Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-01-19
The Brink Case

= ssS DSSbbN SoSS
Were Communicative world
tensions not so perilous, a fell
low could be amused at the
spontaneous zeal with which
those two adroit. professional
politicians, Adlai Stevenson
and Senator II UNI phrey,
jumped on a single sentence
from the magazine quotation
Of Secretary Dulles concern
ing the brink Of war.
Neither Senator Humphrey
nor Mr.. Stevenson did any
thing but try to cause partisan
turmoil among Republicans.
Russian roulette with Ameri-
can destiny" said Mr.. Steven
son.
1t viii be remembered that
the last Democratic admins
tration. when it got to the
brink Of war, did not have the
art to avoid 1t. It jumped in.
And once in. 1t refused to win.
1t was too fearful to win. It
was afraid of disturbing the
world situation" 1t did not
counter the Russians lack of
fear Of such disturbance. And
1t made Americans ashamed Of
the role they were compelled
to play.
These sturdy knights in
shining armor should tackle
issues. not phrases. They might
be better understood, even If
discredited.
Earl (Scoop) Shutz.
I write to praise Mr.. Dulles.
not to condemn him. II Mr..
Dulles can continue to hold
the Communists at bay by
making them believe we will
tight at the drop Of the hat,
I am all for such a foreign
policy
Only fools would expect Mr..
Dulles to fish with a line, while
the Communists fish with a
net.
Harry Daniels.
think Secretary Dulles is
giving himself credit for a
little more intestinal fortitude
than the rest Of us do. Actu-
ally. while he helped dictate
the terms Of surrender for the
United Nations forces, the only
statesmen who had enough
sumption to want to fight on
to victory were Synghman
Rhee and Chang Kai-shek.
BARLEY Smith.
The magazine thriller de-
plotting Secretary Dulles diplo-
macy Of deft deterrence tells
us: Privately the entire State
Department chafes at the ef-
forts Of Ezra Benson's
Agriculture Department to
alleviate its surplus problems
by dumping abroad" This is
the only indication given of
any lack Of unanimity among
the Government departments
whose functions bestride the
field OF foreign policy. 1t has
been known that on at least
two occasions President Eisen-
hover overrode his chief ad-
visers and prevented action
which might have led to war.
The public did not hear the
argument or know the facts,
and this may seem satisfactory
to Vice President Nixon, who
claims that the public Is only
interested in results" But If
1t is the studied policy Of the
administration to bring us to
the brink Of war;" and then
rescue us from 1t. we want to
know II all concerned are tug
ging together. Divergence be-
tween the State and Agricul-
ture Departments may not be
dangerous, but certainly diver
gence at the brink" between
the State and Defense Depart
ments may hurl us into, the
abyss.
1.-THE contradictory asser-
tions by Secretaries Wilson
and Dulles" wrote Hanson w.
Baldwin in the New York
Times Of December %, 1854,
represent a somewhat more
serious divergence than they
might normally imply" The
difference in opinion, accord
ing to Mr.. Baldwin, was that
Mr.. Wilson thought that the
planned cuts In the military
personnel derived. in part at
least, from the decline in the
danger Of war, while Mr.. Dulles
thought that the danger was
as great as ever but that tech
biological improvements in
weapons accounted for the
budget cuts. The statements
Of Mr.. Dulles represented an
extension and defense Of his
often-modif1ed massive retail
iation" policy.
Wouldn't II be wonderful"