Evening star., 1946-09-19
Temperate but Wrono

1t would have been better all
around if Secretary of Commerce
Wallace had not spoken in New York
last week, but since he apparently
felt impelled to air his views, it is too
bad that he did not do so as tenn
perately as he did in his July letter
to President Truman. If he had, the
storm that followed his words might
have been considerably less intense,
and our foreign policy, in the eyes of
peoples and governments abroad.
probably would not now seem to be
what it has come to seem-a subject
of bitter internal American division.
This is not to say that the premises
and conclusions of Mr.. Wallace's
letter were all sound, but they had
certain virtues that were entirely
lacking in his speech, being on the
whole nondemagogic and sufficiently
we'll reasoned-though inaccurate
and vague in several respects-to
add up to more than a series of
befuddled elf-contradictions. In
effect, the letter pleaded that we
should try to see ourselves as the
Russians see us and realize that
they are wary of us because of
factors like these: % They know
we have appropriated the unprece-
dented total of s13 900 900 900 for our
peacetime armed forces; (2o they
are disturbed by our continued man.
ufacture of A-bombs and our plans
to produce Superbombers with
1O,O00-mile range; 81 they look with
miSgivings on the military bases we
are maintaining thousands of miles
from our own shores, and a. they
read dark meanings into our resist
ance' to their desire for warm-water
ports, our attitude toward their re-
quest for a loan, our political interest
in Eastern Europe, and what Mr..
Wallace regards as our take-it-or-
leave-it atomic control plan.
Up to a point, this analysis is per-
suasive, but MI. Wallaces temperate
letter, like his intemperate speech,
seems to have been based on the
erroneous assumption that President
Truman and Secretary of State
ByrneS have not reckoned fully with
such factors. BY and large, the
problem of mutual distrust is we'll
stated IN the letter, but the solution
Mr.. Wallace has offered boils down
to little more than frightened ap-
peasement. He would have us give
up many of our overseas bases and
drsstically reduce our military
budget even though the peace has
yet to be established. even though
we have already demobilized far
more than the Russians have and
even though common sense demands
that disarmament be worked out on
a multilateral basis. AS for his
other major points: % We have not
resisted the Soviet desire for warm
water ports but have merely resisted
~ AAa tAAS SooS VI IllC
exclusive arrangements ignoring the
United Nations and undermining the
rights of other countries; (2l we
have informed Moscow that we are
ready to discuss a loan but Moscow
Is reluctant to consider conditions
involving the economy of Eastern
Europe, where we have legitimate
interest under the Yalta and Pots
dam agreements; and 90 our atomic
plan has not been presented on a
take-lt-or r-leave-it basis; although
every major power but the Soviet
Union agrees with it's essentials, it
is subject to change, but to modify
it to the extent proposed by Russia
would be to nullify effective world
control.
Mr.. Wallace may be right in de-
claring that the Russians are gen.
timely afraid that we and the other
western powers have an aggressive
intent" against them. But If we can
convince them to the contrary only
by allowing them to have their own
way in everything, by letting them
take ell and give nothing, by defin-
ing international cooperation to
mean that Moscow is always right,
then there can be little or no hope
OF lasting peace under the United
Nations. To be sure, it is good for
us to see ourselves as the Russians
see us, but if we are ever to end
dlstrust and have a secure world,
they have got to come around occa-
sionally to seeing themselves as we
see them.