Evening star., 1948-09-08
YoItu, Potsdum and Toduy

In his address to the American Bar
Association, former Secretary of State
James F. Byrnes has delivered a sane and
timely answer to the more unrestrained
critics of our wartime agreements with
Russia. The critics, speaking with the
cockSureness of hindsight, have been un-
sparing in their denunciations, scornfully
describing Yalta and Potsdam as confer
ences in which the United States made
stupid mistakes" abandoned principles, :"
sold small nations down the river" and
in general Surrendered" large part of
the world to Russia.
But were the agreements really as bad
as that or could they have been a great
deal better? Dwelling particularly on
Yalta, Mr.. Byrnes has reminded everybody
that when that conference was held, the
war had yet to be won. Prime Minister
Churchill and President Roosevelt had to
think primarily in terms of shortening the
struggle. They had to remember that their
top military advisers were of the opinion
that the battles still ahead might cost
very heavy British and American casual
ties. And with that in mind they had to
arrive at decisions calculated to insure full
Russian cooperation in order to hasten
the final victory with the least possible
loss of blood
1t Is easy today of course to point to such
developments as the atomic bomb and say
that the Anglo-American high command
miSjudged the possible duration and cost
OF the struggle. But no A-weapons were
in existence at the time of YaIta, and their
declsiveness was still open to question at
the time of Potsdam. Considered in that
context, the agreements seem to have been
considerably less stupid than the critics
now say, nor can they be regarded as an
unprincipled surrender" 1t is fact, too,
as Mr.. Byrnes has declared, that they
conceded little to Russia that Russia could
not have taken anyhow Owing to the
position OF its armies-a position we could
not have changed without going to war
over it while fighting the Axis-the Soviet
Union could have seized practically every
thing it wanted in the areas covered by the
agreements. Moreover, the agreements
themselves-notably as regards the eco
nomic unification of Germany and free
governments for Poland and other Eastern
European courltries-were basically sound:
they have fallen apart not because of being
inherently evil but because of the Stain
governments constant and deliberate
violation of them.
Although it is true enough that Yalta
and PotSdam-together with certain re-
lated military decisions like the one keep
ing our armies out Of Prague-are likely
to pass into history as examples of less
than-perfect craftsmanship, Mr.. Byrnes
makes better case for them than the
unrestrained critics make against them
Certainly, given the bad faith of the
Russians, given their persistent refusal to
live up to solemn obligations, it is doubtful
in the extreme that the situation today
would be any better than it is even if men
like William Bullitt, and not Messrs
Churchill Roosevelt, Attlee and Truman
had done the negotiating with Stain.
Actually, no matter how shortsighted
they may have been, our wartime agree
ments with Russia are not bascally to
blame for the present state of the world.
What Is basically to blame is Russia's
wholly dishonest violation of practically
every promise it has made to the Western
Powers. 1t is because of that dishonesty.
because no one can count on Moscow's
word, that Mr.. Byrnes is right in declaring
that the threat of continued Soviet ag-
gression is the greatest danger confronting
mankind today
In face of that threat, what matters
most now is that we remain strong and
united while working without letup for the
kind of peace in which the Russians may
yet be persuaded to cooperate.
AI>~.:- -I nI..