THE BRITISH CRISIS
279
out a clear agreement beforehand would simply give the Russians the
opportunity to Jl?.ake a separate peace; for if we succeeded in drawing the
Germans away from their territories, what reason would they have for
going on fighting? Another theory favoured in leftwing papers is that the
more fighting we do the more say we shall have in the post-war settle–
ment. This again is an illusion; those who dictate the peace treaties are
those who have remained strongest, which usually means those who have
managed to avoid fighting (eg. the USA in the last war) . Considerations
of this kind seldom find their way into print hut are admitted readily
enough in private. I think people have not altogether forgotten the Russo–
German pact and that fear of another douhlecross partly explains their
desire for a closer alliance. But there is also much sentimental boosting
of Russia, based on ignorance and playeu up by all kinds of crooks who
are utterly anti-Socialist hut see that the Red Army is a popular line. I
must take hack some of the favourable references I made in earlier letters
to
the Beaverbrook press. After giving his journalists a free hand for a
year or more, during which some of them did good work in enlightening
the big public, Beaverhrook has again cracked the whip and is setting his
team
at work to attack Churchill and, more directly, Cripps. He is simul–
taneously yapping against fuel-rationing, petrol-rationing and other re–
strictions on private capitalism, and posing as more Stalinist than the
Stalinists. Most of the rightwing press adopts the more cautious line of
praising "the great Russian people" (historic parallels with Napoleon,
etc.)
while keeping silent about the nature of the Russian regime. The
"International" is at last being played on the wireless. Molotov's speech
on the German atrocities was issued as a White Paper, but in deference
to
somehody's feelings (I don't know whether Stalin's or the King's) the
royal arms were admitted from the cover. People in general want to think
well of Russia, though still vaguely hostile to Communism. They would
welcome a joint declaration of war aims and a close co-ordination of
mategy. I think many people realise that a firm alliance with Russia is
difficult while the Munich crew are still more or less in power, but much
fewer grasp that the comparative political backwardness of the USA
presents another difficulty.
REVOLUTION OR DISASTER?
Well, that is the set-up as I see it. It seems to me that we are back to
the
"revolutionary situation" which existed but was not utilised after
Dnnkirk. From that time until quite recently one's thoughts necessarily
11oved
in some such progression as this:
We can't win the war with our present social and economic structure.
The structure won't change unless there is a rapid growth in popular
eonsciousness.
The only thing that promotes this growth is military disasters.
One more disaster and we shall lose the war.
In the circumstances all one could do was to "support" the war, which
