. <Urviving

J. R. CAMPBELL” WRITES FROM LONDON

“Why I am opposin

Winston Churchill

In this election’

Nn this dispatch, J. R. Campbell, editor of the London Daily orker, tells us why he is standing as a Communist candidate against Winston Churchill in the Tory leader’s Woodford constituency in the

British general election on October 25.

LONDON

It is an honor to oppose Winston Churchill in

this election.

Welfare of the British people.

He is the enemy of the peace and the

The Tories will at-

tempt to portray him as a truly epic figure—the man Who was Britain’s. indomitable leader in the war

against fascism.

They forget that anything pro-

gressive that Churchill may have done in the Second World War he

Is trying to undo now.

Churchill depicted in unforgettable prose the German army trampl- ing down the liberties of Europe. Now he is working for the rebuilding of that same German army under its own officers.

True, the German army will be formally part of a European army. In point of fact the loyalty of the officers and men of this army will be to the West German government and not to any European

High Command.

eir aim will be a war of revenge—a war to recover from Poland, Czechoslovakia and France territory which they insist on re-

Sarding as German.

During the war Churchill roused the British people to make a Colossal effort to defeat German militarism.

Now he expects them to remain complacent while German militar- *sm is rebuilt once again. _

© argue that the rearming of the ex-enemies is only for defence 1s humbug. -

In the Tory election program of 1950 there occurs the following Statement: “We are not prepared © regard those ancient states and Nations which have fallen beneath

© Soviet yoke as lost for ever.”

“Soviet yoke” is, of course, a Tory synonym for the victory of

Cialism in Eastern Europe, in ©Ountries which before the Second

Orld| War were mainly fascist and feudal.

Thinly veiled in this sentence, therefore, is the expressed in-

tion of the Tories to destroy © Socialist regimes of Eastern

Urope by aggressive war.

Churchill is no fool. He knows that i this expressed aim were Fealized—and it could only be re- alizeq by a long, desperate and qoody Wwar—it would have as a . Sequence the revival of German

Perialism and its domination’ of

estern Europe. q Although this would constitute deadly betrayal of the interests e the British people, Churchill He Prepared to see it come about fener than allow the Socialist Sap mes in Eastern Europe to be

Nsolidated, ; is useless for the Tories to Cc Se in panegyrics describing

Urchill’s valiant stand against

‘rman militarism in 1940. What ar British people are concerned of ../8 his unpatriotic advocacy

its restoration in 1950 and 1951. 1s equally necessary to ex- = Churchill as an atom-bomb

rshipper and as America’s Slave, fan tting the war he declared in a Confas Speech after the Quebec

«rence in 1943: amo, SCvernment ever formed

°ng men has been capable of ‘0 injuries so grave and

> tUel as those inflicted by Hit- Upon Russia.” Pergiqy2t0™ 1946 onwards he has Viet Stently declared that the So- Oren. 2ton has been deterred from Stay eins Western Europe and ry tee a third world war, not heay,> love for peace, nor by its for. War losses,’ nor by the mighty Constr ich was necessary to re- byt TUCt the devastated country, of and the American possession € atom bomb. hors, 2tem bomb—essentially a Civiyj, ve@Pon for use against Chung hoPulations—is regarded by e ill as a guarantee of peace. ish” has Outdone any other Brit- Slitician in his subservience

to the United States.

The Americans are desperately anxious to reduce trade between Britain and Eastern Europe.

Loudly professing peace, they are out to institute a virtual block- ade of the Soviet Union.

They ¢o not mind how much they injure Britain provided they can inflict some injury on the Soviet Union as well.

The Labor government has made some feeble efforts to resist this impudent attempt to dictate to the British government and em- ployers as to how they should con- duct trade. .

Not so Churchill. A few months ago he was out-shouting the Am- ericans in his anxiety to restrict British trade with Russia.

He worked up a mean, disgrace- ful demagogic stunt, suggesting that the visits of Soviet inspectors to the engineering firm of Craven Brothers Ltd., in order to examine machinery being constructed on

Soviet account, was a danger to

Britain’s national security.

The election of this man to the premiership of Great Britain would mean a dangerous strengthening of the war forces in America.

The British people must fight for a policy and a government which would restrain those dan-

erous braggarts. con Tory Se crninehe with Chur- chill at the head, would be their willing tools. :

Churchill must also be rejected because he represents that class and that party which always in British history has put private profit before the national interest

and the welfare of a majority of

British people.

Seni eee with Churchill leading, is proposing an election program which surpasses in sheer unscrupulous demagogy anything

concocted by Dr. Goebbels’ cele- brated team of super-liars.

It is a program which treats the British people as an assembly of litical idiots. : ai For what the Tory party is

S| esting is this: : vThey ‘will develop the greatest arms program in peacetime Brit- ish history—a program which ae ready . (together with the war debt) takes 9s 6d in every 20 shillings raised in taxation md which will take 12 in every 2 shillings at its height. _Yet ue Tories tell the extraordinary ie that it is possible to have this gigantic arms program and re- duce taxation at the same aa They support and will eae y increase the arms program W fe; means the diversion of labor an

Symbolic of Britain’s new “cap- tive” role in relation to the U.S. drive for world domination are these children under the shadow of the guns—of which they may be the victims unless the British working people succeed in free- ing their country from U.S. dic- tates. “Austerity” is the price the British people are being forced to pay in lowered living standards for a ruinous arma- ments policy.

materials from civilian production to war production.

Yet, they promise the people that the controls on civilian goods can, in the midst of this shortage, be relaxed and that prices will fall.

They tell the employers that they will get big increases in profits. They tell the workers that they will get increases in wages (it may be asked why the Tory employers don’t concede them now).

And yet they tell the housewife that prices will actually fall.

All these things are possible, say the Tories, provided the workers increase production.

What on earth do they think the workers have been doing since 1946? We have increased production by 34 percent per head over the level of 1946.

Our wage ratés, however, have not kept pace with increased prices. Increasing profits and the arms drive have robbed us of the fruits of our labors.

@ Churchill is for reviving German and Japanese militarism.

@ He is for aggression against the Soviet Union and Eastern

Eurove.

@ He is for increased subser- vience to the United States.

@ He is for releasing big busi- ness from the restraint—however inadequate—of the controls.

This stamps him as an enemy of the British people whom it will be a delight t® oppose.

’ Pravda.

_ United States.

Stalin repeats his proposal to ban atom bomb

Following js the text of Premier J. V. Stalin’s replies to questions +

on the atom bomb submitted by ‘a correspondent of the Soviet newspaper,

on October 6.

Q. What is your opinion of hubbub raised recently in the foreign press in connection with the test of an atom bomb in the Soviet Union? g A. Indeed, one of the types of

atom bombs was recently tested in our country. The tests of atom bombs of different calibres will be conducted in the future as well in accordance with plans for defense of our country from attack by the Anglo-American aggressive bloc.

Q. In connection with the test of an atom bomb various person- ages in the United States are raising alarm and shouting about a threat to the security of the Is there any ground for such alarm?

A. There are no grounds what- ever for such alarm.

Personages in the United States cannot ‘but know that the Soviet Union is not only opposed to the use of the atomic weapon, but that it also stands for its prohibition, for termination of its production. It is known that the Soviet Union has several times demanded pro- hibition of the atomic weapon but each time it has been refused by the Atlantic bloc powers. This means that in the event of an at- tack by the !United States on our country the ruling circles of the United States will use the atom bomb. It-is this circumstance that has compelled the Soviet Union to have the atomic weapon in order to meet aggressors fully prepared.

Of course aggressors want the

Soviet Union to be unarmed in |

the event of their attack upon it. The Soviet Union however, does not agree to this and it thinks that it should be full prepared to nieet any aggressor.

Consequently, if the United States has no intention of attack- ing the Soviet Union the alarm of personages in the United States should be considered as pointless and false, because the Soviet Union does not contemplate ever attacking the United States or any other country.

Personages in the United States are vexed because the secret of the atom bomb is possessed not only by the United States but also by other countries, the Soviet Un- ion primarily. They would like the United States to be the monopolist of production of the atom bomb, they would like the United States to have unlimited power to intimi- date and blackmail other coun- tries. But on what grounds do they think so, by what right? Do the interests of preserving peace require such a monopoly? Would it not be more correct to say that the matters are directly the Op- posite, that it is the interests of preserving peace that require first of all the liquidation of such a monopoly and then unconditional} prohibition of the atomic’ weapon

The questions and the replies were published by Pravda

PREMIER J. V. STALIN

too. I think that proponents of the atom bomb may agree to pro- hibition of the atomic weapon only if they see that they are no longer monopolists.

Q. What is your opinion re- garding international control along the line of atomic weap- ons? \

A. The Soviet Union stands for prohibiting the atomic weapon and for terminating the production of the atomic weapon. The Soviet Union stands for establishment of international control over fully -ex- act and conscientious implementa- tion of the decision to prohibit the atomic weapon, to terminate pro- duction of the atomic weapon and utilize already produced atom bombs solely for civilian purposes. The Soviet Union stands for pre- cisely this kind of international control.

American personages also speak of “control,” but their “control” presupposes not. termination of production of thé atomic weapon, but continuation of such produc- tion in quantities conforming to amounts of raw material at the disposal of. different countries. Consequently, American “control” presupposes not prohibiting the atomic weapon but making it legal and lawful. Thereby the right of warmongers to annihilate with the help of the atomic weapon tens and hundreds of thousands of peaceful inhabitants is made lawful. It is not difficult to understand that this is not control but moc ery of con- trol, a deception of the peaceful aspirations of peoples. It is clear that such “control” cannot satisfy the peace-loving peoples who de- mand prohibition of the atomic ‘weapon and termination of its production. ;

HURRY-UP ARMORED CAR ORDER

staff.

breakable glass windows.

death of thousands of British

Franco's so secure

Four bullet-proof cars costing $30,000 each are being made by

the London ‘firm H. J. Mulliner’s for General Franco and his

Design of the car is similar te a Rolls Royce, but it will have special armor steel plates and two-inch thick, bullet-proof, un-

Construction of the cars began about six months ago. Now Franco’s representative is pressing for speedy delivery of at least one car, presumably for Franco’s own use

But the workers in the factory where the car is being made don't like the job they are doing.

“Franco is the man whose policy paved the way for the lads who fought fascism,” they say. “Why should this country be so anxious to protect his life?”

LONDON

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — OCTOBER 19, 1951 — PAGE 3

SRR IN SF

Pome screen