which pointed out that the Soviet Union remained unwilling to join an advisory committee of the League to arbitrate their disagreement with Japan.
1^ David Dunn, "Maksim Litvinov: Commissar of Contradiction", p. 225.
1^ The Manchester Guardian, 30 December 1933. "War Menace in Far East; Japan 'Provocative'; Plain Speaking by Litvinov; Anglo-Russian Trade" by the Moscow Correspondent. The Times, 30 December 1933 by the Riga Correspondent. The Economist, 6 January 1934. Stalin had also given a private interview to the New York Times, reported by the British press on 29 December
1933, in which he too hinted that the Soviet Union might join the League of Nations.
1* The Daily Telegraph, 30 December 1933. "Soviet Warning to Japan; Blunt Words Also to Germany" by the Moscow Correspondent. The Times, 1 January 1934, by the Riga Correspondent. The New Statesman and Nadon, 6 January 1934. "Comments- Warnings from Moscow".
1934, Fleet Street reported what it considered to be an amazing development in European affairs. The Soviet Union, with the support of the French Government, was seriously considering making an application to join the League of Nations at the September meeting of the Assembly, a plan which was received with varying degrees of enthusiasm by the British press.
Initial reports by the quality conservative press revealed scepticism. Though The
Times recognised the importance and the benefits of Soviet membership into the League
and hoped the USSR was changing for the better, the paper short-sightedly suggested in May 1934 that the British Government should not bargain for the Soviet Union's entry
since Britain itself would gain nothing.^o The Daily Telegraph took a more cynical
interest in "Soviet Russia's disposition to join the League of Nations" and was concerned because Moscow "deemed it expeditious to change its tone". Nevertheless, the paper believed the British Government should support the Soviet Union's application since "Moscow's contemptible and abusive language" towards the League had ceased.^i In contrast, the popular conservative press expressed suspicion of Litvinov's plans for the
Soviet Union's future in Europe. The Daily Express, for example, clearly hoped the
British Government would avoid becoming involved in Moscow's plans even if the Soviet Union joined the League of Nations.^
Contrary to conservative press opinion, the majority of the liberal and labour press expressed unreserved approval and found hope for Europe in the Soviet
Government's proposal to join the League. The Economist and the New Statesman and
Nation argued that the British Government should take an active role in securing the
Soviet Union's entry into the League of Nations because there were some obstacles which Britain's status as a world leader could overcome. For example, these journals wanted the British Government to ensure that the USSR was given a permanent seat on
the Council.^^ The News Chronicle not only welcomed the Soviet Union's application
The Times, 23 May 1934. Leading article, "Russia and the League".
21 The Daily Telegraph, 24 May 1934. Leading article, "Russia's Terms for League". 22 The Daily Express, 23 May 1934. Leading article, "In Europe".
23 The Economist, 26 May 1934. Leading article, "Russia Takes a Hand". The New Statesman and Nation, 26 May 1934. "Comment - Russia and the League". f"
to join the League of Nations, but also pointed out that it meant the League still had something to offer, despite its increasing number of critics, since "great nations do not
irnppfeni’
voluntarily associate with 'important talking shops'". The News Chronicle did not
believe that the Soviet Union was joining "for the cynical reason that she has nothing to gain and much to risk in war", as was often suggested by the conservative press. The paper, instead, reported that the Soviet Government simply wished to join in a genuine
desire to promote p e a c e .2 4
Surprisingly, the Daily Herald's Geneva Correspondent appeared to have
misinterpreted the international situation in May and therefore, the paper did not respond as favourably as expected. Though the majority of Fleet Street was stating exactly the
o p p o s i t e , 23 the Daily Herald's correspondent reported that "Litvinov had poured cold
water on the idea of Russia joining the League of N a t i o n s ".2^ By July, however, the
Daily Herald held the same opinion as the rest of the British press in recognising the
Soviet Union seriously intended to enter the League. Though the paper was pleased that the British Government was finally supportive of the Soviet Government's efforts to gain entry into the League of Nations, the paper could not refrain from censuring the Conservatives for their allegedly biased policy against the Soviet Union.
For the past few years, the Labour Party, in the face of abuse and
misrepresentation, urged in the name of sanity and common sense, that the Soviet Union be recognised formally and also welcomed as a great power in the comity
of nations. Gradually common sense has prevailed over p r e ju d ic e .2 2
In September 1934, it was generally agreed by Fleet Street that the Soviet Union would be accepted into the League of Nations although there remained an unwillingness by the popular conservative press to see the "wolf" welcomed into the fold. However,
24 The News Chronicle, 23 May 1934. Leading article, "Re-enter Russia?" The paper's attitude contrasted to that of The Times, 23 May 1934. Leading article, "Russia and the League"; and ihe Daily Telegraph, 24 May 1934. Leading article, "Russia's Terms for League".
23 See for example The Times, 29 May 1934. The Manchester Guardian, 28 May 1934. The Sunday Times, 27 May 1934. The Scotsman, 26 May 1934.
2^ The Daily Herald, 30 May 1934, article by the Geneva Correspondent 2? The Daily Herald, 14 July 1934. Leading article, "Pact and League".
the majority of newspapers and political journals were rational in their assessment of the value of the Soviet Union's membership - most noted obvious benefits and pointed out that at the very least, it was easier to watch the wolf from inside.28
Although the quality conservative press welcomed the Soviet Union's membership into the League of Nations, favourable comment was tempered with cautious
appraisals of what Britain could expect from such an event. For example, the Yorkshire
Post warned against raising hopes to unrealistic expectations since the USSR alone could
not turn the League into a powerful organisation.29 Although the Sunday Times
suggested that it was not "virtue, but necessity" which forced the Soviet Government to the line" towards the League, the paper was not expressing opposition since it saw the merits of the USSR's membership. "Whatever we think of Stalinist Russia, it is better to have her inside the League than out." Furthermore, the paper alleged that the French, as their friendship with the Soviet Government improved, were taking the correct approach by insisting the Soviet Union entered the League, thus "regularising" the
association.30 In a similar attitude, the Scotsman admitted that even though the Soviet
Union was not the most desirable candidate for the League of Nations after years of subversive activity, the paper recognised that it was very important to involve the Soviet Government in international affairs or else the League might collapse. The paper conceded that despite economic and political differences, the Soviet Union could no longer be ignored and it was better to secure Soviet cooperation rather than to leave such a large country isolated in Europe and Asia. However, equally as important to the
Scotsman was the possibility that Germany would be unable to remain outside the
League as to do so would demonstrate an increasing desire to alienate the world.3i
In contrast to the evolution in opinion of the quality conservative newspapers, the popular conservative press remained unreservedly opposed to the Soviet Union joining
28 The idea of "the w o lf came from the Daily Mail, 6 September 1934. Leading article, "Wolf in the Fold" and the Manchester Guardian, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "The League and Russia".
29 The Yorkshire Post, 11 September 1934. Leading article, "The League, Russia, and Germany".
3® The Sunday Times, 9 September 1934. Leading article, "Moves of the Powers". 31 The Scotsman, 11 September 1934. Leading article, "The League of Nations".
the League of Nations and devoted an unusually large amount of press coverage to the issue. The Beaverbrook and Rothermere papers were especially critical of the way in which the Soviet Union had joined and therefore, international affairs and the Soviet
Union received detailed, and generally irrational, reporting. The Daily Express and the
Daily Mail described with dismay how Britain had joined France in supporting the Soviet
entry to the extent that "good nations", such as Switzerland, were "snubbed" by the West
for showing hostility towards the Soviet Union. The Daily Express accused the French
of pursuing an anti-German policy and cheered the Swiss for their opposition.32 The
Daily Mail also encouraged the Swiss Government to do more since "no good will come
to the League or its members if the USSR is admitted".33 The Evening News
condemned the behind the scenes efforts at Geneva where the "Big Stick" was being wielded to hush opposition. The paper alleged that "Poor Switzerland has such an honest and well-founded aversion to Russia and its methods. It feels like asking the League to
move so its air is not fouled by the Bolsheviks." In addition, the Evening News
suggested that since the League "has decided to sup with the Devil, it will need a very long spoon for the broth. "34
The Daily Express, in a leading article, accused "some unthinking people",
which could refer to other newspapers, of being gravely wrong when they said that the
Soviet Union's entry was not a danger to Britain. In the opinion of the Daily Express, it
was incorrect to assume the Soviet Union wanted to join the League for peace because
"Russia is filled with the desire for w a r " .35 In the Daily Mail's view.
The latest Muscovite manoeuvre is so obvious that it is incredible that Moscow's hypocritical professions of good faith could be accepted at face value... For years the Soviets refused to join the "coalition of brigands" at Geneva and tried to break
32 The Daily Express, 11 September 1934. "Soviet Russia Invited to Join League" by the Geneva Correspondent; 18 September 1934, "Russia Lashed in League Battle" by D. Sefton Delmer, the Special Correspondent at Geneva.
The Daily Mail, 6 September 1934. Leading article, "Wolf into the Fold". 34 The Evening News, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "Mudlaiking at Geneva".
hold council with the lambs in s id e .3 6
Both the Daily Mail and the Evening News alleged that "Russia's presence can only
bring further discredit to the League" since the Soviet creed remained one of "sedition and revolution" and therefore, the USSR sought admission simply to make mischief.3?
In addition to disparaging the Soviet Union, the Beaverbrook and Rothermere press condemned the behaviour of the British Government in permitting the Soviet Union to join the League of Nations, giving the impression that these papers believed the organisation to be sacred. This was ironic since the popularéonservative press rarely supported the League's work, nor did these papers wish to see British participation in the League as more than minimal since it was deemed to be beyond Britain's sphere of interest.38 Nevertheless, the popular conservative press exaggerated the theme of the British Government's "humiliating" abandonment of Christian faith in allowing the "Red gangsters of Moscow" to join the League of Nations.39
What mockery when Christian powers rush out to bring Russia in and Russia dithers on the doorstep... Russia's entry brings an element of atheism and anti- Christianity which is contrary to the whole spirit of the League or whatever spirit may be left. All Christian members should defend the faith and resign forthwith.40
The Evening News pointed out that the leaders of the Soviet Union were the "sworn
foes" of Christianity and "arch-conspirators" against all that was "stable and decent" in Western life. The paper alleged that "decent people" would be disgusted by the "inconceivable folly" at Geneva and concluded that "no good can come of it, and Britain, because a part of it, has lost the opportunity of striking a blow for international honour
36 The Daily Mail, 6 September 1934. Leading article, "Wolf into the Fold".
32 Ibid. The Evening News, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "Mudlarking at Geneva". 38 The Evening Standard, 13 September 1934. Leading article, "Geneva". The Daily Mail, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "War-Mongers of Geneva".
The Daily Mail, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "War-Mongers of Geneva". 49 The Daily Express, 15 September 1934. Leading article, "Russia or the Faith?".
and The bluntly stated that "a farce was being played out in Geneva" since the paper had been led to understand that the League was based on Christian principles. However,
Now British statesmen give all their effort to a nation whose policy is conducted in a most thorough and ruthless campaign against Christianity... In its short history, the Soviet Union has violated, through secret and subversive acts, the fundamental principles the League professed to stand for.
The evening paper saw no reason to believe the Soviet Government would change and
therefore found it "extraordinary" that Britain was so eager to oblige the Soviet U n io n .4 2
Thus, although the popular conservative press supported the British Government's foreign policy, in this event, these newspapers were not afraid to oppose His Majesty's Government's support for the Soviet entry into the League of Nations.
Low's cartoon on 14 September 1934, "New Member", depicted pretentious anti- Communist club members criticising France and Britain for allowing Litvinov, with his "vulgar disarmament ideas", into a "gentlemen's" league. Thus Low was critical of the
paper which printed his cartoons, the Evening Standard, expressed his dissatisfaction
with the lack of action by those with authority, and welcomed Litvinov's new collective security ideas .43
The liberal and labour press devoted its coverage to the recognition of the positive
role which the Soviet Union intended to play in Europe. The Manchester Guardian was
relieved that so many member states accepted the need to include the Soviet Union in international affairs. Likewise, the paper was satisfied that the Soviet Government appreciated the importance of the League of Nations, though the paper warned it was a
"small organisation steadily losing credit". However, the Manchester Guardian
conceded there must be "something of value" in it if the Soviet Government wished to
join. Furthermore, the paper disagreed with the Daily Mail's suggestion that the Soviet
41 The Evening News, 12 September 1934. Leading article, "Mudlarking at Geneva". 42 The Evening Standard, 13 September 1934. Leading article, "Geneva".
t^TBH M ATiQ .VAL B L IS lP S i Cad, SU*- cant Think, tuhaîfhc ComrniTtee is up to Itf ttm' a Russian into 1he Clut>
Tfie fellers obviously no g e n tle m a n
G ?