SIR,—On July 20, 1945, you published a letter of mine dealing with the betrayal of Poland.
At that time Mr. Churchill and practically the whole of the British Press were nut only attempting to justify Russia's aets of aggression (such as the rape of the Baltic States and of Poland), but were apparently enthusiastically supporting Russian policy. They went even further and indulged in vilification of their allies. The legal Polish Government in London was accused of being unreasonable " for refusing to acquiesce in the dismemberment of their country, of being neo-Fascist or proGerman even. Mihailovitch, of Yugoslavia, was thrown aside in favour of the Communist Tito. All Russia's actions, we should now remember, were described by Mr. Churchill and his Government as fully justified. The machinations of the Communist International Comintern teem gone for
ever, so Mr. Churchill assured us, though Russia's actions and Communist activity did not lend even a shred of evidence to support his statement.
Now Mr. Churchill has delivered an oration in America in which he speaks of " the Communist international
organisation," and of Communist fifth columns which " work in complete
unity and absolute obedience to the
directions they receive from the Communist centre." Tito, the " champion of democracy" of 1942-45, is now suddenly described by Churchill as " the Communist trained Marshal Tito."
In all his speech there is no expression of regret or pretence at explanation for his policy which aided Russia's policy of unilateral aggression during the past few years. No mention is made of the cynical betrayal of the loyal end gallant Poles.
How in the name of reason the exPremier hopes to convince the average person of his sincerity is beyond one's comprehension. The ordinary people of Britain, the U.S.A. and Western Europe will remember his utterances
and actions in the tecent past and wiJI merely put his present volte lace down to casuist's, and political manoeuvring. The scepticism of American opinion is only too apparent from the comments already published.
Of course, if these people are pressed to explain their former policy with
regard to Russia, taking Poland'e betrayal as an example, they will assert, in effect, that any means justified the end to bring about Germany's defeat.
And this is just the cause of all the present trouble. These men based their
policy on what most people agree to be an immoral precept, while at the same time claiming ho Ix the champions and promoters of Christian principles and international morality.
They also blandly assert that the honouring of our obligations to Poland would have meant war with the Soviet Union. This is merely another piece of hypocritical casuistry, as there would have been no question of going to war with Russia. A reaffirmation of the principles laid down in the Atlantic Charter, a refusal to acquiesce in Russia's aggression, and continued recognition of the legal Polish Govern ment was all that was required of us. There is no doubt that if Mr. Churchill had taken this course he would have had the full moral support of the United States.
Russia, at least, never concealed her aims and Communist principles, before the war, during the war or now They have consistently (even during 19391945) carried out these principles.
One can't help thinking that it's even preferable to have bad principles than to have no principles at all.
R. B. PAVION.
9, Belmont House, Candover Street, W.I.
AUTHORITY AND ANARCHY
Sta.,-11t leading with interest the varied points that have been raised in your correspondence columus and in your editorial comments on the question of General Franco there arc two points that arise which I feel to be worthy of careful consideration They a (a) In spite of the fact that a papal blessing has been bestowed upon Franco, while Catholic writers and spokesmen have from time to time praised his regime, it is not an infallible teaching of the Church that one must accept the Franco dictatorship if one is to remain a loyal Catholic, and (b) Most of the opponents of Franco are ardent admirers of what they term Soviet democracy and fail to see that if they detest Franco's system of government they must if they are logical, equally detest Stalin's methods and those of the Communist Party in Russia. The reason for this is obvious. France's system of government is a one-party system which is the negation of iplitical democracy So also is the system of government upheld by the Conununist dictatorship of the Soviet Union Both negate the principle of free election of the party of one's choice and to condemn one is also to condemn the other.
There is one other point that I feel ought to be stressed and that is this, that to the Catholic, if the choice is beween authority and anarchY, then the choice will be for authority, and this is, I feel, the position of many Catholics who support Franco Spain They would not defend it as a perfect system, nor can they uphold it as a democratic system in the popular usage of that much-abused term, They would say that it has within it a possibility of moving towards stability that Is lacking in the chaos that seems to have
descended upon the self styled democracies of the West.
33 Mayfield Road, Whatley Range, Manchester, 16.
Sta.—I would like to support entirely the observations made by C. Dobbs in THE CATHOLIC FIESO.D. anent the above question.
As he points out, this measure was originally sponsored in order to stitnulate morale; but unfortunately, this cuts both ways, as State protection invariably produces a slackening of individual initiative.
In the case of the Approved Societies, as an important part of their successful operation resulted from the personal contact of the agent with the recipient of benefits, under the Government scheme this advantage will be lacking, the claimant having to rely on the conditions laid down by a soulless Civil servant organisation, J, H. WHF-ELER.
7, Glenwood-avenue, Wastalif.on-Sos.