The Daily Alaska empire., 1951-05-01
T H F. s E D A Y s By .IECRGE E. SOKOLSKY
Marx on Russia

I read this in the British maga- inc "The Twentieth Century,:
 "On April 19 1853, the London correspondent of the New York Tribune now the Herald Tribune) had this to say about Russian ex- Dansion in Europe:
 C. Thanks to the ignorance, lethargy, inconsequence and cow ardice of the occidental goyern- ments, Russia has in all essentials attained it's aims, one after the other. since Peter the Great, the Russian frontier has advanced by seven hundred miles in the d. rection of Berlin, Dresden and Vii enna; it has moved some five hun dred miles closer to Constantinople, some six hundred and thirty miles closer to Stockholm, about thous- and miles closer to Teheran.
 The writer of this quotation was none other than Karl Marx. He could not have known, in 1853, that his ideas would be seeoed down in Russia in 1917 and that his principal disciples would regard that country as their motherland.
 Earlier, Karl Marx had warned:
 :" Under certain circumstan- cesl it would turn out that Rus sia's natural frontier runs from Danzig or Stettin to Trieste. And as sure as one annexation follows another, the conquest of Turkey by Russia would only be the pre- Jude to the annexation of Hun gary Prussia, Galicia, and to the realization of that Slav empire of which certain fanatical pan-Slav philosophers are dreaming. :. once in possession of Turkey, Russia's power is increased by half and overtops that of all the rest of Europe combined. That would be an indescribable disaster the maintenance of Turkish independ- ence, and the prevention Of Russias plans of annexation should the Ottoman empire diss9l.s after ail, are matters of the highest import ance. In this the interests of rev. olutionary democracy and those of England coincide.
 It is interesting to compare these statements with that Of Dean Acheson dated February 23, 1851 to MT. Clarence E. Moulette, in which he says:
 However, as it became clear that the rulers of the Soviet Union not only were not interested in cooper ating with us, but were challeng- ing the survival of our free in- stitutions, and the independence of all nations, we have been obliged to build up our strength again, all of us."
 Recently, in conversation con- corning Dean Acheson, I made the point that he lacks historical im- agitation, which is the essence of statesmanship. Such minds as Tal- leyrand and Disraeli could see ahead and yet they were restrain ed by profound knowledge of his tory.
 Stalin, at Yalta, laid out a future 'or Europe and Asia beneficial to his country and his ideals of life, with the broadest strokes. Roose- velt. Hopkins and Hiss could only deal with the matters in hand. As important as such matters have ieemed to be, they had to be fitted into the framework of our own tradition and history. This they did not do and, therefore, brought up- )n us our present miseries.
 For, to paraphrase Karl Marks statement above: once in possess sion of China, Russia's power is 'ripled and overtops all the nations
 the world combined
 Had the United States possessed one statesman in power in l945, le would have appraised this situ- ltion clearly. There were many fine minds. out of power, who did, in
 945, appraise this situation cor ectly.
 Dean Acheson is now virtually the President of the United States be- sause foreign affairs prevail over every domestic question that faces he country. He develops the posi- ion in international relations and hen every other question has to
 e made to conform to it.
 For instance, we have practically