Evening star., 1953-01-14
"A Matter Of Common Sense

"A Matter Of Common Sense
In the editorial, "a Matter Of Com
mon Sense" The Star discussed Mr..
Trumans policy Of continuing economic
assistance to Britain, France and Italy
even though they have exported items
of primary strategic significance" to
Russia. It is not my desire to comment
pro or con on this subject, but only to
discuss one of your conclusions.
You stated, "All told. the disputed
Shipmen machines, pumps,
valves, ball bearings. industrial greases,
electronic equipment, chemical items
and the like-have amounted to only
$2.5 million in value. Clearly enough,
this volume of trade has not added
very greatly to the Soviet Unions war
making power"
From the standpoint Of volume of
business. your conclusion is justified,
but very reasonable conclusion is that
most Of that merchandise imported by
Russia is used by her engineers to learn
how to make such items in Russia
especially when you study the list cited
above. That is a logical short cut to
industrial growth. Business Week car-
ried an article several months ago de-
scribing the Russian version of our
Caterpillar bulldozer. Copying of sue
ceSSful industrial equipment saves years
and millions of dollars even if engi-
neering ability is available at any price.
The dollar volume of Russian imports
is probably the least important factor
in this international game.
b. H. Tabb, jr.
I read with much interest your edi-
torial "a Matter of Common Sense"
In the main it treats of discussion of
some of the provisions of the Battle
Act. as pertaining to the shipments of
goods to Russia of primary strategic
significance"
1t would seem that the point is well
taken that to deny economic and
financial aid to Britain, France and
Italy would be too harsh treatment as
retaliation against these nations for
continuing to ship such material to the
Soviets and their satellites. Just the
same, would take issue with some Of
your conclusions and omissions appear
ing or not presented in your otherwise
fine editorial.
Mention is not made Of the admitted
fact that Britain has been shipping
sizable quantities of rubber from the
Orient direct to Russia, notwithstand-
ing our vigorous protests. It is of in
tereSt to quote your own quotes re:
But the Act (Battle) also provides
that the President may continue such
assistance to such a nation-'when
unusual circumstances indicate that the
cessation of aid would clearly be detri-
mental to the security of the United
States >" In passing. was not this
golden opportunity for our Government
to again warn Britain of our justified
displeasure, but also to put teeth into
warning. to wit: That the continuance
of rubber shipments to our enemy
might force us to invoke the punitive
provisions Of the Battle Act.
The argument is advanced in your
editorial that the President may use
the "exempting clause" of the Act, not
only because not to do so would have
endangered our relations with these
most important NATO countries, but
because these nations had previous
WAI4l 1tOOSld "
them practically all kinds of strategic
materials, excluding the obvious ones,
re: Arms and ammunition. Perhaps
even such provisos were in the original
agreements and or treaties. Does the
latter make it any more logical to COM
ply with such agreements than the
catch-all strategic materials? At the
risk OF being contradicted and vehe-
mently, do believe with many others
that we are at war with Russia, even
though we have not physically broken
of diplomatic relations with her. II
Korea is a police action" we have
for sure lost quite few good American
policemen already, and the end is not
in sight.
Why not invite Britain, France and
Italy to join us, if even with q token
force, in a naval blockade, on world
wide basis. and I do mean to include
the So-called Latin American countries.
In mentioning the global use of such
a fleet. many of us still remember
vividly the effectiveness of the Navicert
system put into effect by particularly
the British in World Wars I and II.
Old fashioned? Not at all. It's a most
practical and proven course of effective
action, and it's simply fighting fire
with more fire.
MahlOn Ashford.