M. Rakovsky's Reply October 25, 1924. "Sir, I have received the Foreign Office Note of October 24, signed by Mr. J. D. Gregory, to which I have the honour to make the following reply: "(1) As recently as last year, after the settlement of the diplomatic conflict which took place in May, it was agreed between the representative of the Government of the Soviet Union in London and the Foreign Office that, in the interests of the strengthening of friendly relations between the two countries, both parties would endeavour to settle by direct conversations any incidents which might arise, resorting to the despatch of Notes only in the case of this friendly procedure failing to bring about a favourable result. After my arrival in London the Foreign Office personally confirmed that in the future we would adhere to this reasonable practice, which would remove avoidable misunderstandings and prevent future conflicts. By maintaining this rule we were able to liquidate in a friendly way a number of incidents affecting both countries. an instance I will mention the fact that my Government did not resort to a public protest and to creating conflict in connection with the extremely important incident bearing upon the most vital interests of the Union which arose as a result of the declaration made by the representative of the British Government, Professor Gilbert Murray, at the Conference of the League of Nations—a declaration which was in contradiction with our agreements of last year, and with the provision of the new treaties of August 8 concerning non-interference in our internal affairs, and which flagrantly violated the Note of the British Government on the recognition of the Soviet Union. As "(2) To my great regret, the Note which I received last night, in which absolutely unfounded accusations are made by the Foreign Office against the Soviet Government, at a moment when British opinion is concentrated upon the Anglo-Soviet treaties and the future relations between Great Britain and the Soviet Union, constitutes an unexpected violation of the procedure which we mutually agreed upon. "(3) As regards the subject-matter of Mr. Gregory's Note, I declare in most categorical terms that the manifesto annexed to it is a gross forgery and an audacious attempt to prevent the development of friendly relations between the two countries. If, instead of departing from the established practice, the Foreign Office had in the first place approached me for an explanation, it would not have been difficult to convince them that they had been victims of deception on the part of the enemies of the Soviet Union. Not only the contents, but the head ing and the signature of the document definitely prove that it is the work of malicious individuals who are inadequately familiar with the Constitution of the Communist International. In circulars of the Communist International (which may be seen in the Press, for its activities are not concealed), it is never described as the "Third Communist International"-for the simple reason that there has never been a first or second Communist International. The signature is a similarly clumsy forgery. Mr. Zinoviev is made to sign himself as the "President of the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International," whereas actually he is and always signs himself officially as "President of the Executive Committee." The whole of the contents of the document are, moreover, from the Communist point of view, a tissue of absurdities, intended simply to arouse British opinion against the Soviet Union, and to frustrate the efforts being made by both countries to establish durable and friendly relations. "(4) The evident falsity of this document relieves me of the necessity of replying to the conclusion drawn in the Foreign Office Note as to the responsibility of the Soviet Government for the activities of the Communist International, since they are based on the assumption that the document is authentic. "(5) I protest categorically against this using of false documents against the Soviet Union, and also against the violation of the procedure mutually established for the consideration of all incidents which may arise between the two countries. At the same time I express my conviction that the British Government will take the necessary steps to investigate the authorship of this malicious attempt to create a conflict between the two Governments. This will ensure the possibility of preventing in future the recurrence of similar incidents.-I have the honour to be, Sir, with highest consideration, your obedient servant, (Signed) "C. RAKOVSKY. "The Right Honourable J. Ramsay MacDonald, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, etc., Foreign Office, Whitehall, S.W.1." Repudiation by McManus "I definitely, and without equivocation, repudiate the supposed Red Instructions. It is an absolute Forgery. I never saw such a document. I never signed it. It was never issued by the Communist International. I was in Moscow at the time it was supposed to be sent to the British Party, and I can assure you the thing is a fraud. "I urge all workers to stand steady and not to be stampeded by these tactics." ARTHUR MCMANUS. (The above repudiation was issued on October 25th, 1924.) Copies Demanded The following letters were despatched and issued to the Press on October 28th, 1924. Mr. J. D. Gregory, SIR, Whitehall, S.W. 28th October, 1924. I have to refer to the statement contained in your letter dated October 24th addressed to the Russian Charge d'Affaires in London, referring to a communication alleged to have been received by the Central Committee of this Party from the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International over the signature of N. Zinoviev, its president, dated September 15th. Inasmuch as no such letter as that referred to by you has ever been received by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and that the alleged signatories to the communication have repudiated all knowledge of it, I am entitled to ask that you will be good enough to let me have a photographic copy of the communication and to inform me on what grounds you stated that it had been received by my Central Committee. I beg to refer to the letter addressed by you on the 24th inst. to the Charge d'Affaires of the Russian Soviet Union in London with regard to a communication alleged to have been received by the Communist Party of Great Britain from the Communist International dated September 15th, and purporting to have been signed by Messrs. Zinoviev, MacManus and Kuusinen. I am requested by Mr. Arthur MacManus to ask that you will be good enough to let him have a photographic copy of the letter in question which purports to bear his signature. Trusting this will receive your immediate attention, Yours faithfully, (Signed) DORIS D. KERR. The Rt. Hon. J. Ramsay MacDonald, 10, Downing Street, S.W. DEAR MACDONALD, 28th October, 1924. Herewith I beg to enclose copies of letters that have today been sent to Mr. J. D. Gregory at the Foreign Office asking for photographic copies of the letter purporting to have been received by the Communist Party of Great Britain over the signatures of Messrs. Zinoviev, MacManus and Kuusinen and referred to in Mr. Gregory's Note to the Russian Charge d'Affaires in London of October 24th. I shall be glad if you will kindly exercise your authority to ensure that photographic copies of this alleged communication are immediately forwarded. Yours sincerely, (Signed) ALBERT INKPIN, N.B.-No acknowledgment was received of these communications.-A.McM. Labour Cabinet's Inquiry "The committee appointed on October 31 to examine the authenticity of the Zinoviev letter, after hearing the Departments concerned, found it impossible, on the evidence before them, to come to a positive conclusion on the subject. "The original letter has not been produced to, or seen by, any Government Department, and action was taken on what was not claimed to be more than a copy (e). (e) No one has seen the "Unfortunately in the short time available the committee original find it impossible to obtain evidence throwing further light throughout. on the matter." The above Report was issued on November 4. Mr. Chamberlain's Notes -A.McM. TREATIES TURNED DOWN The following Notes were issued to the Press on November 22nd, 1924. "SIR "Foreign Office, "(1) His Majesty's Government have had under review the treaties negotiated by their predecessors with the Government of the U.S.S.R. and signed on August 8 last. "(2) I have the honour to inform you that after due deliberation his Majesty's Government find themselves unable to recommend the treaties in question to the consideration of Parliament or to submit them to the King for his Majesty's ratification. "I have the honour, etc., (Signed) "AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN." "THE LETTER IS GENUINE" SIR, "Foreign Office, "November 21, 1924. (1) I have had under consideration your reply of October 25 to the Note which my predecessor addressed to you with regard to the activities of the Communist International in this country. "(2) In the third paragraph of that reply you undertook to declare, apparently upon internal evidence alone and without allowing time for any reference to Moscow, that the letter from Mr. Zinoviev which was the occasion of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's representations was a gross forgery. "In support of this assertion you alleged that the Communist International is never described in its own circulars as the Third Communist International,' that Mr. Zinoviev never signs as 'President of the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International,' but always as 'President of the Executive Committee,' and that the whole of the contents are from a Communist point of view a tissue of absurdities. "(3) His Majesty's Government cannot accept these assertions, which are disproved by reference to the official publications and daily press of the Union. "(4) But it is unnecessary to go into these details, for the information in the possession of his Majesty's Government leaves no doubt whatsoever in their mind of the authenticity of Mr. Zinoviev's letter, and his Majesty's Government are, therefore, not prepared to discuss the matter. "(5) I must further observe that you would entirely misapprehend the character of the representations made to you by my predecessor if you supposed that they deal with Mr. Zinoviev's letter only (f). The activities of which his Evading Majesty's Government complain are not confined to one par o f the the question ticular letter, but, on the contrary, extend to a whole body "letter.”- of revolutionary propaganda, of which the letter is a fair A.McM. specimen, and which is sometimes conducted in secret and sometimes, as you rightly remark, not concealed. "(6) The pronouncements of Mr. Zinoviev, which have been broadcast throughout the world, are in themselves sufficient evidence of propaganda in which the Third International, with the knowledge and consent of the Soviet 16 |