Lee Collins: Co-op Conference Paper
‘As a member of the British co-operative movement, I am disgusted by
your anti-Soviet and anti-working-class attitude’: The British Co-operative
Movement and the Soviet Union, 1939-1945
My paper is concerned with the British co-operative movement’s attitude towards the Soviet
Union during the Second World War, as expressed through official publications such as the
Co-operative News and the War Emergency Circulars that were produced between 1939 and
1945. My interest in this area of research is a development of my Master’s dissertation which
looked at the nature of popular support for the Soviet Union in Britain during the Second
World War, and during this time I discovered that the co-operative movement could offer an
interesting insight into this opinion, given the sheer size and nature of the movement. As a
result, I began visiting the Co-op Archives here in Manchester and the Special Collections
archive at Liverpool John Moores University to view material relating to British Cooperatives, which is something that I’ve continued now in the first year of my PhD, which
explores popular perceptions of the Soviet Union and aid to Russia schemes in Britain
between 1939 and 1945.
It’s probably worth giving some general background on public opinion during the War. The
Second World War is particularly interesting in the study of British attitudes toward the
Soviet Union because from the onset of the War until 22nd June 1941, the Soviet Union was
essentially the enemy of the British people as it had signed a pact of non-aggression with
Germany, and joined the German armies in the invasion of Poland which marked the start of
the War. However, despite the Nazi-Soviet Pact, a number of British intellectuals still viewed
the Soviet Union in a favourable light, and defended its actions between 1939 and June 1941.
Although this support for the Soviets seemingly regardless of their actions was arguably
marginal and did not extend to the majority of the British public, support for the Soviet Union
undoubtedly became more widespread after Hitler implemented Operation Barbarossa and
invaded Soviet territory in June 1941; indeed, previous studies have noted the Russomania
that seemed rife in British public opinion immediately after the Soviets became allies to the
British in the War. The rest of this paper will therefore explore the extent to which the British
co-operative movement fits into this general argument – that is to say, predominantly antiSoviet between 1939 and 1941, and shifting to pro-Soviet after Barbarossa.
1
I’ll start first by quickly discussing the movement’s attitudes towards the Soviet Union during
the inter-war period and in the lead-up to the War. A brief study of the official attitudes of the
British co-operative movement towards the Soviet Union before 1939 shows that opinion
varied and developed alongside developments in the newly-formed Soviet system. In the
years immediately following the October Revolution in 1917, the movement was critical of
Bolshevism – perhaps, as was pointed out in a discussion during yesterday’s Global
Traditions panel, because of the shake up that the new Soviet state offered to pre-established
political norms. This fear of the unknown was symptomatic of general British attitudes
towards the Soviet Union during the 1920s, but the 1930s witnessed a change in these
attitudes, with appreciation of the Five Year Plans dominating Left-wing attitudes towards
the Soviet Union in particular. Scientists, journalists, writers and middle-class socialist
intellectuals were fascinated by what they saw as great achievements by a society that was
deemed to be ‘backwards’ under the Tsars.
The British co-operative movement also took the opportunity to experience Soviet society
during the Five Year Plans, and two pamphlets were published by the Co-operative Union in
1930 and 1932 which detailed the accounts of visits to Russia made by groups of British cooperators in the summer of each of those years. These pamphlets seemed to dispel any
previous overt criticism of the Soviet political and social system exhibited in the 1920s, with
the pamphlet produced in 1930 pointing out that:
Though life in Russia is hard and difficult there is nobody starving, and
the British visitor is bound to be impressed by the high standard of
physique. The people are not thin and emaciated, and look healthier and
fitter than the people you see in the streets of Glasgow or Manchester (p.
9).
After this description of first impressions of the Russian people, the pamphlet continues to
argue that:
The workers of Russia are conscious of the fact that they own the
factories, and the greater the output the better it is for the whole of the
people of Russia, which, it seems to me, is a much better incentive for
them to give of their best than the fear of the “sack” or irritation from the
2
foreman (p. 40) [while] The idea of large-scale farming with wonderful
new machinery has captured the imagination, and the Russian people are
following the maps which show how progress is made in collective and
State farming (p. 48).
The pamphlet does note that co-operators had the opportunity to speak to Russians who were
‘bitterly critical of the Bolshevik regime’ (p. 63), yet these previous quotes signify the
appreciation – and perhaps admiration – for the Five Year Plans that was often shown by
visitors to the Soviet Union during this period. It’s probably hard to comprehend this
admiration with the benefit of hindsight, given the great suffering and losses that huge
numbers of Soviet citizens experienced as a result of policies such as collectivised farming,
yet the contemporary accounts of visits to Russia seem to signify that visitors often left the
country impressed and in awe.
The pamphlet published in 1932 documenting that year’s visit to Russia by British cooperators echoes many of the same sentiments as expressed in the pamphlet from 1930, and it
actually goes further in its descriptions of workers by noting that they were ‘absolutely carefree and jolly, and, but for the difference of language and of dress, might well have passed for
an English crowd having the time of their lives on an August Bank Holiday’ (p. 13). This
pamphlet also offers an interesting comparison between English and Russian industrial
workers, with the authors concluding that despite English industrial workers enjoying a
higher standard of life, Russian workers enjoy the belief that they are certain of their own
employment and the employment of their children in the future. This optimism of guaranteed
work stands alongside ‘a strong conviction that the standard of life is rising’ (p. 43).
This brief summary of the British co-operative movement’s perceptions of the new Soviet
system – at least from the top down - suggest an appreciation for the achievements of the
Five Year Plans as the new Russia seemed to represent progression towards something
similar to the Co-operative Commonwealth. Indeed, writing in the Review of International
Co-operation in 1939, H.J. May suggested that ‘many people, including certain groups of cooperators, regard the Soviet system as a higher, or more advanced, development of the
universal characteristics of Co-operation’ (p. 429). However, May dismissed this, and argued
3
that ‘Soviet Russia must also be included in the category of countries in which parliamentary
government has been replaced by the dictatorship of a single political party’, although the
Soviet dictatorship is distinctly different from the German and Italian Fascist dictatorships
(pp. 425-26).
This critique of the Soviet “dictatorship” is something that continued after the War started,
with suspicion of and outrage at the Red Army’s actions in Poland and the early months of
the War encouraging co-operators in Britain to voice their opinions in publications such as
the Co-operative News. This is perfectly displayed in a letter to the Co-op News from a cooperator named Frank Jones which appeared in the newspaper on 6th January 1940. The letter
argues that:
In our searches for a new deal for the workers many of us followed the
Russian experiment with interest and with hope. We have been sadly
disillusioned. Now we know what those wonderful crèches for Soviet
babies were for. Stalin sends his myriads to an icy death in the wastes of
Finland with a prodigality worthy of all the Czars (p. 7).
This disenchantment with the Soviet Union’s actions concurs with the official line of the
movement at the time, as expressed in the Co-op News, with the newspaper referring to the
Soviet Union as ‘a ruthless invader’ and an ‘aggressor’ throughout 1940.1 The newspaper
even begins to publicise a campaign for aiding Finland in its fight against the Soviet Union,
with the headline of edition dated 17th February 1940 declaring ‘FINLAND IN NEED OF
IMMEDIATE AID’.2
However, despite members of the co-operative movement and the
official branches of the movement denouncing the Soviet Union’s actions, the Co-op News
still continues to receive (and print) letters defending the country’s actions during this period.
These letters ranged from a defence of the Soviet invasion of Finland on the grounds that the
Soviet Union is saving millions of Finnish people from the Hitler regime, to outright attacks
and criticisms of the newspaper for not wholeheartedly supporting the Soviets itself. A clear
example of such a letter is the one from which I extracted the quote that appears in the title of
1
2
Co-operative News, 16th March 1940, p. 8; Co-operative News, 30th March 1940, p. 2.
Co-operative News, 17th February 1940, p. 1.
4
my paper. This letter written by E. Egerton Stafford appeared in the Co-op News on 10th
February 1940, and it exclaims that:
As a member of the British co-operative movement, I am disgusted by
your anti-Soviet and anti-working-class attitude [regarding] the attempt
of the reactionary rulers of Finland, including Mr. Tanner, to place
Finland at the disposal of Great Britain, France, and other capitalist
countries, for a jumping-off ground in an attack upon Soviet Russia...
There is no Soviet aggression against the Finnish people.3
The “Mr. Tanner” attacked in Stafford’s letter is Vaino Tanner – the Foreign Secretary of
Finland and President of the International Co-operative Alliance – and in a move that
probably caused Egerton Stafford’s anger levels to rise even more, the same edition of the
newspaper included a guest article by Tanner in which he painted Finland as a victim of
Soviet aggression. Stafford’s vitriolic rant articulated similar sentiments as espoused by the
likes of the Webbs and other middle-class socialists and undoubtedly expressed more extreme
views than the average co-operator would, yet it further serves to highlight the fact that such
opinions were apparent among the variety of political beliefs that comprised the co-operative
movement.
These differences in opinion regarding the actions of the Soviets continued throughout 1940,
with the more extreme views as highlighted above giving way to more moderate views which
attempted to discuss the issue without overtly criticising the nations involved in the dispute,
and by June of that year, the newspaper echoes the notion that despite the Soviet invasion of
Finland for reasons that were still a mystery to many, there is still the hope that Russia will
make amends for its actions. Coverage of the Soviet Union noticed a lull at the end of 1940,
which is understandable given the more pressing issue of the Blitz.
This lack of coverage of the Soviet Union in the Co-op News continued into 1941 – perhaps
because the Soviets were still seen as aggressors and the newspaper did not wish to level an
abundance of criticism at a nation that many of its readers may view in quite a favourable
3
Co-operative News, 10th February 1940, p. 10.
5
light. However, very much like the British government and much of the British public, the
co-operative movement seemed to follow the general trend of showing overwhelming support
for the Soviet Union after 22nd June 1941, with the first edition of the Co-op News to appear
after the implementation of Barbarossa declaring that ‘it is plain common sense for Britain to
give Russia every atom of assistance that is within her power’.4 Echoing the speeches of
Churchill and other government ministers, the co-operative movement deemed it imperative
for Britain and the Soviet Union to develop a working relationship. To help with such a
relationship, the secretariat of the International Co-operative Alliance in London made a
symbolic gesture by cutting off contact with Vaïno Tanner – the same man who they were
campaigning for aid for only a year earlier. In another similar manner to the government and
the public, the movement began to endorse the Soviet army, whilst at the same time making
as little reference to the Soviet political system as possible. The Co-op News declared in
August 1941 that:
This column has from time to time criticised aspects of Russian policy on
perfectly justifiable grounds. Many of those criticisms still stand, but they
do not detract from our admiration of the inspiring stand being made by
the Soviet Union against the enemies of humanity.5
This further emphasises the movement’s official stance regarding the Soviet Union after June
1941: the Soviet Union was to be praised for its valiant effort in fighting against the Germany
army, but the movement still remained critical of elements of the Soviet political and social
system.
Appreciation for the Soviet war effort extended beyond mere admiration for the Red Army,
with Soviet citizens visiting Britain and being warmly received by the public. In her work on
the Second World War, Sonya Rosa has pointed to Russian workers being enthusiastically
welcomed by workers in British factories during their visits. The co-op movement also
embraced such activities, with the Co-op News pointing out that Russian trade union
delegates touring British factories in early 1942 were given an:
4
5
Co-operative News, 28th June 1941, p. 8.
Co-operative News, 16th August 1941, p. 6.
6
enthusiastic reception when they visited the C.W.S. Crumpsall Biscuit
Works and the Broughton Clothing Factories... The delegates... were
cheered by the workers and were given enthusiastic handshakes and the
“Victory V” sign as they toured the works.
Such attempts at cultural bonding highlight some symbolic nuances in the Anglo-Soviet
relationship after 1941. One further symbolic gesture made by the co-op movement to show
appreciation for the Soviet war effort was the Co-operative Union’s commitment to an
initiative conceived by the National Council of Labour in the first half of 1943 which sought
to raise £75,000 to provide equipment for a new hospital being built in Stalingrad, with a War
Emergency Circular dated 7th June 1943 asking co-op societies to speed up contributions to
the National Council’s Help for Russia Fund.
The National Council of Labour’s Help for Russia Fund was started shortly after June 1941
in response to the widespread belief that the British government was not providing sufficient
aid to the Soviet Union in its struggles against the German armies. This disappointment with
British aid to the Soviets became apparent almost immediately, with the Co-op News
declaring as early as September 1941 that ‘There is a general feeling that Britain is not doing
enough to aid the heroic defenders of Leningrad, Odessa, Kiev, and the many other battle
fronts of the Eastern war’. By the following month, the newspaper was carrying a notice
stating that ‘Every co-operative committee, whether of society or auxiliary body, should
search its treasury for the most generous possible “Help for Russia”’. Shortly after this, the
movement began to encourage regional Societies to adopt a dividend scheme which would
provide aid to Russia by allocating a check number to the Fund and making purchases against
this number.
This dividend scheme was endorsed by esteemed intellectuals such as the Webbs and it was
also highly successful, with the Co-op News stating in December 1941 that the ‘“Dividend
for Russia” scheme is proving to be one of the most popular campaigns ever launched by the
co-operative movement’. The figures support this suggestion, as between its inception on 23rd
September 1941 to its close on 31st December 1945, the National Council of Labour’s Fund
raised over £800,000 to purchase items to provide aid to Russia. But most significantly, over
7
£312,000 of this total amount came from Co-operative Societies, who donated more than any
other contributor to the Fund, who included the likes of Trade Unions, Trades Councils and
Labour Parties. Alongside this dividend scheme, individual co-op societies also donated
money and gifts to other aid to Russia funds, including Mrs. Churchill’s Red Cross Aid to
Russia Fund, and thus contributed to the huge success of this Fund too. This seems to
highlight that co-op societies really embraced the opportunity to provide as much help for the
Soviet Union during the War as possible. I think that we can appreciate just how much of an
achievement this is when we take into account that this amount was raised in the middle of a
War that was affecting the whole of British society, yet despite wartime hardships, cooperators were able to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds for citizens in a country
thousands of miles away.
The successes of this dividend scheme pretty much dominated the Co-op News’s coverage of
the Soviet Union throughout the rest of the War, alongside references to the tenacity of the
Red Army in resisting the German forces. This was typical of broader British attitudes
towards the Soviet Union after the initial excitement of 1941, and as it became more and
more obvious that relations with the Soviets would be much more complicated once the War
was over. However, the movement maintained certain symbolic gestures to convey a
favourable attitude towards the Soviet Union, and interestingly, the edition of the Co-op
News dated 29th January 1944 carried a feature in honour of the twentieth anniversary of
Lenin’s death. The feature stated that Lenin:
made an important contribution to the social sciences by solving a
number of complex problems in economics and politics. He also devoted
his attention to the questions of co-operation. It was he who advanced the
brilliant plan of enlisting the peasants in the work of building up
socialism through co-operation (p. 10).
This was perhaps part of the movement’s attempt to play a part in ensuring that relations
between Britain and the Soviet Union remained friendly after the War had ended, and this
was further emphasised by another visit of British co-operators to the Soviet Union in 1944,
with a pamphlet based on this visit concluding that:
8
The Delegation hope that it will be possible for an increasing number of
the peoples of the two countries to visit each other, for that would be one
of the best means of wiping away the possibility of misunderstanding
between the nations and of securing that understanding and real
friendship which is essential to maintain the peace of the world (p. 49).
In summary, the British co-operative movement’s attitudes towards the Soviet Union during
the Second World War developed in a similar manner to broader public opinion during this
time; beginning with suspicion of Soviet actions in partnership with the German armies, but
then inevitably switching to overwhelming support after the Soviet Union became an ally to
Britain in June 1941. Within this general trend existed extreme views that further highlighted
the diversity of the movement, yet the official line of the movement as expressed in its
publications followed the mainstream opinion as exhibited by widespread society. And
although the movement did seem to embrace opportunities to make symbolic gestures to the
Soviet Union, this did not necessarily mean a deviation in its approach to ideologies, and it
resisted and warned against the attempts of the likes of the Communist Party to influence the
movement.
9