By Zell Skillern, Editor of Facts Forum News
EVERYONE is talking about peace. The housewife speaks
proudly of her young son in a non-shooting military
service. The man in the street waxes eloquent on peace
as he discusses the merits and shortcomings of public political
figures. Even the two leading candidates in the recent presidential election made their campaign kickoff speeches primarily
on the subject — with Adlai Stevenson taking as his theme,
"Freedom, Human Welfare, and Peace," and Dwight D. Eisen-
hoxxe-r choosing simple" tbe topic, "Peace."
The free world has even accustomed itself to hearing protestations of a desire for peace from the leaders of the Communist world. Khrushchev, Bulganin, and Tito, during thc year
just past, have donned smiling masks and traveled hither and
yon in a campaign of sweetness and light in order to beguile
the unsuspecting into a false sense of security.
In spite of all the cries of "peace, peace," informed and
thinking people, far from being reassured, realize that though
peace is a noble dream, it is not a present reality.
Actually, the Kremlin declared war on thc rest of the world
more than four decades ago when Lenin set forth thc dictum
that the Communist aim was world conquest. The Soviet rulers
have never retracted this goal, but have continued to use it as
their guiding principle. Even during the past few months they
have stated that the USSR xx ill give up the goal of world domination "when shrimps learn to whistle and when iron turns
jjince July 26, when thc dictator of Egypt, Carnal Abdel
Nasser, nationalized the 103-mile Suez Canal, long used by all
countries as an international waterway, the anxious eye-s of the
world have been riveted on the Middle East.
With war clouds hovering darkly in this area, the hope of
the world turned to the United Nations Security Council. Here
xxas a chance for it to show its effectiveness, or lack of it! With
the plan authored by John Foster Dulles and adopted in London by eighteen of the principal user nations, as a springboard
for negotiation, the Security Council worked desperately to
formulate a plan of canal operation acceptable to all the
It looked as if success were in sight when six major points
of agreement xvere- reached in UN Secretary Dag Hammar-
skjold's office through private conversations with British
Foreign Minister Sehsxn Lloyd, French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Fawqi.
However, the eleven-member UN Security Council failed
to endorse the plan for international operation of the canal
because of the vetoes of Soviet Foreign Minister Dmitri T.
Shepilov anel Yugoslav Foreign Minister Popovic. To those
already doubtful of any value the United States may have
derived from the millions of American dollars poured out to
Communist Yugoslavia, this veto only served to crystallize
their displeasure at the drain on their tax pockets.
Conforming xxith (he usual Communist line, Shepilov stated,
even as he vetoed the Council's endorsement of the agreement,
that Russia wanted to cooperate in some plan for peaceful
solution of the problem!
Many people hael looked hopefully to the peaceful solution
of the Suez problem by the United Nations as an opportunity
for that organization to display world leadership and insure
for itself the prestige which xvould enable it to preserve peace,
ancl fulfill the purpose for which it was established. However,
Russia again demonstrated to the world that she is a member
of the United Nations only to ruin its effectiveness. She- does
not want a satisfactory settlement of the Suez controversy, or
for the United Nations to be an effective instrument in an)
other matter of world importance.
The only thing accomplished by the Security Council's con
sideration of the Suez difficulty was the revelation, xvith al
disguises torn aside, of how the nations of the- world are
aligned; with Russia, its satellite bloc, and the "neutrals' Yugoslavia and Egypt opposing the majority of the member nations
of the United Nations, including the eighteen principal world
powers which objected to nationalization of the Suez Canal-
Hiven the casual observer on the world scene begins to
view the Suez problem as only one furunculous manifestation
of the encompassing malignancy of hate, oppression, and
tyranny. It is obvious that Communist gangsters would corrupt
the whole world by propagating this particular brand of
Before these words are printed, the smoldering fires of
another tension area in the Middle East max have- burst into a
holocaust of war between Israel and the Arab countries. In
such eventuality, is there any doubt that the remainder of the
world would not also become embroiled in the conflict?
Many quasi-informed persons state that we are in no great
clanger of war; that Russia does not want an atomic war any
more than does the United States. That brings one to consider
the definition of war! Francis E. Walter, Chairman of the
House Committee on Un-American Activities, states in his
forexvord to "Soviet Total War," the latest Symposium published by his Committee, that "Truly, the Russian masters and
their fanatical followers are engaged in a total war — that is, in
a war on every plane and in every sphere of activity."
Congressman Walter further states that the more than 120
contributors to the Symposium, all well-known authorities on
the phase of the subject on which they have written, agree in
their conviction that the Communist threat is clearly the
greatest danger the free world has ever had to face. He writes.
"They unmask its deceits and subterfuges — its relentless psychological, political, economic, sociological, and military strategies. Like all reasonable people, these- contributors elo not desire
war, but only a lasting peace. On tbe other hand, they are
fully aware that, in hoping for peace, we cannot permit ourselves to be frozen into extinction as free men . . . either we
prevent the achievement of communism's 'historic mission'"
or we perish."
Subsequent issues of Facts- Forum News will bring to i's
readers some of the outstanding article's comprising the above;
mentioned Symposium, just as a number of articles were presented in past issues from the Committee's previous Symposium
entitled "The Great Pretense," in which thirty-nine expert*
found that the program outlined at the 20th Conununist Congress constituted the greatest menace in the- entire- history 01
the world Communist movement.
As we come to another Christmas season, with a situation 0*
tension, fear, and anxiety throughout the world, who would
deny that the age-long symbol of tranquillity, the Dove eif
Peace, has a broken wing and can no longer soar in unhampered
flight through cloudless skies of prosperity and good xxill
Factts Forum News, December, 1956