Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-23
Is khrushchev More Dangerous Than Stain?
The Danger Is Greoter'
BY CHARLES E. POTTER
senator From Michigan

BY CHARLES E. POTTER.
senator From Michigan
| Ipropose to defend these propo-
.eitions:
+. That post Stain policies, eco
lnomic and political. are making
the Soviet Union stronger indus
ltrially and militarily.
| That there is no basis for believ-
Ing that communism's objective of
world domination has changed.
That. from the standpoint of the
West, q little Soviet relaxation" Is
more dangerous than none ct all.
That while the very long-range,
unforeseeable ultimate effect of
post-Stalin internal relaxation may
sometime modify the Soviet die
tatorship and its goals, the West
faces o period during which it will
be more dificult, not less, to colln-
ter Soviet pressures clothed with
smiles.
Voriotions in Policy
Up to the present time, we have
observed two apparent variations
Of Soviet policy and attitude. They
may afford some guideline as to
future course for the Western
world:
The first is the one-man princi-
pie of dictatorship Of Stain and
his predecessors, with its Siberia.
its terror, its network of police. its
iron fist that brooked no question
ing and no discussion, its predomi-
nant policy Of shouting and threats
against capitalism and Western
imperialism.
The second is what we shall call
KhrushcheviSm-the policy which
stems from the collective leadership
Of the group Of men who's with some
violent changes Of personnel. have
ruled Russia since the death Of
Stain in 1853.
Now believe this new facade Of
Khrushchevisin is simply q new.
more effective planned device to
achieve Stalinist ends. and there
fore is more dangerous than Stain
ism.
To the Western observer, it has
shown itself more responsive to ex-
Fermentation. more accessible to
its own intelligentsid and technical
groups than did the Soviet with its
former leadership. It has also shown
itself apparently more flexible in
its dealings with the rest Of the
world, and has given evidence that
It can learn by its mistakes.
It Is my opinion that in this added
iiexibility lies a much graver danger
to the Western world than in the
blunt iron fist of Stain And this is
true principally because the Soviet
Union itself has not changed in its
detectives since Khrushehevis took
over. The actions of the Soviet
Union in the October revolution in
Hungary indicated beyond q doubt
that this smiling face of Khrush-
chevism Is nothing more than q
working facade.
Now. to put 1t in simple language,
II the Soviet dictatorship wants to
continue in power. it needs primar-
lily several things: In peacetime it
must be assured Of continued eco
nomic. health and greater produc-
ton. and further perfection Of its
war potential. In time of emergency
1t must know that the bulk Of its
citizenry win say my country right
or wrong, free or slave" and take
up arms in its defense. And it
must so arrange its relations with
the outside world that it can exist
along with it. annex parts Of it. and
ultimately take 1t over completely.
Khrushchevism is furthering all
three Of these detectives.
The Accomplishments
First. let us look at how Khrush-
chevism has affected the Soviet eco
iaomic picture.
In 1850. Soviet production Of steel
was 27.3 million tons and in 1855,
45.3 million tons. BY 1855, the
USSR had nearly doubled its 1850
production Of 912 billion kilowatt
hours Of electric power. In natural
gas the Soviet went up from 81
billion cubic meters In 1850 70 1914
cubic meters in 1855. Crude petro-
leum output in the Soviet increased
rs per cent from 1850 to 1855. In
1850; the country produced 26l.1
million metric tons Of coal and in
1855, 39l million. Lumber produce
ton rose from 49.5 million cubic
meters in 1850 to 10 million in 1855.
Soviet cement production went from
1O.2 million metric tons In 1850 to
22.5 in 1855. Iron ore production
was 37.7 million metric tons In 1850
and no less than 71.9 in 1865.
British economist Peter wiles
sums UP the picture pretty well in
1.-THE Soviet Economy. q Discus
sion" He says: Perhaps the
most important fact in all modern
economics is that this rate of
growth is higher in the manufac-
turing industry Of the Soviet Union
than in that Of any free country at