a wonder how many CCF

members feel happy about

the recent national convention . . .
There is reason to believe thal
certain decisions taleen at the con-
vention did not adequately reflect
the opinions of the delegates. A
case in point was the crucial de-
hate on Korea . . . To those who
are concerned about keeping, the
party genuinely democratic an
genuinely socialist, some of the
trends apparent at Vancouver
were disturbing. 2 --. =~ =>
—Canadian Forum,

September, 1950.

This admission in the semi-offi-
cial CCF journal is 4 mild refiec-
tion of the real feelings in CCF
ranks. M. J. Coldwell, CCF na-
tional leader, being condemned by
CCF workers. He resorted to the
trick of making 2 national state-
ment of CCF policy on Korea the
night before the CCF convention
to force the hand of the

in order : : :
delegates. This is being widely
discussed. So strong is the re-

sentment that the Canadian For-
um .felt compelled to print a
“giscussion article” by Ss. W. Brad-
ford denouncing the foreign poli-
cies of the CCF.

The crux of the fight is the poli-
cy of the CCF right wing to drag
the party behind imperialist ag-
gression. The right wing leaders
headed by Coldwell, try to pre-
tend ignorance about what is ag-
gression. They hide behind the
ecolossai hoax of U.S. war propa
ganda that the charged aggres-
sion applies to the internal con-
flict in Korea. They make a great
point (as does Dorothy Thomp-
son) that it is not communism
they are fighting in Korea. They
pretend to support the war aay
because an act of “aggression
was committed. They pretend not
to know that an act of aggression
is an attack of one state upon
another; not a conflict between

classes within a state.
t

We must not ‘fall for the petty
lawyer’s trick of the CoOL in: ry:
ing to keep the argument on the
question: Who fired the first/shot,
North Korea or South Korea? The
evidence that South Korea in-
vaded North Korea on June 25 is
mountain high, including the
sworn statements of members of
the South Korean government and
the whole record of the openly
planned and declared intentions
and preparations of South Korea
to attack.

>

But every socialist-minded CCF-
er knows that a mountain of facts
will not stop an imperialist ruling
class from spreading its lies.

Of course the propaganda ma-
chine of U.S. imperialism has “es-
tablished” as a “fact” that “North
Korea attacked South Korea.” The
right wing CCF leaders cling to
that as a drowning man clings to
a straw. But this falsification
does not prove what they are des-
perately trying to “prove” to jus-
tify their utter betrayal of every
vestige of socialist principle.

In the 1860’s Napoleon III sent
troops to Mexico to intervene in
the civil war. The U.S. protested
and declared that this was armed
intervention in the internal af-
fairs of Mexico, demanding the
withdrawal of French troops im-
mediately.

In the American civil war Eng-
land planned to intervene on the
side of the slave-owning South.
The North under Lincoln, which
had been attacked by the South,
invaded the Southern states, de-
feated the Southern armies and
re-united the country. No ‘idiot
would dare to apply the word ag-
gression to the American civil
war. But if the British govern-
ment had carried out its inten-
tion to intervene there is no doubt
that under international law that
would have been an act of aggres-
sion.

The CCE right wing hypocriti-
cally talk about “upholding inter-
national law” as the only guaran-
tee of peace. What is the estab-
lished printiple of international
law? There is not to be found
anywhere in internationai law or
practice any justification whatever
for attempting to apply the charge
of “aggression” to internal con-
flicts within one and the same
state. But there is absolute clar-
ity that intervention of one state
in the internal affairs of another
is agression. The Geneva Protocol
of 1924, established the principle.
In 1933 Soviet-proposed agree-
ments were signed in the League
of Nations defining aggression as

>

4

By STEWART SMITH

any one ofja whole series of desig-
nated warlike acts of one state
against another state.

In 1986 the protecol on non-in-
tervention in the internal or ex-
ternal affairs of other nations,
signed at Buenos Aires, contained
the same principle.

Finally the United Nations

Charter itself in its prohibition df ©

aggression makes clear that it hes
lates to thei “threat or use of
force’ by one state “against the
territorial integrity or political
independence” of any other state.
And it clearly excludes internal
conflicts. met is

Article 2, clause 7, reads: “No-
thing contained in the present
charter shall authorize the Uni-

“

ted Nations to intervene in mat-
ters which are essentially with-
in the domestic jurisdiction of
any state or shall require the
members to submit such mat-
ters to settlement under the pre-
sent Charter.” ;

This is a matter of fundamental
democratic and socialist convic-
tion for every CCF member and
worker, 3

No socialist will permit reaction
to equate the class struggles with
the crime ,of war. No socialist
will agree for a moment that the
class struggle within a state can
justify foreign armed intervention.
which is always against democra-
ey and socialism.

Everyone knows that reaction-
ary rulers *through history have
turned traitor to their nations and
called for foreign intervention
whenever subject classes threat-
ened their rule. The Stuart kings
of England tried to organize for-
eign intervention to crush the
Cromwellian revolution. The Am- _
erican slave owners appealed for
foreign-‘intervention against the —
North. The French ruling class
let in the Germans to crush the’
Paris Commune in 1871. The
Tsarist ruling class and generals
helped the foreign intervention of
French, British, U.S. and Cana-
dian troops against the Russian
revolution. °

In every Case interventionists
were guilty of aggression. If the.
CCF right wing now want to write
history differently and make the
revolutionary peoples guilty of ag-
gression and the foreign interven-
tionists merely innocent police-
men, they will fool no one.
©:

Fascist aggression used the meé-

(Continued on page 12)

é

An interview
with LEN ROBIN

LONDON

ROUND FACED man
climbed on to the platform
at a recent peace conference
in London and described him-
self to the delegates as a “no-
torious warmonger.”

“T am perhaps better known
as the man who fought with
the partisans in Italy than for
my activities with the parti-
sans of peace,” he said.

- The man was Lieut—Col.
Vladimir Peniakoff, D.S.O.,
M.C. — known to all as “Pop-
ski.” :

.. Popski became ‘a legend
throughout the armies in the
Middle East. With a small
company of men and aided by

local Arabs he blew up petrol |
dumps and harried the Ger-

mans and Italians behind their
own lines, —

And later with his Private
Army, which was officially born
in November, 1942, he kept

down large numbers of troops .

in the desert and Italy.

But recently Popski, a man
who thought fighting a highly
skilled game and a man who
enjoyed war, signed the World
peace petition. And in an in-
terview he told me why.

eS :
“Although I enjoyed fighting

-wars in the rather old-fashion-

ed way,” he said, “I am very
conscious that war is a sordid
business, ;

“In special circumstances
you could manage to get some-
thing out of it, and it brought
out many qualities in our men
which were desirable. Many
good qualities.” He was refer-

‘ring to the good comradeship

and spirit that existed among
his men.

“But an atomic war would
have none of these compensat-

ing advantages. It would only
be destructive, and no desirable
human qualities could derive
from such a war.”

Talking to this quiet, well-
built, middle-aged man, whose
left hand was shot away and
whose face is tanned from his
years in the desert, it was hard
to believe that he was the man
who by cunning set German

tank fighting German tank and |

then disappeared laughing.

One evening he walked about
Derna, Cyrenaica, for two
hours before dark in his khaki
shirt and slacks while the Ger-
mans thought he was an Ita-
lian and the Italians took him
for a German. All this time
he was surveying two prison
camps where British and other
prisoners were kept.

Later he sent in escape in-
structions with local Arabs
who were allowed to sell fruit
and eggs to the prisoners. Over
50 men escaped. With the aid
of the Long Range Desert
Group, who ran a “taxi service”
and with whom he worked, he
got them back to the British
lines,

‘One of Popski’s most satis-

factory operations in Italy was
when he posed as an Italian
quartermaster sergeant and
rang up a German Major
Schulz to offer him eight cases
of cognac. Popski and _ his
driver visited Major Schulz la-
ter that night, the way oblig-
ingly cleared through German
guards by the major. ‘
They knocked him out with
a rubber truncheon and found
on his desk the ration strength
of units of the First Parachute
Division. Two hours later over

the wireless to the First British ©

Airborne Division went a mes-
sage giving the strength of
German troops outside Taran-
to. .

Popski told me that he and
his men went behind the lines
in heavily-armed jeeps in Italy

up to a maximum of about 50
miles, )

Many people think that Pop-

Popski signs the peace petition |

fields.
“The sudden impact of this

ski is Polish. He is not. He
was born in Belgium of Rus-
sian parents.

How did he get christened
Popski? The name Peniakoff
was too difficult for staff offi-
cers to understand on the tele-
phone. His force received its
name when a colonel said jok-
ingly: “Let’s call it Popski’s
Private Army!”

Popski was _ very pleased
when I told him that about 15
million Italian people had al-
ready signed the appeal for the
banning of the atom bomb and
the branding of the first coun-
try to use it as a: war criminal.

e

For he is much at home in
Italy and goes there from time
to time to see ‘his partisan
friends with whom he fought.

“{ think very highly indeed
of the Italian partisans,” he
told me. This can also be seen
from his book Private Army,
in which he writes:

“After the Italian Armistice,
the Romangnoli trained to ad-
minister their own affairs in
the , cooperatives, and helped
by the sound organization and
the strong discipline of the
Communist party, soon ran the
most efficient partisan forma-
tion in Italy.

“Considering them with a
professional eye, I soon per-
ceived that they were good sol-
diers and of a quality quite
new to me in my experience of -
partisans.” 3

In Italy Popski called on a
large landowner to try to get
help for the thousands of re-
fugees who were on the roads.

“The compassionate peasants
fed them as they could, but
poor themselves, they had al- |
ready been eaten out; in every
tumbledown farm hosts and
guests starved together and
such was the press that many

misery shook us as the bloodi-
ness of battle had never done, ©
and we soon found ourselves.
out of rations,’ he wrote. ‘

Popski could not get any help
from the Italian landowner,
whose urgent problem was sel-
ling his olive oil crop.

“I gave up,” wrote Popski.
“After the war,'I thought, the
miserable people of this land
will settle their accounts with
their) masters. Let us go now
and beat the Germans.”

I think that Popski is dis-
appointed that the Italian peo-
ple haven’t yet settled their
accounts fully with their “mas-
bers.) ie

“The misery’ in Italy, which
results not only from the war
but from social conditions, is
more acute than ever,” he told
me. ‘

“There are two to three mil-
lion permanently unemployed
and large numbers of people
partially employed. ;

“Conditions are extremely

difficult, especially among the

peasants, |
“Italians feel very strongly
about war because they have

suffered more than many peo-.

ple; they lost the war, they
were made to fight in a war

'in which they did not believe,

and their country is very much
devastated.
“Most of the partisans would

of course, be in the lead
against the atom bomb,” he
emphasized. xy

When Popski returned from
the wars a hero he was front-

-page news in the capitalist

press. But when he spoke at
the peace conference he re-

ceived only the barest mention

in One or two papers,

Popski is a man who has
seen war.
millions throughout the world
who have signed the peace pe-
tition, he doesnt want an atom

war.

\

te

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — OCTOBER 13, 1950 — PAGE £

‘ "
4

And like the many~ __