= For two or three weeks now, there has been a polemic in the uolunns deZQd Daily Worker reflecting the different appraisals of the Test Ban Treaty nade by the Soviet Union and China, The lettors have bean about two to one in favour of the Russian point of view but some very sharp criticia: has appoared of the Russian point of view and the British Commmnist Party's support for it. A typical letter is that of Michael McCreery,which we roproduce. It should be noted that McCreery is an activist in the Movement for Colonial Freedom ond is much used by them as. a-speaker, He is, for instance, to speak at a meeting on August 30th against the Malaysia plan, and he is one of the lecturers at the M.C.F. school "Colonialism and the Bomb." The letter appeared in the August 26th issue of the Daily ° Torker and reads:
"Jeff Skslley is altogether too quick..to assume thet Communists will be so isolated when they expose the test—ban-treaty fraud. Opportunist Labour and trade union leaders will hold up their hands in horror, obedient to the commands of their capitalist mastera.
Fut the mass of the workers in this country will certainly .recognise that the way to prévant war is to remain firm and united against monopoly capitalists and match them with their own weapons, The Communists and the poople of Asia well know that peace can only be maintained “in Asia and in the world as a whole if they have the armed strength, including hydrogen bombs, with which to deter American imperialism-from launching its own bombs against then,
"Such aggression could not be confined to Asia, for the imperialists will never rest content until they have achieved the complete destruction of the Socialist system, in Europe, as well as in Asia, It has been argued that it is sufficient for the Soviet Union alone of the Socialist powers to have the bomb, in order to deter imperialist aggression against any part of the Socialist world,
"This iden has, however, been finally knocked on the head by the studied neutrality which the Soviet leadership maintained when the Indian Governnent, e¢ced on by Western imperialism, launched Lis regent attack on China, And Seviet arms are still being sent to India at a fen further attacks on China are being planned by Nehru."
The correspondence was initiated by a letter from 2.5. Ash of London, %.2, on August 8, who charged the Daily Yorker with distorting the Chinese position. Other letters arguing a ‘Chinese! point of view have come from: Rajni Amodia (London S.W.), lM. Gordon (Londond_ ), H. Brooks (Coventzy), W.B. Bland (Tiford, Bssox), J.M. Baxter (liadley Wood, Herts), Fred Dallas, (hondon ".C.) and others, But the posteript must. be given to .D. Bland of Langle who, apparently annoyed that a letter by a namesake of his should eriticisS the Russians, wrote: "...e..'Trotskyism' may be thought to be a rather ng term to use in this debate but I do beg these comrades to consider history of what Lenin called 'Left—Wing Communiam' as manifested in the caso of that individual..." A remarkable display of ignorance as the book 'Left=-Ving Communiam' was not directed agninst Trotsky, and in fact Lenin and Trotsky stood-side by side in the struggle against what Lenin called 'Loeft=-Wing Commnisn,! i