New York Post


We Lose to Great Britain

The U.S. Is Jockeyed Out of Role of
Mediator Into Antagonism to U.S.S.R


Before the war ended, Great Britain became increasingly apprehensive of Russian expansion. During the war it was British policy to postpone the opening of the second front as long as possible; the Russians say that this was done on the chance that Germany and Russia would bring about their mutual destruction.

Never in her history had Britain permitted a continental power to become strong enough to dominate Europe. She had fought Napoleon when he became the dominant force in Europe; she entered into a coalition against Germany under Wilhelm II in World War I; between two world wars Britain helped Hitler build up a - state capable of checking France, which seemed to be growing into the dominant continental power.

But never has there been an empire that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the British Channel: London is within shooting distance of V-missiles from Stettin. Where World War II finished World War III, if there is one, will begin. The V-weapon was put into action not long before D-Day; better weapons would destroy London within a few hours after the beginning of the next war. This makes the British very concerned over prospects for the future: and almost paralyzes normal life.

When World War II was over, Russia made great efforts to stay on friendly terms with the United States because of genuine admiration for American technical genius and recognition that the opening of the second front was decisive in the outcome of the war. There was even a possibility that if Russia felt secure she would make a step toward real democratization in the western spirit.

But in the summer of 1945, the British watched with great anxiety the demobilization of the American Army and its withdrawal from Europe. America had required years to reach the peak of her military might, and now that this force was being scrapped, the Russian menace became intolerable for Britain.

There were people on the Isles who wished that the prophecy of Hitler would come true; and that before Russia could repair its war-shattered land, the Western Powers with their atom bomb monopoly would reduce Russia to such a state that she would no longer be a threat to Britain and the other countries of Europe.

How did it happen, then, that the United States, which had played the role of arbiter between Britain and Russia in the days of Roosevelt, became the antagonist of Russia with Britain playing the role of mediator? Russia would have preferred to antagonize Britain rather than the United States. Who maneuvered America into the role of the “chestnut-puller”?

Britain has made every effort to drive a wedge between the United States and Russia. Churchill’s Fulton, Mo., speech, in which he actually called for war against Russia, is still fresh in our memory. At the same time, however, British Government voices asserted that Great Britain is too exposed to attack and cannot afford to participate in a war against Russia, and in the event of a conflict she would remain neutral.

Thus, on the one hand; Britain is represented as an ally of the United States in case of war, and on the other hand, she may well remain neutral. She requires help from America in the form of loans in order to be able to continue as a vital force against Russian expansion. Actually, Britain exploits its own fear of Russia by infecting America with the same fear and, on the basis of the engendered fear, borrowing from America, with scant intention of repaying. Russia, feeling the threat, being frightened by atom monopoly of the Anglo-Saxons, arms herself, builds an iron curtain, competes with England and the U. S. in occupying strategic positions, and scares England out of her wits.

In dealing with the United States, Great Britain is one of the two great “Western Powers” opposing totalitarianism; but in its relations with Russia, Great Britain is a socialist comrade opposed to capitalism.

In America, many Senators, editors of large-newspapers and influential men in Washington are Surrounded by, the British fifth column, consisting of social friends, title-bearing visitors and British newspapermen, both male and female, who entertain at luncheons, dinners and cocktail parties, to create a war hysteria here. The United States is thus maneuvered into the position of the principal antagonist of Russia, while Britain retreats into the role of and arbiter or pacifier of America and Russia.

* * *

The fact that Russia has a political and economic system very different from that of the United States need not become a cause of armed conflict, though great effort is being made to convince us that such an outcome is “inevitable.”

The Russian regime under the czars was surely very different from ours, but America and Russia were never at war: in fact, they are the only two great powers that never made war against each other. Russia is also the only great foreign market that could absorb American production if there should be a depression in the domestic market. Then why war with Russia. The most interested parties are Great Britain and four American oil companies.

If Russian is defeated, another two or three hundred million people would become the liability of the American taxpayers, for such a victory would be achieved only after Russia had been reduced to a shambles. And Western Europe would be dependent upon America’s feeding hand beyond this generation.

Nor will any civilian in the United States be safe from the modern means of wholesale destruction. War will destroy victor and vanquished. But history teaches that if weapons are produced, they are used, and if war is talked into the people, one day it becomes a reality. British fear of Russia is the principal motive for war.

Instead of fulfilling her historic role as the leader in co-operation among nations, Great Britain, driven by fear, pursues the path of short-sighted politics by stirring up antagonisms and animosities, a course which was brought into the open by Churchill at Fulton, and carried a step further in his latest speech in Parliament, in which he asked for a showdown with Russia.

* * *

Although Leader of the opposition, Churchill actually speaks for the Government, for in this case Bevin would not dare to express in his official capacity what Churchill is free to say. Thus Britain actually plays the role of the mediator.

Meanwhile, Russia, feeling segregated and menaced, grows into an aggressor, aggression substituting for defence.

* * *

If America, by reason of its oil interests, sees in necessity for making war with Russia, then it is making its own policy. But when the public is whipped into war-hysteria against Russia as a pawn in Great Britain’s wishful ream of dividing to conquer—it is time for sane men to call a halt.