very necessary at this
grave moment in world history
to remember Munich, since the
warmakers of the U.S. and their
dollar-bribed “allies” now | use
this dastardly betrayal—in which
they too played a leading role—to
cover up their aggression against
the Republic of China.

During his radio and TV
speech to the world on U.S. policy
on the Taiwan (Formosa) crisis,
President Eisenhower repeatedly
referred to Munich and its “ap-
peasement” of Hitler fascism, and
attempted to draw a parallel of
the dangers inherent in “appeas-
ing Communist China,” should
the U.S. and its gangster stooge
Chiang Kai-shek be compelled
by world opinion to get out of

China’s teritory and waters.

Eisenhower’s distortion of
Munich bears no resemblance to
historical fact; Munich was an
imperialist betrayal of a dem-
ocrracy to a ruthless fascist dic-
tatorship, whereas China’s right-
ful claim to territory now held by
force of U.S. arms, is validated
historically, ethically, geographic-
ally and not the least by the
weight of world opinion, mor-
ally.

Munich was a conspiracy by
four imperialist gangsters, only
one of whom now lives to see the
evil results of his policies, resting
like a rotting wreath upon the
prostrate body of his own Fourth
Republic out of which a de
Gaulle dictatorship arises.

The Munich of today, as sung
by Eisenhower, Dulles and com-
pany, is a naked atomic aggres-
sion, ruthless, insane, and for the
whole world, disastrous. This Eis-
enhower “Munich” expresses a
new betrayal, not of a single na-
tion as in 1938, but of all hu-
manity; a betrayal leading to the
atomic abyss of Dulles’ ‘‘brink-
manship.”

Chamberlain’s Munich of 1938
was costly. Eisenhower’s Munich
of 1958 strikes humanity with
horror when it tries to calculate
the cost.

China in her rightful place
in the UN and the U.S. out of
Formosa isn’t appeasement of an
aggressor. Rather, it removes a
base of aggression in Formosa and
strengthens world peace.

October 3, 1958 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE 5