the nation's land-grant colleges, declared
that a means of living together with the
Soviet Union must be found if the
world is to save itself from destruction.
His speech was widely heralded as taking issue with the position of Senator
At the same time, Charles E. Wilson,
Secretary of Defense, also made the
elementary point, at a news conference,
that the U.S. and the Soviet Union must
learn to live in peaceful coexistence.
Senator Fulbright immediately en-
clnrseil \\ ilson's views, again insisting
that the only alternative to coexistence
is "to look forward to war." Fulbright
made the point that because of the
McCarthyite atmosphere, coexistence has
taken on a "sinister meaning," that it
implies friendship for the Soviet I nion
and other Socialist lands. Fulbright
maintained that it meant the opposite;
that friendship was impossible, but that
two hostile powers were determined not
to plunge into all-out war.
The astute* chief of the Washington
bureau, James Reston. commenting on
the discussion, maintained \\ ednesdav
that the "trend of poliev is verv much
against" Senator Knowland. and that
in an effort to "stop the drift toward
a more conciliatory policy toward Mo-
cow, he has tended to call for bolder and
bolder Soviet measures."
What lies behind this sharp debate
of the past few days, and the apparent
sharp cleavage between the administration and its chief Senate spokesman?
The answer seems to lie in the experiences of the Eisenhower administration in the past several months; the
resounding defeats it received at the
hands of the world peace forces, its
recognition that the peace issue was its
chief stock-in-trade with the American
electorate, the severe strains with its
allies as a result of its belligerent attitudes of the past.
Hence, there is a shift in the tactical
position of the administration—as well
as of other leading political figures
— partly propagandist^, but also partly
material due to a recognition of the
limits of American imperialism's ability
to carry through some of its stated
The administration has obviously
dropped its belligerent discussion of
"massive retaliation" with its threat of
immediate world war. This strained relations with Britain and France, and it
alarmed the people of the U.S. It was
not compatible with the [sic] Eisenhower's pose as champion of peace and
was a target of attack by alert Democrats in the recent campaign.
The material change in tactic appears
to revolve around the use of "massive
retaliation" — the immediate world war
— in cases where the people of a land
choose Communists as their rulers, in
-Wide World Photo
defiance of the will of U.S. ruling
Formerly, John Foster Dulles, with
ihe approval of Eisenhower, proclaimed
that any such further development anywhere would lead to immediate attack on
the "centers of Communist power."
Now, after getting their fingers burnt
in Indochina, administration spokesmen
prefer to maintain caution on this point.
Senator Knowland is aiming lo upset
this caution and commit the- administration to this suicidal policy.
A second point of difference appears
to be how far to go in behalf of Chiang
Kai-shek. Knowland wants lo help
Chiang provoke a war with the Chinese
people, in which the U.S. would join.
Administration leaders are more cautious, fearing the effects of such a war.
in which it is doubtful U.S. allies would
join, and which the American people
would condemn. They apparently hope
lo put the onus on the Chinese People's
government as the "aggressor" if war
should break out on the Formosa question.
Plainly, these differences do not represent any basic change of principle or
objective on the part of dominant elements of American imperialism. They
do reflect the pressures of world and
national opinion on the administration's
tactical position, and indicate a substantial gain for the forces of world
That the basic policy remains unchanged was seen by President Eisenhower's statement Wednesday following a conference of GOP and Democratic congressional leaders. He said the
recent agreements to rearm West Germany and to set up an anti-CommunisI
alliance in the Far East had to be ratified promptly in order to "strengthen
the defenses of the free world against
In the discussion around the meanitf
of "peaceful coexistence" yesterday, N&
York Times writers indicated that j
their view, as in lhat of "free world
leaders, the Russians, as part of su»
a policy, must intervene in every nati1"
to suppress Communist activity. Thi
also suggested the current agitation "
"peaceful coexistence" was some- '"'
propaganda stunt by the Soviets.
As a matter of fact, the Soviet p<*
tion was laid down as early as 1920,"
a letter to American Secretary of St*
liainbridge Colby, and has consistent
guided its relations with capitalist stat*
"The Soviet government deal"
understands that the revolution*"
movement of the working masses
every country is their own affair-
holds to the principle thai commufl
cannot be imposed by force but that"
fight for communism in every com
must be carried on by the worK1*
masses themselves. Seeing thai in A1"',
ica and in many other countries
workers have not conquered the po"
of government, and are not even I
vinced of the necessity of their c
quest, the Russian Soviel govern*
deems it necessary Ice establish ^
faithfully maintain peaceful and Wi
ful relations with lhe evisling gov8"
ments of those countries.
"That the elementary economic "'
of the people of Russia and of <**
countries demand normal relations'
an exchange of goods between thi'"'
quite ilear in the Russian govcrnm
and the [irsl condition of such relM
is mutual good faith and noniiiter
lion of both parts."
Thus, the Soviets have cons'**!
agitated fur pi-aci-ful relations *j
capitalist governments, but has h*jl
accepted the idea thai il guarantee '
existence against movements of \
own peoples fur independence or sOi
Such an idea, inconceivable f"r
Soviet I nieen and in any case to
unrealizable, can hardly be a conn1
for peaceful coexistence.
•FACTS FORUM NEWS Editor's 1
illustrative of Mr. Reston's keen Ihili^,
Ugence is the following, reported al
K. Garrison timing the Oppenheimer ''e
nt, April 13, 195 I (see in i in \i \ 11'K
iiiiiikhi oppenheimer, (init. Printing
Mr. /,',-„„„ /,,„„ ,/„■ middle of -'"">
has Inn! ihe Alsops, and I don't I-'"'*
else, busy gathering information I'""1
body they could Hud and had e/ci'/''''j
much of the story when Mr. Restart 1
with us on Friday" that, in a word. ^
for Dr. Oppenheimer decided to 'At<iSd
official documents in the case of their c 1
"'g to h
10 be co
„- jf'' "P.
" that w
security status. The
Washington office of the
could command Joseph and ■
Alsop, columnists for the new york
FACTS FORUM NEWS, February*