Ο Ζντάνοφ στην Πράβντα (29-6-1939) εξηγεί την ευθύνη των Αγγλογάλλων για τον πόλεμο που έρχεται.


ENGLISH AND FRENCH GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT AN EQUAL TREATY WITH THE USSR

The Anglo-French-Soviet talks for the conclusion of an effective pact of mutual assistance against aggression, are in a stalemate. Despite the absolute clarity of the position of the Soviet government, despite all the efforts of the Soviet government to the rapid conclusion of the mutual assistance pact, we see no progress in more or less significant in the progress of the talks.

This fact can not but have a serious meaning in the current international situation. It revived the hopes of the aggressors and the enemies of peace, to derail the agreement between democratic states against aggression, it pushes the attackers to a broader development of aggression.

In this respect, a question arises: where lies the cause of the delay in the talks, including the favorable completion which is eagerly awaited and expected by all peace-loving peoples, by all the friends of peace?

Allow me to express a personal opinion on this, although my friends did not agree with me. They continue to consider that starting talks for mutual assistance pact with the USSR, the British and French governments had the serious intention to develop a powerful barrier against aggression in Europe.

I think and I will try to prove by facts, that the British and French governments do not want to be treated as equals with the USSR, that is to say the only kind of treaty that can accept a State respectable - and precisely this circumstance is the cause of stagnation of the state where the talks are.

What are these facts? The Anglo-Soviet talks in the direct sense of the term, that is to say from the moment the first English proposals were submitted on 15 April were already going on for 75 days, of which 16 days were spent by the Soviet government to prepare the response to the different English proposals and other 59 days were employed by the British and the French to slow down and drag it out. One wonders who carries, in this case, the responsibility, the fact that the talks are progressing so slowly, if not the English and the French?

The practice of international agreements, similar to the Anglo-Franco-Soviet agreement shows that England has signed a mutual assistance pact with Turkey and with Poland in a short time. It follows that when England desired the treaty with Turkey and Poland, she knew how to ensure desirable pace in conducting talks.

These endless unacceptable procrastinations and delays in the talks with the USSR are making us doubt the sincerity of the true intentions of England and France, and force us to ask the question what is precisely the basis of such a policy: serious aspirations to ensure the front Peace or desire to use these talks and the delay of the talks for some other purposes that have nothing to do with the work of creating a peaceful powers front.

Such questions arise, especially since during the talks the British and French governments piled artificial difficulties, created an appearance of serious disagreements between Britain and France on the one hand, and the USSR on the other, on issues that could be resolved without delays and without obstacles, provided a good will and sincere intentions of England and France.

We know, for example, that such a "stumbling block", artificially conceived in the talks is the question of the guarantee by the three powers of immediate assistance to Latvia, Estonia and Finland, If their neutrality would be violated by the aggressors; allegations that the Baltic states mentioned they do not want this guarantee and that these so-called circumstances prevent England and France from accepting the Soviet proposals are obviously inconsistent and can not be dictated by none other than the sole intention of making talks fail.

In any case, we know the facts testifying that when England considers itself interested in ensuring any country, it imakes any pact without waiting for the country to require guarantees for them.

English newspaper The Sunday Times wrote in its issue of June 4 that "Poland expressed its consent in case Britain would be driven to war in connection with the aggression against Holland, to help Britain, on the other hand, Britain has agreed to assist Poland in case it would be driven to war with an attack against Danzig or Lithuania. "

Thus it follows that the UK can simultaneously guarantee Poland, Lithuania and Holland. I do not know if Lithuania and Holland were asked their opinion on this bilateral guarantee - in any case there was no article on this in the press - but Holland and Lithuania deny having requested this guarantee. However, the bilateral pact guaranteeing these countries is already concluded according to the Sunday Times.

It was not long ago, when the Polish Foreign Minister, Beck, interviewed by a French journalist, said, among other things, unequivocally, that Poland demanded nothing, asked nothing about guarantees from the USSR and was fully satisfied by the fact that a recently concluded trade agreement existed between Poland and the USSR.

So what in the position of Poland is different, in this case, from the position of the governments of the three Baltic States? Absolutely nothing. This does not prevent England and France to demand of the USSR guarantees not only for Poland, but for the other four states which we do not know if they want to have a guarantee from the USSR, and also a guarantee for Holland and Switzerland with which the USSR does not even have simple diplomatic relations.

All these facts show that the English and the French do not want a treaty with the USSR based on the principle of equality and reciprocity; although they swear every day to "equality," they want a treaty where the USSR plays the compact loader role and bears alone all the weight of engagement.

However, no self-respecting country would accept such a treaty if it does not want to be a toy in the hands of people who like to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them by others. A fortiori, such a treaty can not be accepted by the USSR whose strength, power and dignity are known worldwide. It seems to me that the English and the French do not want a real treaty, acceptable to the USSR, but only conversations about a treaty, to speculate on the alleged intransigence of the USSR before public opinion in their country and make easier the path of compromise with the assailants. The next few days should show whether this is so or not.