The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1931-06-16

Take 'em to Pieces
BY JORGB

PERHAPS not all workers have the patience to
untangle Mr.. Knickerbocker's anti-SoWet ar
ticles appearing now in the N. Y Post and other
papers. Let us take one apart and see now
ridiculous is the assumption that the N \. Ma
ton recently made to the effect that knlcker-
booker is all right, but the headlines writer's"
are scoundrels. They may be scoundres, but
Knickerbocker is responsible for the following
distortions We cite his article in the N. u
Post of June 4. 1t opens up by saying
= Manchester, England. Is receiving les
son in the methods of Soviet trade. 1t Il
paying careful attention, for chinineys that
had SMOKES for decades are smokeless
today -
Why was this? Because, Knickerbocker says,
Soviet trade agents in Britain, at one meeting
held with Manchester business men, PROMISED
that the Soviet would not compete with your
producers in the British colonies and BRUSH
dominions" Then: IS
A month later the head of the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce got to thinking that
textile machinery sold to the Soviet would make
textiles that had to be sold somewhere. Then:
Six months later this chap discovered that there
was "a large contract chow large" Kncker-
tiles in the market within the British Empire"
at low prices.
But Knickerbocker hides, instead of revealing,
the fact that this "large contract" had been
made earlier before the Soviet Trade Organ
ization in England was set up, whereby some
dealer in Germany was buying Soviet textiles
and selling them wherever he could the CON
tract" between the dealer and some British mer-
chants the Soviet having no control over these
people at ALL The Soviet trade agent, Saul
Bron explained this to the Manchester business
men, and said that the particular dealer would
not be allowed to sell to British markets when
his contract expired So what was wrong with
that? Nothing!
But Knickerbocker tries to make it appear that
Bron lied, by going on to tell other thinks that
| have nothing to do with Brons promise Knick-
! erbocker continues:
Another month later :. Mr. Lee (head OF
! the Manchester Chamber of Commerce) dropped
diplomatic phraseology entirely" and was com
planning that the awful Russians with their
new textile machinery might, yes, they might
be making goods to be thrown ION markets in
which we are interested"
Please note that he doesn't say on markets
in the British colonies and British dominions'
which were not included in Brons promise t<
Manchester business men. But Knickerbockel
lying implies that the Soviet was breaking it,
promise. Then he goes on to say:
Nov when British statesmen in Persia writ,
home that it is useless to send any more sample
to Persia, because Russian goods, botl
better and cheaper are being sold there. Whe1
did Persia become colony" of dominion" o
Britain?
Yet Knickerbocker acts as if Soviet sales Their
violated the Soviet promise to Manchester
More! Knickerbocker goes on to speak abou
Far Eastern markets as though England ha
some god given right to monopoly of trade witt
the Far East And as if the Soviet had prom
ised to lay off
Also as if the entire trouble of Mancheste
textile mill owners was due to methods c
Soviet trade" although in carefully hidde
. few lines in the last part of his article Knick
erbocker mentions SHAT Japan had taken
painful slice" of Manchester's trade in the Fa
East, and Poland had taken other markets.
!. Yet, the whole lying line of deliberate distol
ton was set by Knickerbocker when he opene
. his article by declaring that Manchester wa
, receiving lesson in the methods of Sovi
trade" and implying that the Soviet is to blan
for Manchester's "smokeless chimneys
short Knickerbocker is liar.
of them are irving tn show In their, ma STE