Detroit evening times., 1945-02-22


upon the Russian position, as
Sumcd at Dumbarton Oaks with
such fCrYOT then as 10 cause dis
ruptIOn of that earlier confer
CnCc without final agreement.
Not until the carefully chosen
words of the text are made pub
lie can the chances of future
wars be concluSivcly aSSayed
But the unofficial explanations
of IL (from senators and off
clalSl all say Russia won her
point, and indicate it was done
IN this way:
THE big five can take up any
Il important case of future
threatened war by a majority
vote, but steps 10 prevent that
war can be taken only by unani-
nous vote.
Now any important move to-
ward the next war could only
involve one of the big five, be-
cause no other nation Will have
any arms left when this one is
over. And any Of the big five
could veto united action.
What would this mean? Pri-
marlly IL would mean that the
postwar peace organization
could prevent war by any one
except tho big five.
If Russia, ~ United States,
Britain, China or France.
wanted 10 go to war against
any nation. or against each
other. the peace deal would be
off and II would be every ma
ton for itself.
If Russia vetoed united aC-
ton, We would have 10 make
up our minds what We would
DO fight or appcdSe, ally with
Britain or China, If they chose,
or what?
THlS is not erYpowcrful
Il preventative of future wars.
In practical application, it
would only prevent wars among
smaller nations Bolivia and
Paraguay possibly but not
Russia and Italy
1t would not possibly stop
any aggression by any member
of the Big Five. To do that,
the other nations would have
10 get together on the outside,
and fight for Italy against Rus
sra. This then is only a peace
agreement. until the first im-
portant threat TO peace comes
up, and then the deal is of,
and we viii see what happens.
What does this arrangement
mean in the fundamental con-
fllCt Of IdcalogicS between Rus
sian totalitarlanlsm and Anglo
American CapIiahStlc dcmOC-
racy which already has become
the dominant factor OF postwar
world diplomacy? 1t does noth-
ing 10 resolve that conflict
leaves everything to the fu-
ture.
I WOULD say il throws that
Il question into the field of
constant debate and ncgotia-
ton There are some American
, officials who believe Russia VIII
be sincere IN seeking full and
free elections of the democratic
kind in postwar nations. others
who think her totalitarlan adj
vOCateS viii merely use cleo
iIOnS for the gaining of dlCta-
torial controls Hitler did in
democratic Germany We shall
see.
Meanwhile there is no iuStif-
cation IN this settlement for
American disarmament in view
of the necessity of protecting
our interests against vctocS.
Today this conference result
is very popular. IT would be
absurd TO try 10 guess what our
people will think of il in the
future. Remember Munich?
That appcaScmcnt of Hitler by
which he got what he wanted in
CzcCho-Slovakla was popular
Immediately after its announce
mCnt.
ONLY later were mon bounded
" into oblivion and Smcared
with labels of faSciSm for hav-
ING approved that Chamberlain
pact which he said meant peace
i'm our time. Don't look al me,
as | bitterly opposed il from the
beginning, being against Hitler
from the very moment ne Chal-
lcnged democracy with his to-
talltarian philosophy in "Ncin
Kampl' and long before ne
came into any power ! wrote
the French should have killed
him W h en- hc moved into the
Rhincland Tho Sunday after
the Munich settlement. however,
the New York Times (which
also said a good word for
Munich reported
"RcaSSurcd by the sharp turn
Of affairs ward peace, the
President prepared to leave for
Hyde Park"
AIr-RnaAeNclt also lScpt 20l
asked the people 10 ION with