English sailor (Will Mariner, who spent four breathless years as the Boy Chief of Tonga), the authors' favorite author of South Sea tales (an Australian named Louis Becke) and the legendary Leeteg, who painted on black velvet and was the weekly terror of Tahiti until his untimely death in 1953. The lure of the Pacific is still strong for a great many of us, and this long book will make exciting reading for armchair voyagers, to whom a few of these colorful "rascals in Paradise" will be old friends back again.
(Price, $4.75)
GRAHAM CRANSTON

## Beyond the Five Senses

Edited by EILEEN J. GARRETT

MRS. GARRETT

THERE is nothing more fascinating to the human race than the improbable, which in the course of history has so often turned out to be the possible. That undiscovered country, that borderland between what the rational mind can explain and what cannot be accounted for by any formal psychological doctrine, is the subject of this engrossing book. It takes us into the realm for which Duke University and Dr. J. B. Rhine have become celebrated—the realm of what is now called (not with entirely good reason) parapsychology. Mrs. Garrett, the editor of this symposium, is editor and publisher of a psychical research magazine and president of the Para-Psychology Foundation. It is thus not strange that many of the pieces here—on such old standbys as telepathy, ghosts, the soul, hypnosis, miraculous cures and mental journeys into the past—should be tinged with the rather unrealistic and unscientific enthusiasm of the Duke University laboratory. Yet it would be wrong to say that the entire book is uncritical. There is an excellent section on the Bridey Murphy case which is rational and unemotional, and there are other excellent and interesting presentations, without far-fetched explanations, of things which would once have been called supernatural. Readers eager for a convincing demonstration of the reality of the unreal may feel a certain disappointment, for some of the authors involved speak rather glibly of "proof" of such things as the existence of the human soul. It is not to deny the existence of the soul to suggest that no one but a gullible child could regard anything in this book as acceptable proof of anything so difficult. Yet *Beyond the Five Senses* is a fascinating collection of information and intimation about strange and supposedly unacceptable phenomenon. (Price, $4.95)
RAYMOND HOLDEN

## In the Time of Greenbloom

By GABRIEL FIELDING

GABRIEL FIELDING

THE first half of this strange novel is pastoral, an account of the coming of age of a reflective English boy named John, and of his evolving relationship with a young girl. This idyll, which by some miracle succeeds in capturing the essence of unblemished childhood without falling into sentimentality, is abruptly terminated by the brutal death of the girl at the hands of a maniacal stranger. The second half of the novel finds John attempting to cope with life in an English public school, with the publicity resulting from the murder and (what is most disastrous to his emotional well-being) with a permanent sense of loss, for the girl had shared his inner life with that extraordinary rapport that adolescents sometimes have. Then appears Horab Greenbloom, an Oxford friend of John's older brother—and one of the most exotic characters I've encountered in a long time—and he partially resolves the problems. Horab accomplishes this as much by entertaining the boy as by increasing his awareness and sensibility; he not only moons about like a brooding existentialist, but can precipitate himself out of despair to cavort with frenetic zeal like a Hemingway character, flying about in his private plane, talking or drinking himself into a spectacular exhilaration. Despite Mr. Fielding's varied indebtedness—to Joyce, Hemingway, Camus, Dutourd—this is writing of marked talent, highly imaginative in conception and with a genuine regard for characterization, tempo, sudden and pictorial contrasts and, what is most important, the nature of man. (Price, $4.75)
DACHINE RAINER

## Personal and Oriental

By AUSTIN COATES

Mr. COATES is a most observant Englishman blessed with a sense of humor and the ability to write very well indeed, as he demonstrated in that delightful, off-beat travel book *Invitation to an Eastern Feast*. In 1954, after nine years in the Far East, he decided to return to Europe, visiting on the way the countries where he had worked and made friends. The result of his trip, which took him from Japan to Hongkong, Manila, Burma, India, Pakistan and across the Middle East, is a new travel narrative filled with perceptive glimpses of the lives of his friends and given added perspective by

8

For books with **BOOK-DIVIDEND** CREDIT see pages 13-23

strategy by which the present Russian Government
can be prevented from swallowing still more of the
smaller civilized nations and setting up brutal and
short-sighted puppet regimes to rule them, as in
Hungary? In over 400 pages of sober, intelligent,
closely but clearly reasoned prose, Dr. Kissinger ana-
lyzes the present strategic situation of the United
States. His book does not represent the thinking
of one man alone: probably no one man could work
out all the ramifications of such a problem. Dr.
Kissinger took part in studies of the subject which
were held, under the chairmanship of Gordon Dean,
by the Council on Foreign Relations; and, after
eighteen months of difficult but stimulating discus-
sion, was commissioned by the Council to draw the
results together into this book. It is hard reading
because the subject is so complex, so important and
sometimes so painful in its implications; but it is a
highly valuable book. No one who endeavors to talk
in public (or even to think seriously in private) about
the strategic problems of the atomic age can prof-
itably do so henceforward without reading Nuclear
Weapons and Foreign Policy, not once, but again
and again. (Price, $4.00)

GILBERT HIGHET

The Red and the White

By HENRI TROYAT

HENRI TROUYAT

ALMOST Tolstoyan in range and Dostoevskian in depth, this is a remarkable novel of war and revolution in Russia. Basically a chronicle of two bourgeois families, it covers the years 1914-1920. The people in it not only act; they think and feel in vivid, completely convincing terms. Some of them are near-saints, some near-devils, and all are faced with an inescapable decision: "There are two sides, for and against — White, Red. Choose!" The choice is still more difficult because, with the world around them going to pieces, they discover that there is both White and Red in their natures. The 1917 Revolution is evoked in all its brutality and horror (especially in the scenes depicting the dissolution of the Tsarist army), and Russia is portrayed as "a land without hope," in which only the Reds know what they want and pursue it ruthlessly. M. Troyat (he is the Russian-born author of *The Mountain* and other novels) handles his massive theme in masterly fashion, never losing sight of individual values in the holocaust. As so ably translated by Anthony Hinton, *The Red and the White* is a tour de force in its revelation of "man's inhumanity to man." (Price, $4.50)

ROGER PIPPETT

Letter from Peking

By PEARL S. BUCK

PEARL S. BUCK

Mrs. Buck's writing is sometimes richly perfumed; she loves incense-bearing phrases like "My soul cried out for peace!" or Gene Stratton-Porterisms about "beauty," and seems even to feel that a little touch of supernaturalism can help a book along now and then. Having noted which, one must go on to say that her newest novel has positive virtues, among them a taut plot line, excellent New England atmosphere and a story quite topical enough, on the whole, to survive the lavender and patchouli. An American woman who lived in Peking with her half-Chinese husband for many years has been forced to leave because of the Communists there. So she has settled down in rural Vermont with her adolescent son, while her husband, who believes that his responsibility is to China, remains behind in Peking, where he heads a university. Occasional letters pass between the two, but man and wife have been, in Mrs. Buck's phrase, effectively "separated by history." It is out of this separation, not only physical and personal but also symbolic of the modern breach between the two countries, that the novel evolves—with special emphasis upon the reactions of the adolescent son, who as he grows up learns to accommodate himself to the problems of his mixed background. No one other than Mrs. Buck could have imagined the situation in *Letter from Peking*, or have dealt in some 200 pages so sympathetically and convincingly with the human issues involved. (Price, $3.75)

RALPH THOMPSON

Rascals in Paradise

By JAMES A. MICHENER
and A. GROVE DAY

MOST distinguished of contemporary literary beachcombers, Mr. Michener has collaborated with Professor Day of the University of Hawaii in assembling this chronicle of nine adventurers and one adventuress who "sought solace and fulfillment in the broad Pacific." The period covered ranges from the late 16th to the mid-20th century, and the *dramatis personae* include a murderous Nantucket harpooner-mutineer (Sam Comstock), a fraudulent French nobleman ("Charles I, Emperor of Oceania"), the notorious Captain Bligh of the *Bounty*, an early Spanish woman explorer (Doña Isabel), an

7

# Other New Books to Know About

IMPORTANT—The books reported upon here are those that were particularly enjoyed or were considered important by some of our preliminary readers and judges. . . . Members may order any of these books—or any book in print.

BOOK-DIVIDEND CREDIT IS GIVEN ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY STATED

## Tip on a Dead Jockey and Other Stories

By IRWIN SHAW

IRWIN SHAW

IN spite of his successful novels and plays, Irwin Shaw's forte probably is the short story. Here he is at his most brilliant. This collection of ten stories, seven of which first appeared in *The New Yorker*, proves again how much at home he is in the form. Most of these are "long-shorts," and two or three—notably the first, *Tip on a Dead Jockey*, and the last, *Voyage Out, Voyage Home*—have all the impact of a novel. That is, they have the meat of a novel, and a less scrupulous writer might have blown them up into book-length form. Mr. Shaw knows about many things—including airmen, skiers and ex-soldiers away from home. He is good on foreign settings—say, Switzerland or southern France. But in *Peter Two*, for contrast, he does convincingly a little boy in a New York apartment; and the memory expert Hugh Forester, who gets amnesia in *The Sunny Banks of the River Lethe*, lives far uptown in the city. In other words, Mr. Shaw knows his way around at home as well as abroad. He is a master of amusing and inconsequential conversations; he is a clever workman, but not too clever to bring to his work both depth and perception. Of one of his characters, a 22-year-old Munnie Brooks, someone says, "You have a rare gift. The gift of instantaneous nostalgia. You get twice your investment out of everything." That, too, seems to hold for Irwin Shaw's writing. (Price, $3.95)
ROSEMARY BENÉT

## Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy

By HENRY A. KISSINGER

DR. KISSINGER

AT the end of World War II, victorious on every front where it had been engaged, ready to change from warlike to peaceful production and thereby to enter an age of unprecedented prosperity, and, alone among all the countries of the world, in possession of a new weapon of incomparable strength, the United States of America was the most powerful country in existence. It could have subjugated the entire planet, converting all other peoples into satellites or serfs. In the same position of predominance, many nations of the past and some of the present time would have seized the opportunity. Such a conquest was utterly alien to American thought, since it would deny to others life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, for some years after the war, the Russian Government was painfully aware of American power, and apparently unable to understand America's conviction that it should not and would not be used for world conquest. Since one of the principal aims of communism is world conquest, the men in the Kremlin struggled desperately to acquire power equal to that held by the Americans, and at last, helped by the techniques of skillful espionage, achieved it. Now there were in existence two nations, each in possession of the same ability to destroy or subjugate. How can these nations live together? Are they bound to destroy each other, one attacking and the other defending? Is there any

6

the fifth of his novels to be published.

Since early childhood White, now 45, has been shuttling between England and the Australia of his ancestors. At 13 he entered school in the old country and spent some unsatisfactory years there; then came a period Down Under, and again England, at Cambridge, where he studied history and modern languages. Eventually, from a London base, he tried himself out in various forms—verse, plays, stories, novels—then adventured into these States.

Asthma almost kept White out of the war. While his application for R. A. F. Intelligence was being pondered, he worked for the Red Cross Foreign Relations Department at St. James's Palace, drafting cables to neutral centers. The task "satisfies my passion for strange names," he stated at the time. Eventually he was assigned, asthma and all, to the Middle East R. A. F., where he encountered strange names aplenty. Then in due course he concluded his stint with a year in Greece, a meaningful period to him.

The war over, White returned to Australia, and to the soil, literally. There were temptations to remain in London, in the center of things, but he must have decided that the center of things is in every man, so he bought a farm not far from Sydney. There, for ten years, he and a Greek friend who is his partner "hoed and trenched, weeded" and whatever else people condemn themselves to do in the ancient passion for such work. In the leisure (!) hours that farm life affords, the two men bred schnauzers, Saanen goats, olive trees and other flora and fauna. And oh, yes: when not cultivating his garden Patrick White wrote his last three novels!

The production of fiction actually does call for even greater application and energy

than it takes to raise flowers and vegetables. Last September, in bed with flu, White wrote, "I had got through about a quarter of Voss when this happened. Although I thought, after writing it twice, I should have a clear run through with the typing, I find it almost needs writing for a third time." Which recalls a remark made early in his career: "I envy people who are able to get books off their chests with the moment itself. I am always either forced or inclined to keep mine back till they risk appearing to be dated."

None can read Voss or any of its fore-runners without an awareness that its author is essentially a poet deeply sensitive to musical values. "You know, I would really like to spend my life just sitting and looking, and listening to music. . . . I think music has taught me a lot about writing." Commenting on Voss during its progress, he ventured, "As for the look and the sound of things, I have tried to marry Delacroix to Blake, and Liszt to Mahler. Now I really am committed to my own shortcomings." One is tempted to call for three cheers for the shortcomings which contribute to an achievement that bursts regional bounds and establishes itself high in the great world of letters.

Art and beauty, in whatever form, serve Patrick White; they are intrinsic to his attachment to Australia, too, as witness his reluctance to make a projected trip to England: "The prospect of missing what happens on these few acres, if only for a few weeks, is a most unpleasant one. . . . I actually have to decide whether to miss autumn colors, or to get back in time for the azaleas. No doubt I would find better of everything in other places, but that is not the same."

—B. W. HUEBSCH

5

Continental-adhaesiv

Der Reifen
mit dem unsichtbaren
zweiten Profil!

Nach langen Vorarbeiten haben die Continental-Werke vor einiger Zeit die Fabrikation von Reifen mit einer neu entwickelten Lauffläche aufgenommen. Es handelt sich um ein Material, das dank seinem Gehalt an neuen Russ-Sorten und andern verdichtenden Stoffen dem bisherigen Produkt in mancher Hinsicht überlegen ist. Vor allem zeichnet sich der neue Pneu bei unvermindter Lebensdauer durch eine aussergewöhnliche Bodenhaftung aus, weshalb auch die Benennung «adhaesiv» gewählt wurde.

Auf den ersten Blick scheint sich der Continental-adhaesiv in keiner Weise von irgendeinem andern Reifen zu unterscheiden. Betrachtet man ihn jedoch nach Abnutzung der äussersten Deckschicht in starker Vergrösserung, dann kann man deutlich wahrnehmen, dass seine gesamte Lauffläche eine körnig gerippte Struktur angenommen hat.

Dass diese Körnung zusätzlich zur herkömmlichen Kerbung sich wie ein zweites Profil auswirken und dem Reifen hinsichtlich Rutschsicherheit und Bremsvermögen ein gewaltiges Plus verleihen muss, liegt auf der Hand. Im Vergleich zu einem gewöhnlichen Pneu ist der Unterschied etwa derselbe wie beim Gegenstück des Reifens - dem Strassenbelag - jener zwischen Beton oder Makadam und einer glatten Asphaltoberfläche.

Natürlich wäre die Körnung der Lauffläche von beschränktem Nutzen, wenn sie mit fortschreitendem Abrieb verschwinden würde. Der besondere, durch ein Spezialverfahren erreichte Vorzug des Materials besteht aber gerade darin, dass seine Oberfläche während der ganzen Laufdauer des Reifens bis zur vollständigen Abnutzung ihre körnige Struktur beibehält!

Getreu der Werktradition wurde der Continental «adhaesiv» für die Produktion erst freigegeben, nachdem er in langandauernden Versuchen die allerstrengsten Zerreissproben bestanden hatte. Der Automobilist erhält im neuen Continental-Reifen ein bewährtes Spitzenprodukt, das ihm bei ungeschmälerter Verschleissfestigkeit und Laufruhe bei jeder Fahrweise, Geschwindigkeit, Strassenbeschaffenheit und Witterung ein Optimum an Sicherheit gewährleistet.

Der Continental-adhaesiv gelangt nicht als Spezialreifen in den Handel. Er wird heute vielmehr in allen Personenwagen-Dimensionen ohne Mehrpreis und ohne besonderes Verlangen anstelle der bisherigen Ausführungen geliefert!

Neu

Continental

Für Sicherheit
und Dauerwert
die Reifenmarke
mit dem Pferd

AG. für den Verkauf von
Continental-Gummiwaren, Zürich

Depots in Zürich, Basel,
Bern, Biel, Lausanne,
Lugano, Olten und Winterthü

Washington Wire

Disarmament, But . . .

DISARMAMENT IS the biggest issue in the world today. Here are some Washington angles.

President Eisenhower, almost a paci-
fist, is as much interested in this as in
any other subject; he wants history to
record his role. But—

He picked Admiral Radford as Chair-
man, Joint Chiefs of Staff, who firmly
believes nuclear war with Russia "in-
evitable." And—

Admiral Strauss as Chairman, Atomic
Energy Commission, who adores his
new, shiny atomic weapons and would
be shocked by a forced moratorium.
Also—

Dulles, who correlates arms limitation
with total disarmament, and is jealous
of London arms delegate Harold Stas-
sen. And—

Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secre-
tary of State for Far Eastern Affairs,
who has an evangelical hatred of Red
China like Radford's of Moscow.

Eisenhower is further hobbled by the
political scorn which he, his adminis-
tration and virtually the whole Republi-
can one-party press, heaped on Steven-
son's proposal for a nuclear test holiday
—a holiday which now appears inevit-
able as a first step to any arms limitation.

The cobweb enmeshing Eisenhower
is also revealed in the way anti-Stassen
elements tried to destroy Stassen's mis-
sion by leaking the story that he had
been hauled back to Washington to be
"reprimanded."

Stassen's rhinoceros hide, incurable
political ambition and his backing by
Eisenhower sustained him. So the
strange dance goes on with elements in
the Administration for and against arms
limitation at the same time.

The Canyon's Comeback

WE DEVOTED two recent columns to
Hells Canyon. "Why worry about lost
causes?" complained friends. Because
good causes are never lost. We confess

our amazement, however, that the Sen-
ate, 45-38, confounded forecasts and
backed our position, reversing last
year's 10-vote margin and giving con-
servationists a tremendous victory! It is
now said that "Eisenhower will veto
Federal development of Hells Canyon"
if the House follows the Senate lead.
Well, Coolidge and Hoover separately
vetoed public development of Muscle
Shoals—and yet it became TVA under
the drive of George Norris. Coolidge
and Hoover wanted to sell Muscle
Shoals to Henry Ford. This Administra-
tion wants to give Hells Canyon to the
Idaho Power Company (headquarters,
Augusta, Maine).

We feel deeply about this, not because
of the public vs. private issue, but be-
cause, with young Sen. Frank Church
(D, Idaho) we believe that failure to
use a great national resource like this to
its maximum is a moral wrong. The
Idaho Power Company would not fully
exploit the extraordinary gorge and the
big river, and it would impound only
part of the melting snow-water for re-
clamation and flood-prevention.

If the Federal "high" dam is ever
built at Hells Canyon it should be called
the Kefauver Dam. With that plodding
implacability with which he exposed the
Dixon-Yates give-away, Kefauver has
now exposed the fast tax write-off sub-
sidy which the Administration proposed
to give to the Idaho Power Company.
The company dropped the gimmick on
the eve of the vote, but it was then too
late. Up there in the sky somewhere old
George Norris must have winked his
little deep-set eyes and applauded Estes
Kefauver.

Humphrey and Kerr

WE HAVE ALWAYS liked Treasury Sec-
retary George Humphrey. He is arro-
gant but not wittingly so; it is the arro-
gance that springs from an unconscious
assumption of effortless superiority, so
good-humored and deep-grained that he
does not even know it exists. It is no
fun to see a proud man spanked, and yet
that is what Sen. Robert Kerr (D,

Okla.) is doing to Humphrey in the
Senate Finance Committee's "tight-
money" hearings. The fight between
these two multimillionaires is a gladi-
torial battle if we ever saw one; it is
currently the best show in Washington.
Never in his life has Humphrey been
treated like this. He keeps saying im-
pulsive things, as grinning Kerr eggs
him on, like his answer to the taunt that
Eisenhower promised a "$60 billion
budget" in 1952—"Oh," said George,
"but that was before he was elected!"

Humphrey represents the Eternal
Businessman come to "clean up" Wash-
ington. Some businessmen, like Ogden
Mills, learn things in Washington; we
doubt if Humphrey has. Yet he is not
stupid like Sinclair Weeks. Humphrey
can be an immensely valuable member
of society as head of his big steel-coal
empire, particularly under stiff Federal
controls. His preconceptions and parti-
sanship defeat him in public life. He
cannot understand it. For five years he
has persistently compared Truman's war-
time budgets with Eisenhower's peace-
time budget—to the latter's advantage.
So Kerr pulls his statistics apart. It is
a little cruel—but a great show. The
big gilt committee mirror reflects the
three crystal chandeliers on into infinity.
Humphrey lowers his head and makes
bull rushes. The play might be called,
"The Desanctification of Saint George."

Notes:

THE LOYD WRIGHT commission on loyalty-security programs comes up with some good ideas but we deplore the proposal to make it a crime for the press to publish information which the government labels "secret"; Harvard honored Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson) the other day at Commencement; we wonder that the University Overseers neglect Mrs. Roosevelt, surely the outstanding woman today in America. . . . A matter-of-fact AP account May 30, telling how a Montgomery, Alabama, all-white jury acquitted two youths who made, and then retracted, confessions of bombing four Negro churches had a lot to do with killing in the House the Southerners' trial-by-jury amendment to the pending civil rights bill; a bitter filibuster is now a real possibility—starting any time. . . . Congratulations to the Internal Revenue Service for cracking down on oil and gas propaganda advertisements which companies have been deducting as "business" costs.

T.R.B.

The New Republic

A JOURNAL OF OPINION

JULY 1, 1957

THE WEEK 3

Opinions; New Coalitions; Oregon's Lone Ranger; The Nation's Finances; Disarmament Fears: Worthy and Stevens; The Two Vietnams

ARTICLES 8

The Superficial Aspect
by Gerald W. Johnson

The June 17th Decisions
by Alan Barth and Harry Kalven

Facts about Fallout

World's Largest Wastebasket
by Richard L. Strout

BOOKS AND COMMENT 18

Reviews: Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy; They Hanged My Saintly Billy

RECORDS 22

VOL. 137, NOS. 1-2, ISSUES 2222-23

Correspondance

► The Calling of Tsuru

SIRS:

IT IS a reflection on the provincialism of the American press that the travails of Professor Tsuru, which occurred while I was in Japan two months ago and which were front-page news in the Tokyo papers for over a week, received the barest notice, editorial or newswise, in the US. In the late 1930's, Shigematsu Tsuru had been one of the bright graduate students at Harvard, a pupil and friend of the Marxist economist Paul Sweezy, and one of the founders of Science and Society, the Communist magazine which sought to extend Marxist researches. During the war, Tsuru was repatriated to Japan, held important posts in the Japanese economic ministry, and later in the Occupation. After the war he became a professor at Hitotsubashi University, and the leading (Continued on page 23)

Opinions

NOBODY is ever against the Supreme Court—just its decisions. Senator Talmadge of Georgia, for example, interprets the Justices' decisions of June 17th as an "unrestrained attempt to set themselves up as a nine-man dictatorship of this nation." The Senator's father took a different line—22 years ago; Governor Talmadge was then organizing a Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution—to preserve the high court from its enemies in the White House.

Democratic Representative Howard Smith of Virginia is so disgusted with the Court that he's not sure it is even worth while trying to amend the anti-subversive law which bears his name, for, as he points out, it has got to the point where the law is nothing more than "whatever the present court interprets it to be." That was exactly the complaint of the Republicans about a century ago, when they said that Dred Scott was not a decision, but "merely an opinion"—an opinion furthermore by which the Justices "sullied the ermine" and wallowed in the gutter of politics. Pre-civil war Democrats of the South couldn't see it that way at all. To them, the Court had decided honorably and wisely in Dred Scott.

To Senators Eastland and Jenner last week the June 17th opinions represent a "boundless assumption of power" by the Court; they warn that as a result "our liberties will be very much jeopardized in the years ahead." Their view is shared by Representative Walter (D, Pa.) who demands that Congress "assert its authority" and not permit the Court to tell the legislature what can and can't be done. Congressman Walter's outrage takes us back to 1935 and '36 and comparable annoyance over the Court's nullification of seven of nine major reform measures of the Roosevelt Administration. Had not the Court, liberals then asked, set itself up as third legislative chamber? Not at all, replied most Republicans, the Court is the savior of our liberties. Americans, wrote columnist David Lawrence, on February 8, 1937, "have accepted the doctrine that it is fundamentally unethical to refuse to respect an adverse decision," and he scorned those who wanted to "sock the umpire."

But the issue then was private property rights, not the rights associated with the First and Fifth Amendments. Today, David Lawrence writes that the "Supreme Court has now set itself up as knowing more about what Congress needs to know to legislate than Congress itself thinks it does." He deplores the fact that for the most part the Justices live "in a legal vacuum." "Naturally," he observes, their June 17th decision has made Moscow "happy." What we need, says Mr. Lawrence, is a constitutional amendment to limit the Court's power.

And that is just what Charles Beard thought in 1936. In an article in *The New Republic* on September 2 of that year, Professor Beard applauded the determination of those who were going to "seek an

4

THE NEW REPUBLIC

amendment of the Constitution, if within the range of
providence a liberalization of the judiciary does not take
place during the next four years." Three weeks later in
this Journal, TRB wrote gleefully that a

meeting of farm leaders here, ten days ago, bubbled
with enmity for the Supreme Court. There seems to
be real hope that organized labor and the organized
farmers can cooperate on the Supreme Court Issue.

The comment that most accurately reflects our senti-
ments comes from a contributor now residing in England
who wrote us to say that

the recent decisions enable an American here to hold
his head with pride once more. What has been lost
for the United States, in the way of world esteem, by
the Administration and Congress, is being won back
by the Supreme Court. It is odd that that branch of
government which has no diplomatic functions should
be our best ambassador abroad. Odd though it may be,
thank God it is true!

New Coalitions

IT HAS LONG been known that anytime the Republican leadership and liberal Democrats chose to get together behind a civil rights bill in the Senate, the traditional coalition of Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans could be defeated. At last that has happened. It has come about partly because more Republicans have become persuaded that the more Negroes who vote, the more Republican votes there will be. And partly because patient and skillful Democratic strategists have seen the political wisdom of following the President's lead in the civil rights fight.

In its very first try, the new coalition has forced the
Administration's bill, already approved by the House,
onto the Senate calendar—by-passing the Judiciary Com-
mittee and Senator Eastland in the process. A study of
the test vote (45-39 with 11 not voting) on whether to
employ seldom-used Senate Rule XIV to accomplish the
by-pass indicates that the coalition has the potential
strength to break the inevitable filibusters.

Under the incongruous joint leadership of Senators
William Knowland and Paul Douglas, 45 Republicans
and 11 liberal Democrats, with the benevolent aid of
Vice President Nixon, out-argued and out-maneuvered
the 34 Democrats and 5 Republicans whom the able
Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia led in opposition to cir-
cumventing Eastland's jurisdiction. As a result, on about
July 8 a motion will be made to bring up the bill, at
which time Senator Russell and his followers are ex-
pected to begin their first filibuster—to prevent a vote
on the motion. In the past, it has proved a practical
impossibility to muster 64 Senators present and voting
at one time for the purpose of cutting off debate, but

this year the possibility of doing so is not as remote
as the 45 vote total on the first test suggests. Seven of
the 11 Senators not voting on the referral question
indicated for the record that had they been present, they
would have stood with the Knowland-Douglas forces.
On the basis of their voting in the past, 10 to 12 of the
39 Senators who voted to adhere to the customary
referral of bills to Committee—rather than using Rule
XIV to bring the matter to the floor—are likely to vote
on the pro-civil rights side when the issue becomes
voting for cloture or for final adoption of a civil rights
bill. Moreover, there are more vigorous and voluble
young pro-civil rights Senators today than in many
years, men well able to stand the long hours and physi-
cal strain of wearing down the filibusterers.

If a civil rights bill is brought to a vote in the Senate,
it will certainly be approved, though in all probability
it will have attached to it an amendment requiring jury
trials for any who seek to prevent a citizen from exercis-
ing his right to vote. The likelihood that the Senate will
adopt the jury trial provision is greatly increased by the
coincidence (set up by Lyndon Johnson) that the Hells
Canyon dam issue reached the Senate at the same time
civil rights was up for consideration.

Last year the bill for federal construction of one high,
multi-purpose dam at Hells Canyon failed by only six
votes—largely because Sen. Lyndon Johnson made no
effort to help other than with his vote. This year, how-
ever, Hells Canyon had added interest to the Majority
Leader. By tying it to a compromise position on civil
rights, he could, at least, moderate the blow to segrega-
tionist Southerners. The vote on Hells Canyon is testi-
mony to Johnson's skill. Five Southerners who last year
voted against the dam voted for it this time. Senator
Johnson personally prevailed upon Florida Senator
George Smathers to follow his example and speak for
the measure on the floor. And five Western Senators
(Magnuson of Washington, Mansfield of Montana,
Morse of Oregon, Murray of Montana and O'Mahoney

THE NEW REPUBLIC

1244 NINETEENTH ST. N. W., WASHINGTON 6, D. C.

GILBERT A. HARRISON, *Editor and Publisher*

MICHAEL STRAIGHT, *Editor-at-Large*

HELEN FULLER, *Managing Editor*

Selig S. Harrison, *Associate Editor*

Robert Evett, *Book and Music Editor*

Staff Contributors: Donald Malcolm, Gerald W. Johnson, B. H. Haggin, Frank Getlein

F. R. Ruskin, *Assistant to the Publisher*

Published weekly (except for omission of four summer issues) and copyrighted, 1957 in the USA by The New Republic, Inc., and distributed to newsstands by the Eastern News Company, N. Y. 14, N. Y. Phone: R:public 7-8656. Entered as second-cass matter September 26, 1950, at the post office at Washington, D. C., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Single copy, 25¢; Yearly subscription, $7.00; Foreign, $8.00; Armed Forces personnel or students, $5.00. Subscribers desiring change of address should notify us at least three weeks in advance. Please include both old and new addresses.

18

THE NEW REPUBLIC

BOOKS & COMMENT

I — Limited Defense

by James E. King, Jr.

HENRY A. KISSINGER has written a book that should prove a landmark in the greater debate that includes all the "great debates" of our time. With high art and skill, and with impressive success, he has undertaken the hard task of ordering within a comprehensive whole the most disturbing problems that beset the national security of the United States in the nuclear phase of the conflict with International Communism. It is not an "objective" study, if by that is meant one in which the pros and cons are merely presented, the reader being left to do his own weighing and deciding. As other students of national strategy have done before him, Kissinger approaches his

of modern warfare to the political problems of the free world coalition, but the central theme treats the impact of nuclear military power upon our national strategy.

"It is the task of strategic doctrine," Kissinger says, "to translate power into policy." And because we are a "status quo" power, the basic strategic problem for the United States is to be clear about what strategic transformations we are prepared to resist." But in this assessment we have been inhibited "by the seeming lessons of our history." The security of our two oceanic moats, together with our conviction of the power derived from industrial superiority, have led us to neglect challenges to our position until they come to take the form of "unambiguous" aggression. But—

> Resistance to aggression henceforth is no longer a problem of our coming into a battle long in progress in order to tilt the scales. . . . It depends not only on our strength, but also on our ability to recognize aggression. In the nuclear age, by the time a threat has become unambiguous it may be too late to resist it.

In fact, the world balance of power has been altered by Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons more than by any conceivable Communist seizure of territory —"even the occupation of Western Europe." But because this particular transformation took place within sovereign territory, "it produced an arms race as a substitute for war." Moreover, "as the power of weapons has increased, the forms of attack have multiplied. . . . The age of the hydrogen bomb is also the age of internal subversion, of intervention by 'volunteers,' of domination through political and psychological warfare."

Kissinger notes that our foreign pol-

icy inadequacies antedated the nuclear stalemate. Even during the period of our atomic monopoly "we never succeeded in translating our military superiority into a political advantage." The reasons were varied: "a theory of war based on the necessity of total victory, the memory of the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union, humanitarian impulses, lack of clarity about the process in which we found ourselves involved. . . . We possessed a doctrine to repel overt aggression but we could not translate it into a strategy for achieving positive goals." The author might have added to his list simple weariness with war. With the prospect of nuclear war, the debilitating effect of our preference for total solutions may be expected further to hinder the constructive employment of force in our diplomacy, because "... in the face of the new-found Soviet capability to inflict devastating damage on the United States, our reluctance to engage in an all-out war is certain to increase."

THE requirement, then, is for a strategic doctrine that makes a place for less than all-out solutions to the military application of national power—in short, for limited war. This is the prescription, without which the prognosis indicates gradual erosion of our world position, or its cataclysmic demise in the event that miscalculation on either side precipitates the holocaust:

> History will not excuse the inadequacy of the response by the enormity of the challenge. Our past invulnerability has fostered the illusion that there are "purely" military answers to the problems of our security and that policy ends where strategy begins. But the luxury of such an approach ended with our atomic monopoly. Henceforth, our problem will be one long familiar to less favored nations: how to relate the desirable to the possible and above all how to live with possible catastrophe.

The direct focus of attack, though the author does not specify it, is the proposition, several times expressed by Mr. Quarles, Deputy Secretary of Defense, that "if we have the strength required for global war, we could certainly meet any threat of less magnitude." Kissinger argues that it is just this concentration upon the threat of global war, with accompanying emphasis upon nu-

Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy,
by Henry A. Kissinger (Harper; $4).

subject as a physician would examine a sick patient. He diagnoses the malady, describing its symptoms and prognosis, explores its causes, and prescribes a course of treatment.

Kissinger has made the role of force in diplomacy his province. His point of departure is realistic. Nowhere in this book will the reader discover any disposition to rest conclusions on moral premises, nor to see the causes and possible solutions of international conflict in the natural evil or goodness of man—though there is due attention to the "psychological," which is the author's inclusive term for many non-material social forces, from ideal purposes to the most subversive propaganda. The book assumes that the United States is first and foremost a great power in a world of powers, and the survival of the United States as a great power, in the face of the challenge of World Communism, is its subject. There are many supporting themes, from the evolution

JULY 1, 1957

17

sibility of dealing with it in detail; the same human
emotion that causes the average citizen to shove letters to
the back of his desk instead of answering them. Once
the stamp "Classified" has gone down, the cost of get-
ting material unclassified and sorted is almost prohibi-
tive.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY has 7,000 square feet of need-
ed storage space in its Littauer Building filled with
secret Defense documents and material, padlocked
for 10 years under security classifications. But this is only
part of the pile. Dim aisles in sealed, unlit, unheated
warehouses elsewhere hold the stuff, some of it priceless
but most of it trash. A burglar who got into the store
would have to deal with severe Armed Services penalties,
and would find mostly rubbish.

I am now about to reveal what some of this hush-hush
material is. Hold on to your seats, here it comes. Laun-
dry tags. Yes—you heard me. Laundry tags.

When American troops occupied their quarter of
Berlin gimlet-eyed young intelligence officers grabbed
the laundry tags among other things, stamped them
"Classified" and set them aside to help them identify
pro-Nazis later on. The day of sorting never came—
never will come. The tags are still locked up. If a Ber-
liner from the US Zone still wants to get his claim check
for his 1945 laundry he will have to come to the United
States.

There are bales of canceled checks from occupied Ber-
lin. At Harvard the material locked up includes such
things as personnel records, scientists' notebooks and
scratch pads, and big mock-ups built of plywood. All
secret. Harvard would like to use the space for other
things. "No," says the government.

Surely this story is exaggerated? Not according to testi-
mony given by government officials and top military
brass to a House investigating committee this spring.
Charles A. Coolidge, prominent Boston lawyer and capi-
talist, interrogated by Rep. John E. Moss (D, Cal.),
estimated that "during World War II we classified three
million linear feet, which is 2,000 documents to a linear
foot edgewise" and that "it is running at a higher rate
today."

The Pentagon picked Mr. Coolidge to head a Com-
mittee on Classified Information and to look into "leaks."
Many newspapermen believe that the military's habit of
overclassification results in the "leaks" of which the
armed forces complain. At any rate when the Moss
subcommittee exploring government information proce-
dures queried Mr. Coolidge and his aides about the mass
of stored documents the latter exhibited signs of shell-
shock.

Representative Moss demanded whether reports were
true that in the field of intelligence, at least, "that

the classified status goes back to the Revolutionary
War"?

"I don't know that," said Mr. Coolidge cautiously. "I
have heard that it has gone back to the Civil War."

How about the cost? demanded the Congressman.

"The cost of keeping it is slight compared to the cost
of reviewing it; that is the trouble," replied Coolidge.
"It doesn't have to be heated, well lighted, and so forth."

"Is it continuing?"

"It is growing all the time."

Bewildered witnesses all told the same story. General
John E. Hull, former Commander in Chief of the Far
East Command, explained that once a paper is classified
"the physical process of sorting it out is beyond the
capacity of the Pentagon. It is a problem for which no-
body has yet found the solution."

"The problem is so big and so vast," said Lt. Gen.
Idwal H. Edwards, former Deputy Chief of Air Force
personnel, "that if we went into this deeply at St. Louis
and Kansas City where they have tremendous warehouses
loaded with the stuff, we wouldn't get a report for a year
or so."

How does the stuff accumulate? Natural enough,
admits General Hull. Just the stamp "Clas-
sified" and the Pentagon is stuck with it. "It is a
matter of judgment on the part of the individual," he
explained. "If there is some question in his mind as to
what classification to give it, it is human for him to play
safe and give it a higher classification."

The Pentagon has come up with its own "solution"
of the problem: it has tagged Rear Admiral John M.
Hoskins with the job, as "Director of Declassification
Policy," and gone on to something else.

The worst nightmare the Pentagon has is that some
research students will get access to the material —
Harvard, for example. Then they believe their problem
would never end. As easy to card-index the blades of
grass in Central Park, or catalogue the leaves of trees in
a forest!

"The last people in the world I would put on the
business to go into the declassification," exclaimed Gen-
eral Edwards, "would be a bunch of historians. You
would never get rid of anything. They are afraid of
destroying one document that some research fellow 10
years from now is going to want." Adding his voice was
Admiral William M. Fechteler, former Chief of Naval
Operations: "Probably the best cure is a big bonfire, but
there you run into historians. They don't want to burn
them. I really think the only thing is to burn them up
wholesale."

"And never look at them!" chimed in Gen. Edwards.

So the matter rests—the world's biggest wastebasket
awaiting either the professors or the last big bonfire.

JULY 1, 1957

19

clear strategic airpower, that has made
our position vulnerable to challenges
that are not "worth" the retaliation of
global war:

The strategic striking force is the
prime deterrent against all-out war; it
must therefore be reserved to this con-
tingency. . . . To use our strategic
striking forces as a dual-purpose force
would weaken the deterrent to all-out
war at the precise time when it should
be strongest. Or else it will, in every
crisis, furnish arguments for conserv-
ing our strength for a "clear" provoca-
tion or a principal enemy.

The Secretary of Defense has said: "I don't think there is going to be any little war with the Russians." Kissinger demurs that it is precisely this attitude that makes us unwilling to take the risks implicit in the exercise of power, and that this is the reason we are "losing" the cold war. The fact of the matter is that Messrs. Wilson and Quarles and their senior military associate, Admiral Radford, do not really *believe* in limited war.

And it is the burden of Kissinger's
thesis to persuade them to believe—to
persuade them that limited war is a pru-
dent and necessary exercise of our na-
tional power. For if they are not per-
suaded, we shall go on preparing for
total war at the expense of our ability
to conduct limited wars as they should
be conducted, and when we do find our-
selves involved in limited war, it is very
likely to be a repetition of our Korean
experience, of which the author says:

To MacArthur the Korean war was
frustration because it was not enough
of a war in terms of our concept of
war; to his opponents because it was
too big a war in terms of the strategy
on which they had built their defense
plans.

The official attitude on limited war is
reflected in the favorite term for it:
"brushfire war." It is not that every war
has got to be total, but a war that is not
total ought to be like a brushfire, which
we can put out without extending our-
selves. This is what made Korea an un-
happy experience: it was a "police ac-
tion" the police could not handle. Even
the Army Chief of Staff speaks of "sup-
pressing" limited wars. "Brushfires" can
be suppressed; Koreas cannot be.

One way out of the dilemma is to
convert every war that cannot be "sup-

pressed" into total war. "The important
point," Mr. Quarles also has said, "is
that if we must become involved in a
'little war' to meet overt Communist
aggression, we should act decisively and
with all necessary strength, using our
best weapons if required." He went on
to say: "Otherwise, successive erosion
could, in the long run, be as disastrous
to our free world position as defeat in
a major engagement." This could be in-
terpreted as a case for limited war; but
where, actually, is the limit, if we are to
use "all necessary strength" and "our
best weapons if required"? The implica-
tion that there is no limit can be seen
quite clearly in Mr. Wilson's opinion:
"I think if the Russians and the Ameri-
cans are ever in war in any small place,
it is going to expand very rapidly into
a terrible war." Admiral Radford adds
his impressive professional testimony:
"I think it is pretty generally understood
that the United States is not going to
allow themselves [sic] to be defeated
with their best weapons still unused."

This question of victory and defeat is,
however, the rub of the problem of
limited war. Kissinger says:

> . . . there exists no way to define a
> limited war in purely military terms.
> . . . Since the military can never be
> certain how many forces the opponent
> will in fact commit to the struggle,
> and since they feel obliged to guard
> against every contingency, they will
> devise plans for limited war which in-

sensibly approach the level of all-out
conflict.

But—

A limited war, by contrast, is fought
for specific objectives which, by their
very existence, tend to establish a rela-
tionship between the force employed
and the goal to be attained. It reflects
an attempt to *affect* the opponent's
will, not to *crush* it, to make the condi-
tions to be imposed seem more attrac-
tive than continued resistance, to strive
for specific goals and not for complete
annihilation.

IMPLICIT throughout *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, then, is a revolutionary principle, which probably explains why it is so difficult for the practical men in our high policy councils, with their native suspicion of theory, to believe in limited war. From the President down they are now willing to concede, as they have said repeatedly, that total nuclear war cannot be "won"—in the sense that the survivors would consider themselves "winners." But the limited war thesis goes a long step beyond this, for it teaches that it is equally impossible to count on "winning" little wars, at least in terms familiar to our experience. As Kissinger says, for nuclear powers,

> The goal of war can no longer be
> military victory, strictly speaking, but
> the attainment of certain specific polit-
> ical conditions which are fully under-
> stood by the opponent. . . . Since . . .

## The Green Lodger

WHO lived in the greenhouse when I was very small,
The glass house called the greenhouse of the summer,
The floor of earth, the furniture of pots,
The ferns, the rose, the privileged greens and tender,
The walls of glass, the roof of glass, the sun,
The green-world-weather mansion of the light,
The humid house of noon, the walled-up wealth
Of earth upon old earth in winter's spite?
Who lived there in the growing world of dark,
Walked sensitive aisles, alive to every plant?
When we slept in the night of roofs and walls,
Who bedded in that loam his full extent?

The glass house is not called the greenhouse now,
But broken house, and weed-cracked house of glass,
Cracked pots, spilt earth, hard-stalked and choking plants:
Our lodger absent under mounting grass.

LEONARD NATHAN

20

THE NEW REPUBLIC

the protagonists retain the *physical* resources to increase their commitment, the ability to conduct a limited war presupposes an understanding of the psychology by which the opponent calculates his risks and the ability to present him with an opportunity for settlement that appears more favorable than continuation of the war.

Small wonder that the official preference is for "deterrence." But deterrence does not afford an escape from the rude facts.

Deterrence is the attempt to keep an opponent from adopting a certain course of action by posing risks which will seem to him out of proportion to any gains to be achieved. The higher the stakes, the more absolute must be the threat of destruction which faces him. But the reverse is also true: the smaller the objective, the less should be the sanction. For the power of modern weapons deters not only aggression, but also resistance to it.

Deterrence, then, requires a certain proportion, the retaliation we propose to deter actions we consider aggressive must be believable; an opponent whose purpose is the subversion of Baghdad may find it difficult to believe our claim, for example, that his initiative involves the destruction of Moscow and New York.

THE counterpart of official reluctance or inability to grasp the theoretical essentials of limited war, and perhaps its cause, is the lack of deep conviction regarding the alternatives. Even though it is agreed that all-out war cannot be won in any meaningful sense (Mr. Wilson remarked during the Airpower hearings last summer: "They might seem to be the victor, but what would be left would not be worth bothering about . . .") the meaning of this has not penetrated the regions of consciousness where decision and action are motivated. As Kissinger says, in connection with the budget-mindedness of Secretaries Wilson and Humphrey:

> Despite all the information at their disposal, they simply cannot believe that in the nuclear age the penalty for miscalculation may be national catastrophe. They may know in their heads, but they cannot accept in their hearts, that the society they helped to build could disappear as did Rome or Carthage or Byzantium, which probably seemed as eternal to their citizens.

One approach to clarity is through

history, out of an examination of which Kissinger has evolved his theory of total and limited war. The historical fact is that most wars have been limited, either by the limited resources of the belligerents or by the international circumstances in which they occurred. As there is no effective limit of resources among nuclear powers, Kissinger finds a hope for limitation in the circumstance that fear of thermonuclear war provides a sanction against expanding war.

The fear that an all-out thermonuclear war might lead to the disintegration of the social structure offers an opportunity to set limits to both war and diplomacy.

For diplomacy the implications likewise provide a theoretical basis for action.

Since the most difficult decision for a statesman is whether to risk the national substance by unleashing an all-out war, the psychological advantage will always be on the side of the power which can shift to its opponent the decision to initiate all-out war.

Limited war is thus not an alternative to massive retaliation, but its complement. It is the capability for massive retaliation which provides the sanction against expanding the war.

But again, there must be no dangerous illusions about "winning" limited wars:

> Limited war is not a cheaper substitute for massive retaliation. On the contrary, it must be based on awareness that with the end of our atomic monopoly it is no longer possible to impose unconditional surrender at acceptable cost.

An attempt to reduce the enemy to impotence would remove the psychological balance which makes it profitable for both sides to keep the war limited.

THE theory certainly implies that limited war is an inescapable necessity, however we may feel about the prospect. But the author prefers to present it in terms of its advantages. It would be "misleading," he says, "to reject a strategy of limited war on the ground that it does not offer a military solution to our strategic problem. Its merit is precisely that it may open the way to a political solution." This is explained by reference again to the "psychological advantage . . . on the side of the power which can shift to its opponent the decisions to initiate all-out-war."

It may be suggested that, as between full-blown nuclear powers, the ultimate advantage in the years ahead cannot be determined by strength alone, however skillfully and freely used. Where both sides must engage in a calculus of risks, where both may assume that neither will deliberately embrace the ultimate risk of mutual extinction, comparative willingness to take the risks of lesser degree may well prove deciding. The issue, then, even though the frame of decision is immensely complex, comes down to a comparatively simple question of will and conviction. As Henry Kissinger says in the last sentence of his book:

> As the strongest and perhaps the most vital power of the free world we face the challenge of demonstrating that democracy is able to find the moral certainty to act without the support of fanaticism and to run risks without guarantee of success.

This book is a library in miniature on present world problems. There is the concise and convincing historical treatment of limited and "total" war. There is a brilliant discussion of Communist doctrine and method in both the Russian and the Chinese incarnations, with emphasis upon the military strategy of world revolution. There is an informative analysis of the demands and limitations of the "uncommitted" minor powers, with their roots in a colonial past, and of the purposes and limits of coalitions and alliances, culminating in an extensive treatment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its place in present world security arrangements.

There is also a general but excellent treatment of nuclear weapons and their effects, and, for those whose eyes are on current headlines, a provocative examination of the proposals for arms control. The reader will detect my own enthusiasm, to which I hereby freely confess—but not without qualification.

KISSINGER insists that the limited war, which he expounds so skillfully, must be limited nuclear war. This is not to say that he maintains that we must use nuclear weapons in every application of our military power. He too provides for "brushfires," and for other contingencies in which the employment of nuclear weapons may be neither necessary nor appropriate. But he rightly perceives

JULY 1, 1957

21

that the strategic doctrine of limited
war that he is advocating stands or falls
by its relevance to the issue of conflict
between *nuclear* powers. And between
nuclear powers he argues that our choice,
*because it is to our advantage*, ought to
be for limited nuclear war. This is what
qualifies my enthusiasm. The author has
based his advocacy of limited nuclear
war upon a, for him, uniquely fragile
argument in support of the claim that it

is to our advantage, and upon an imag-
inative picture of nuclear ground tac-
tics that seems to me to leave out some
essential facts. The picture is supposed
to show that tactical nuclear combat
need not prove intolerably destructive
of the combatants. This picture needs
the closest examination.

(Part II of Mr. King's evaluation—
Limited Annihilation — will appear
in the July 15 New Republic).

The Vicious Victorians

by Donald Malcolm

T
HIS is a book to lacerate the feelings
of all seekers after the sober truth,
for the truth that Mr. Graves pur-
sues herein is not entirely sober. In his
own words, the novel "is full of sex,
drink, incest, suicides, dope, horse rac-
ing, murder, scandalous legal procedure,

They Hanged My Saintly Billy, by Rob-
cert Graves (Doubleday; $3.95).

cross-examinations, inquests and ends
with a good public hanging." Against
this elegant background, he sets out to
prove that Dr. William Palmer, who
was hanged in 1856 for the murder of
a friend, and who was thought to have
poisoned thirteen others as well, was
actually innocent of all these deaths.
And he does prove it, too (pickets have
recently demanded the removal of Dr.
Palmer from Madame Tussaud's gallery
of murderer's), but that is not much of
an accomplishment. Indeed, if works of
the imagination are to be accepted as
evidence, one could undertake to dem-
onstrate the innocence of Charlotte Cor-
day by proving that Marat merely
slipped on the soap.

But one is less inclined to object to
the use of fiction to prove a fact than
to criticize the intrusion of too many
facts in the fiction. All too frequently,
the flow of narrative is checked by such
passages as this:

When informed of the arrival of
Cook's step-father, the story goes, Dr.
Palmer exclaimed: "Good God! But he
has no relatives!" This, however, is a
plain falsehood. Dr. Palmer had met
Mr. Stevens, briefly, at Lutterworth in
1854, and told The Talbot Arms maids

of his existence shortly before Cook
died. He also knew that Cook had a
sister and a half-brother living, and a
maternal uncle who owed him money.

Mr. Graves has obviously done a mag-
nificent job of research on the life of
William Palmer, but one could wish
that he had included fewer of his find-
ings in the novel—or that he had aban-
doned the use of fiction altogether and
let the facts speak for themselves.

These, however, are merely the quib-
bles of one who likes to know precisely
what sort of book he is enjoying. There
can be no question of the enjoyment
itself. Mr. Graves is a marvelous writer,
and he has achieved a sparkling recon-
struction of Victorian England. I par-
ticularly liked the brief account, by a
youthful friend of Dr. Palmer's, of his
attempt to overhear a conversation be-
tween Charles Dickens and William
Makepeace Thackeray at Evan's Supper
Room in Covent Garden:

I kept my ears open for some sublime
or witty remark from the famous
novelists, but apart from "May I
trouble you, Sir, to pass the mustard?"
or "These are indeed capital chops,"
I heard nothing of interest except Mr.
Dickens' discourse on the beneficial
effect of Sunday Schools in increasing
the number of children who can read
and write, thus yearly swelling the
literacy public. "I rely on these former
Sunday School pupils to keep my
young brood in beef, mutton and pota-
toes, my dear Thackeray," said he,
"not upon the University men and
their families."

"So I judge by your style and your
subjects," Mr. Thackeray replied with
a sigh that doubtless referred to his

Henry Miller

writes with contagious

warmth about his 13 years

on the California coast in

Big Sur and
the Oranges of
Hieronymus
Bosch

Illustrated. $6.50

Other books by Henry Miller:

Remember to Remember, The

Air-Conditioned Nightmare,

The Time of the Assassins —

all published by

New Directions

own childless state; though it would
have sounded deuced crushing to any
writer who had a lower opinion of
his talents than Charles Dickens.

It was, I believe, one of Mark
Twain's characters who concluded an
implausible tale with the remark, "It
may sound like poetry, but it's the
petrified truth." The same statement,
turned end for end, will apply to Mr.
Graves' new novel as well: it may sound
like the truth, but it's petrified poetry.

Notes on Contributors

JAMES E. KING, JR. has been engaged
in research on military problems with
the Johns Hopkins University Opera-
tions Office since 1952. His article on
*Nuclear Plenty and Limited War* ap-
peared in the January, 1957 issue of
*Foreign Affairs*. LEONARD NATHAN is a
young American poet. B. H. HAGGIN
contributes a monthly record column to
this journal.

424

THE SPECTATOR, OCTOBER 4, 1957

which they possess, so far from bringing stability to the world, is, as indeed we know all too well, a cause of instability. For the Russians, feeling confident that the Americans will not unleash all-out war against anything short of a direct attack on the United States itself, are prepared to take the risk of acts of aggression against all other States except the United States. As long as American policy is based on the formula of total war or nothing the Americans are in fact impotent to do anything against these lesser acts of aggression. How can this dilemma be avoided?

Dr. Kissinger* suggests that formal distinction must be drawn between all-out war and limited war. The Americans must build up a strategic force which is capable of dealing the devastating blows of total warfare against the Russians in the event of a direct Russian attack on the United States and a decision that it is better to destroy the world than submit to the evil of a Russian-dominated world. But they must make it clear that this force will not be called into action to meet anything short of direct attack. On no account must it or any part of it be used for a limited war. A quite separate tactical force must be created for use in limited wars. This force must indeed be equipped with nuclear weapons, for without them it would be inferior to the Russians and incompetent for its task.

The United States should announce clearly and unilaterally what are the limitations which it will impose on itself in limited war. It will only use such force as is necessary to repel the particular act of aggression. In general it will prevent the Russians from occupying territory by making impossible the concentration of troops. It will be prepared to fight limited wars against all Communist acts of aggression anywhere in the world. Fighting them, it will make no terms until it has repelled the aggressor, but at the same time it will not seek to carry the war on to a general attack on the Communist Powers once the particular occasion of the conflict has been removed.

Is there any chance that the Communists, if they were to find themselves being defeated in any such limited war, would not extend it to an all-out war? Dr. Kissinger thinks that there is such a chance. He has no illusions about Com-

munist aims—reminds us of the repeated assertions of Communist leaders about the inevitability of conflict between themselves and capitalist Powers, and perhaps does not allow quite enough for the number of people that there must be in Russia, as there were found to be in Poland and Hungary, who have by now become cynical about Communist principles. (Oddly enough he does not mention Poland.) The reason why the Communists will be reluctant to transform a limited war which they are losing into an all-out war will not be, of course, in the least a reason of humanity. It will simply be that an all-out war would certainly lead to their destruction—along with the destruction of much else.

Now it must be admitted—indeed Dr. Kissinger admits it—that this is all very risky reasoning. The very contempt which the Russians have for the American intellect may cause them to believe that

the Americans, ignorant of the suicidal nature of their own policy, are planning the all-out war against Russia of which they have, so often accused them. However clearly the Americans may set out the conditions of the limited war, by which they are binding themselves, however sincere they may be, is it likely that the Russians will believe that they are sincere? However much the Americans may wish to limit the war, may it not well be that a particular defeat of the Russians in a foreign country will have repercussions in Russia that endanger the regime and that the Russians will then be tempted to extend the conflict? Indeed, it is Dr. Kissinger's own analysis both that the Communists are unrepentantly determined to make themselves masters of the world and that Communism, the enemy of the human spirit, must be defeated. The whole virtue of his suggestions is by his own confession that they are practical means for defeating Communism. If that be so, is it not inevitable that the Russians will see that it is so? And then, if Dr. Kissinger's policies should begin to be meeting with success, is it not more probable than not that the Communists would prefer to destroy the world rather than go down to defeat?

*NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND FOREIGN POLICY. By Henry A. Kissinger. Foreword by Gordon Dean. (O.U.P., 40s.)

£50=£100

Tax and depreciation free in 15 years
but withdrawable any time on demand with
"grossed" interest equal to 7½% p.a.

To Solicitors and Accountants:
There is no risk of market fluctuation
A shrewd and essential addition
to your investment and savings portfolio.

SEND FOR FULL PARTICULARS

HANOVER BUILDING SOCIETY (INVESTMENT DEPT. 7)

Chief Office: HANOVER COURT, HANOVER STREET, LONDON, W.1. Tel. HYDe Park 9171

The outlook is not very rosy, and Dr. Kissinger, rebuking his fellow countrymen for their naively optimistic faith that there is a solution for every problem, is perhaps a little the victim of such optimism himself. Still, he can reply that he does not deny that his policies are risky. He merely argues that the alternative is to have no policy, as at present. The choice is not between risk and certainty of survival. The choice is between risk and certainty of destruction. This is a fair answer.

Yet Dr. Kissinger writes from an American point of view, and a British writer cannot afford merely to ask whether Dr. Kissinger's arguments are sound. He must also recognise that Dr. Kissinger is a very influential thinker, speaking for a very influential group, and that there is a high probability that something like what he suggests will come to be adopted as American policy. If so, we must consider what Britain's future is likely to be. Western Europe, on Dr. Kissinger's thesis, is one of the parts of the world that should be defended by limited rather than by all-out war. The continental European Powers have not attempted to equip themselves to do more than fight in a limited war. British strategic plans are, on the other hand, in a much more confused state. We vaguely talk as if we were to be major partners both in a limited and an all-out war. We equip ourselves with modern weapons, and some people talk as if those weapons were to enable us to be partners of the Americans, and others to enable us to pursue a policy independent of the Americans. In the Suez adventure we committed what, according to the Kissinger thesis, was the cardinal error of using the forces assembled as a deterrent against total war for service in a limited war, and, incidentally, discovered that our forces were very ill equipped either for the one war or for the other.

Now there is one great difference between launching the ultimate weapons against America and against us. Those weapons are not yet such that a single attack could so completely knock out the Americans that there could be no blow of retaliation. But with our limited equipment, concentrated population and small area the situation with us is very different. The weapons are such that a single attack might well so completely knock us out that there would be no blow of retaliation. Should foolish policies be pursued in this country such as to antagonise the Americans to the extent that they were not willing to accept an attack on Britain as a full *casus belli*, the Russians might well be tempted to knock out Britain before Anglo-American friendship was re-established. We were not far off that during the mad days of last October. We have not, as indeed we all know, the resources to enable us really to play a part in an all-out war. If we pretend to have those resources, we do not really add to either our security or our power. We merely increase the temptation to the enemy to destroy us.

SPECTATOR READERSHIP SURVEY

Copies of a 12-page leaflet, entitled *Spectator Readership Survey No. 3* and summarising the information supplied by readers in recent questionnaires, are available at 1s. Od. post free. Requests for copies, with remittance, should be sent to The *Spectator*, 99 Gower Street, London, WC1.

423

dressed by the comedian as 'Mabel,' who cackled her excited enjoyment of all the other jests, even the one that went:

'What blend of tea d'you call that?'

'Lions'.

'Lions'?! Blimey, it looks more like cats' to me.'

Men outnumber women in an average Collins's audience by about ten or twelve to one, but it is the women who provide the old faithfuls—those like Mabel, still on the ball, uproariously delighted by the nude who nearly moved (as nudes must not) and who nearly, therefore, got the giggles: and those like the bundle of mackintosh and grey hair, fast asleep in her three-shilling seat in the circle, of whom the attendant said, 'She'll be here again on Thursday—comes every Monday and Thursday, all the way from Highgate, and always has done; always goes to sleep; and if I say, "But I saw you here on Monday, ma," she'll say, "Yes, I know, but it's such a lovely show, ducks."'

Both in men and in women the average age of the audience is very high indeed: look down on the auditorium from an upper box (a seat in which will cost you four-and-sixpence) and you would swear that it could well be in the sixties. Stationary nudes at the back of the stage—even this week's lovely Patricia, in her Artistic Nude Presentation, who is prettier and looks better nourished and less given to goose pimps than most do—seem to hold little appeal for the young men of Islington, who perhaps know more approachable young women; and certainly do not shock the district's old ladies, most of whom come, if at all, apparently with their husbands, and seem to have done so for decades, not quite having noticed, perhaps, that the jokes have gone off a little since the days of Little Tich and George Robey, or that the golden-haired young thing, clutching a microphone, singing in a muddy off-American accent what she has announced, for herself, as 'a lovely little number,' has a little less than the personality of Marie Lloyd, a vast oleograph of whom, all teeth and feathers, dominates the downstairs bar.

That is the bar that, for some odd puritanical reason, I suppose, of the licensing authorities, you may not visit if your seat is on another level—in the circle or an upper box. 'We don't have rover tickets,' you are told, as though you were suspected of trying to revive the raffishness of the old Empire or Alhambra promenade. But it is there, in the faded photographs that cover the walls—Kate Carney and Harry Tate; Dan Leno and Vesta Tilley; and Belle Elmore, who was Mrs. Dr. Crippen, for a time—that the glory of Collins's lies.

There and, of course, in the curious hold that shabby old theatres with flickering gas-jets in wire cages have (Mr. Betjeman will rejoice to know that Collins's keeps alight its fish-tail gas-jets—presumably because of not entirely trusting the new-fangled electric light that is also installed) over the members of a notoriously soft-hearted and traditionally nostalgic profession. Not long ago we fell in with a rich, stately and almost middle-aged matron, heavily bejewelled, spacieously automobiled, and most wealthily and sedately married. 'You live near Collins's!' she cried. 'But I've played Collins's! Oh, what happy days: I was one of The Petulant Pretties.'

No doubt in those days the mackintoshed old lady from Highgate used to keep awake.

# War Limited

By CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS

DR. KISSINGER's argument, the publication of which in these weeks is by accident almost uncannily timely, is that both Russia and America are now equipped with weapons of destruction so powerful that they can bring civilised life to an end in the country against which they are used. On the other hand they are not yet so powerful that one attack from the one side can destroy the power of the other to deliver a single blow in return. On the contrary, the bases for missiles can be scattered all over the country. They do not have to be concentrated in aerodromes. It is possible as a precaution to have at any given time some missiles always in the air. Therefore an all-out attack by one of these Powers on the other will almost certainly lead to the destruction of both, to the end of civilisation and very possibly to the annihilation of the human race.

Dr. Kissinger spends some hundred pages in giving exact statistics of the destructive powers of the new weapons. I am not competent to criticise these statistics in detail, nor would it be important to do so. For, as we know from the newspapers, the powers of the weapons are developing from day to day. On the substantial justice of Dr. Kissinger's account there can be no dispute.

Therefore, he argues—it is a familiar enough argument—neither side will deliver an all-out attack on the other, unless its government should fall into the hands of lunatics. That is a possibility which, it must be confessed, cannot be discounted. But on the supposition that a modicum of sanity remains in the governments of the world it is, runs the argument, unlikely that either side will make all-out war on the other. But the reluctance of the Americans to use these dreadful weapons

The Romans, now apparently laching further divinities after which the months could be named, simply called this Eighth Month having begun their year in March. Regrettably, they continued on this unimaginative course to the end of the year.

Heredity is an odd thing. The gourmet, savouring the pleasures of pheasant, of nuts and wine, of Doyenne de Comice (that queen of all dessert pears) owes something of his pleasure to those Saxon forbears whose appreciation of such things led them to name this the Month of Wine. And the Soccer enthusiast, now well into his form, has something in common with the men who came over with Caesar. Look in at any big match. The spectacle differs only in degree from a gala performance at the Coliseum; and you will hear, showered with fine impartiality upon the contestants, advice of a kind which every gladiator who ever had an off-day would surely recognise. Fortunately, this advice is seldom practical and rarely heeded... and therein it differs most markedly from that which Midland Bank daily provides for thousands of its customers.

MIDLAND BANK LIMITED

Head Office: Poultry, London, E.C.2

# A New Look at War-Making

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND FOREIGN POLICY. By Henry A. Kissinger. Foreword by Gordon Dean. 455 pp. New York: Harper & Bros. $5.

By EDWARD TELLER

THREE years ago the Council on Foreign Relations assembled a number of men exceptional in their experience, ability and power of imagination. The question put to this group was what to do about nuclear war. The correct answer would be a bargain at sixty-four billion dollars. The discussion lasted for eighteen months. Henry A. Kissinger, the study director of the group, was then asked to write a book on the subject. This book was not to state the consensus of the members but to contain his own opinions for which he alone would be responsible. The last official statement of the panel was unanimous: "Good luck, Dr. Kissinger."

The author did indeed need luck. He had arrived at an answer, but this answer contradicts statements which in the last years have been so often repeated that they appear to most of us not only true, but axiomatic. By discarding our usual way of thinking, Mr. Kissinger arrived at an answer which may be hard to accept for some people, but which could transform our outlook for the future into a much more hopeful one. Mr. Kissinger believes that: (1) we must be prepared to meet an all-out attack as well as limited aggression; (2) an all-out attack must be met with an all-out counterattack; (3) a limited aggression must be repelled by limited warfare. In each case we should use the most appropriate weapon for the task. The most ap-

propriate weapon usually is a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Kissinger sees clearly and states clearly that limited nuclear war is unacceptable to our traditional thinking. To us peace is the natural state; diplomacy, a method to arrive at this state by the way of reason and persuasion; and war, a last and horrible resort. We are not driven to war except by extraordinary provocation. In that case, however, our war is a crusade and must end in total victory. Our preparation for all-out nuclear war as a deterrent of any aggression has in fact grown out of this set of ideas.

Unfortunately all-out nuclear war has become so horrible that it can lead to no victory in the common sense of the word. We are beginning to feel that war has become absurd. Unfortunately the Russians do not feel that the smaller and more ambiguous provocations to war have become absurd. Our only effective weapon is of such terrifying size that we hesitate to use it against a minor provocation. This was true even while we were in possession of nuclear monopoly.

DURING those very years, communism conquered China and converted the eastern European countries into colonies of Russia. Now we live under the threat of a Russian all-out attack. We shall be therefore more hesitant than ever to use a nuclear counterblow on Russia as a response to limited aggression. We have assigned to our armed forces the task of preserving peace by threatening destruction which we know will turn out to be mutual.

In Mr. Kissinger's book a task is assigned to our armed forces which is more comprehensive and makes more sense. The very fact of our preparedness should preserve peace. In case of war our armed forces should strive

to limit the conflict, and whether or not the war stays limited, our forces must do their utmost to win it. Can a war stay limited in the nuclear age? The author argues that the Russians are no more anxious for mutual destruction than we are. If we are winning a local conflict, we can restore peace by making it clear to our enemies that we are fighting for limited objectives and that a limited defeat will be far less disastrous to them than an all-out war.

Would the use of nuclear weapons in a limited war be to our advantage? In many cases such weapons would be essential. Since we merely want to preserve the peace, the Communists have the initiative and will choose a place of conflict that is easily accessible to them but not to us. Light but powerful weapons and highly mobile warfare will make it possible for us to appear in time on the scene and to resist effectively.

Would not nuclear weapons destroy any country we try to defend? Any kind of war is destructive. Nuclear warfare need not be more destructive than other types. In nuclear warfare supply centers and supply lines need not be es-

## Vulnerable

THE new technology increases our dangers at the precise moment when our commitments have never been greater. For the first time in our history we are vulnerable to a direct hostile attack. No remaining margin of industrial and technological superiority can remove the consciousness of our increasing vulnerability from the minds of policymakers who have to make the decision of peace or war.

—"Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy."

Mr. Teller is Professor of Physics and an associate director of the Radiation Laboratory of the University of California

(Continued on Page 13)

# The Colonel Is a Symbol

THE RETURN OF GUNNER ASCH.

By Hans Hellmut Kirst. Translated from the German by Robert Kee. 310 pp. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. $3.95.

By HERBERT MITGANG

NATURALLY, an American reader's antennae are way up while reading war novels beamed from Germany. The tendency is to listen for the fact behind the fiction, to discover what political viewpoint the author holds, what apologies his characters have to make. There have been any number of personal narratives in the past few years, by lowly flight officers and high-ranking generals, absolving an author's particular unit or branch of service from participation in or even knowledge of the behavior of Nazi Germany.

"The Return of Gunner Asch," by Hans Hellmut Kirst, is the third of the "Gunner Asch" novels. The author conveys the bitterness of the soldier's life and the final note of pacifism in a satirical style.

Asch is a German artilleryman, first a corporal and here, in the last days of World War II, a lieutenant. He is in the Wehrmacht, fighting where they send him, enduring the miseries of military life in an army that sounds like other armies. There is one added element: Nazi political officers, diehards for Hitlerism, putrefy the ranks. The novel's conclusion parallels those of Kirst's predecessors in post-World War I fiction, Erich Maria Remarque and Arnold Zweig—war is no damn good and Germans, especially, should stay out of uniform.

KIRST has a story to tell more than a philosophy to espouse. It is the week when the American tanks begin to roll into Asch's

Germany, 1945

THE town awaited the Americans. The white flags, some the size of handkerchiefs, not a few the size of bed sheets, lay ready to hand. The streets grew emptier and emptier. Children of all ages peeped out from behind the curtains. Large sections of the Volkssturm withdrew into private life again. "*The local [Nazi] party official, already wearing homely civilian clothes, burned twenty-eight copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf, including thirteen bound in leather. — "The Return of Gunner Asch."

played along with the worst elements in Germany for "existence" reasons. All the father can think of when his son returns is that his cafe will be turned into a barracks, his house into a brothel and his business ruined. "Poor Germany!" says Father Asch, as a result, equating his financial losses with those of soldiers' lives. So with other characters in this bitter novel—they feel sorry, vaguely, for the trouble they've caused, but they feel sorrier for themselves.

It is probably asking too much of a European author to write knowingly about Americans. Even English novelists draw caricatures of their English-speaking cousins, believing that by dropping in some current slang in the dialogue the character rings true. In the newest "Gunner Asch" story the American Intelligence officers are fast-talking but extremely naive. They are deceived by the opportunists in Germany and supposedly know little of what the shooting was all about. Mr. Kirst's characters do not seem to realize that there were Americans in and out of the armed forces who knew the nature of the Nazi beast—in many cases

# These Heroes Have Had It

TIP ON A DEAD JOCKEY AND

OTHER STORIES. By Irwin Shaw. 242 pp. New York: Random House. $3.95.

By WILLIAM PEDEN

THE central character of many of Irwin Shaw's stories is becoming a recognizable post-World-War-II type in the same way that Scott Fitzgerald's sad young men are uniquely associated with the Jazz Age. In his middle thirties, a veteran, he may be a foreign correspondent, a promising junior statesman, a well-heeled business man, or a footloose expatriate. He is good-looking, in a damaged sort of way, and is attractive both to good and not so good women. But he is essentially melancholy weltschmerzig; in one way or another, he has had it.

Characteristic is Lloyd Barber of the title story of this collection. A wartime pilot, he ekes out a precarious existence in Paris: he plays the ponies, when he can afford to; keeps himself clear of pursuing women; but for the most part he lives amidst memories of a past when life was adventurous, women were gay and money was easy. Around this twentieth-century Werther, Mr. Shaw expertly manipulates his secondary characters who, along with the situation, are familiar to most television-viewers and moviegoers. It comes as no surprise to hear that the story is being made into a motion picture. Only Mr. Shaw's extreme competence transforms this material into something more than highly effective journalism.

SEVEN of these ten stories originally appeared in The New Yorker; three or four of them were reprinted in annual collections of distinguished short fictions.

[L.C]

# A New Look at War-Making

(Continued from Page 3)

tablished and defended. Territories will not be held permanently. The war will resolve itself into local engagements in which the side will win that has better technological preparation and firmer support in the local population. Such warfare will require independent small units and self-reliant fighters. This is the kind of war a free country is prepared to fight but a dictatorship is not. There will be no military inducement and no justification to use atomic weapons against centers of population. They will be used only against the enemies' armed forces.

Will not the use of nuclear weapons at once lead to all-out war? Skillful Russian propaganda has in fact all but persuaded us that it will. This propaganda has been launched because the use of nuclear weapons would make it possible for us to resist local aggression. In a limited nuclear war as in any limited war it is possible to avoid the big scale conflict if our aims remain moderate and our diplomacy skillful.

To be prepared for limited nuclear warfare is, however, not enough. If we neglect preparations for all-out war, then a threat of an overwhelming all-out attack against our own country will paralyze our forces and in the end leave us no other choice than to surrender or be wiped out. We must therefore be prepared to hit back at any time, and we also must be prepared to absorb an attack against us, however heavy it may be. Such preparedness is difficult, but it is possible. If we are prepared, the catastrophe of a full scale war will not occur, and we shall remain strong enough to insure the safety of the free world.

It is obvious that Mr. Kissinger's

proposals cannot become effective unless they are understood and accepted by our own people as well as by our allies. Public opinion seems to be so radically different from the point of view proposed in this book that such acceptance might seem hopeless. No other solution, however, has been proposed. Goaded by necessity and provided with adequate information public opinion can change rapidly.

Compared to our own inflexible and ineffective post-war diplomacy, Russia's performance has been clever and successful. Mr. Kissinger suggests that Stalin was informed about the imminence of the atomic bomb at an earlier date than Harry S. Truman. Stalin certainly was better prepared. Outside of Russia he promptly capitalized on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the slogan, "Ban the bomb." Inside Russia the effects of atomic warfare were minimized and the collapse of Japan ascribed to the Russian attack in Manchuria. Not until 1954 was the Russian population informed about the dangers of nuclear warfare. By that time, of course, Russia was in possession of a stockpile of nuclear weapons and also had exploded a hydrogen bomb.

The interplay of nuclear threat and diplomacy is frightening. It is also very complex. Mr. Kissinger discusses these complex problems with remarkable thoroughness. He does not mind repeating himself nor does he simplify the problems by ignoring the many arguments that can be marshaled against him. As a result the book is not only fairly long, it is also somewhat difficult to read. Yet everyone on this side of the Iron Curtain who will study "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" will learn of a better way to contribute to the safety of the free world.

# Letters To the Editor

## Craganour

**TO THE EDITOR:**

I REGRET to inform you that Walter Lord in his article "It All Came From Being an Author," had been misinformed when he referred to Bruce Ismay's horse as Cragmount. The horse's name was Craganour. Owned by Ismay, the president of the White Star Line, Craganour was sensationally disqualified in the Derby of 1913, and the race awarded to Aboyeur, ridden by a jockey named Piper. I was acquainted with a gentleman who a few minutes before the set time of Craganour's race accepted a wager of £500 to £5 against Aboyeur winning.

J. A. PARTRIDGE.
Buffalo, N. Y.

## Fuller

**TO THE EDITOR:**

MAY I take one exception to Frances Winwar's thoughtful review of my biography of Margaret Fuller, "In Quest of Love." How could poor shipwrecked Margaret Fuller have been "told that all was lost"? The barque had struck a sandbar and was breaking up, but it lay only a few hundreds of yards off the Fire Island shore. Clinging to spars and bits of wreckage, the acting captain, the mate and all but three men of a crew of seventeen made land safely.

Bayard Taylor, then a young reporter, questioned the survivors. They stated that the ship's carpenter rigged planks with rope to serve the passen-

gers in lieu of lifeboats, yet that Margaret steadfastly refused all offers of help that might have saved her. Could your distinguished reviewer read the full report of the disaster in The Tribune of July 24, 1850, I think she would agree that Margaret Fuller's death was not then quite "inevitable."

FAITH CHIPPERFIELD,
New York.

## Guilt

**TO THE EDITOR:**

I would have pleased me to be able to accept Richard Hoffman's letter regarding the death of an A. V. H. major as a document of humane feeling above partisanship. Characteristically, however, it ignores the setting in which the act arose: the torture of untold scores of Hungarians by the A. V. H. and the Russians throughout the years, ending in the slaughter of over 50,000 men, women and children in a few days.

When I served as a United States War Crimes Investigator in Germany, I was presented with evidence of the terrible end of certain Gestapo officials and SS majors at the hands of concentration camp inmates and others. As a human being I could not but be horrified by

## BOOK EXCHANGE

### LITERATURE OF OTHER NATIONS

#### HEADQUARTERS
For Everything in Literature
From the SOVIET UNION

In English, Russian and many other languages, in the U.S.S.R. Recordings.

CARNEGIE CORPORATION
OF NEW YORK
QUARTERLY

VOLUME V NUMBER 3

JULY 1957

Democracy's Growing Edge

ONE day last summer Union Pacific Steam Engine No. 407 was maneuvered triumphantly down the flat, hot main street of a southwestern Nebraska town. A trucking concern and an oil company had loaned equipment to move the handsome old engine; the city council had agreed to maintain it in a municipal park; volunteers provided muscles and hands to settle it in its resting place, on a concrete base put down by a construction company.

No. 407 stands as a monument to the colorful history of Sidney. It also represents activity at what people at the University of Nebraska call "democracy's growing edge"—the community. The people of Sidney had formed a cultural committee, which had inspired the formation of a county historical association, which in turn had enlisted the cooperation of businesses, government, and individuals to accomplish something good for the town. The enshrining of No. 407 symbolically represents other less tangible, but even more important, community activities in that and other Nebraska towns.

Almost two years ago the University of Nebraska inaugurated the latest in a long series of programs designed to serve more citizens of the state than just the 8,500 who happened to be on its campus at the moment. In cooperation with the state department of education, and with an initial Carnegie grant of $90,000 (another of $79,200 was recently voted), the teachers college of the University began a program of community development through education.

The idea of helping a community to help itself is not original with the University of Nebraska; community self-improvement projects have been inaugurated in many towns in many states. What is original in the Nebraska undertaking is the idea that one already-functioning community organization, namely the board of education, should be the local coordinating body for the project. This idea rests in the main on the conviction that the school's basic function is the improvement of the community.

It is still too early to say with certainty that the Nebraska people are correct in their belief that this method of organization, with all it implies, will lead to greater and more lasting success in community education. To say for sure, one would have to wait 10 years and then visit the towns of Syracuse, York, Mullen, and Sidney. If you visit them today, you will find that they differ from one another in size, geography, economy, personality, needs, and problems.

The farm town

To go to Syracuse from Lincoln, you can drive due East on U. S. Highway 34 for about 25 miles, and then turn South on another road, this one unpaved. These highways are straight as a ribbon in direction but wavy in depth, for eastern Nebraska is not flat, as the stereotype has it, but rolling, and extremely rich-looking and beautiful in the spring. The corn (this is corn and hog country) is still close to the ground, waiting for the baking summer sun which, like a magnet, will pull it toward the sky in a few weeks.

You come upon Syracuse rather suddenly, dropping from the crest of a hill into the pretty little town whose people live in comfortable frame houses, each

I

surrounded by lawns, trees, and lilacs which make all other lilacs in the world look puny and pale.

By Nebraska standards, Syracuse is an old town, one of the first to be settled in the state. That makes it about 100 years old. Its own inhabitants number 1,200; in addition, it is a service center for a population of some 3,000 persons. About 600 farm families live in the related rural area. The town itself is physically attractive. It has a good school in a fairly new 12-grade school building, six active churches, a small library, a new and very modern small hospital.

Syracuse is, clearly, a "good town." It has remained alert to the needs of its related farm population as well as to its own. But it has its problems, not the least of them a result of its geographical location. Only 35 miles from Lincoln and 50 from Omaha, Syracuse is too far from the state's only two metropolises to operate strictly as a "bedroom" community; it must instead offer a fairly complete roster of goods and services of all types. On the other hand, it is too close to the big cities to attempt to compete with them in certain areas. Maintaining the proper balance is a tricky business.

Syracuse residents feel the need for a number of additions to their community. A swimming pool ranks high on their list of wants, in addition to other facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and a recreational center. More than half the people of the town say Syracuse needs more industry to provide more work and more income.

The irony is that, in order to solve these problems, Syracuse must solve two others. The town cannot support new industry without a new water supply; it cannot serve an increased population with a rounded educational program without enlarging its school district and broadening its tax base. Under the community education project, Syracuse's residents are approaching these two major problems, and at the same time are solving other lesser ones.

## The farm city...

York is about 60 miles west of Lincoln. It is in what is known as the "central transition belt" of the state; that is, between the rich alluvial soil of the east and the rather arid high plateau of the west. The land around York looks like the Nebraska most of us picture: flat as a tennis court, with great fields of corn and wheat stretching out in all directions. There is a lot of livestock around here, particularly poultry.

York itself is a prosperous-looking town of 6,000. Its

business section is built around a nice square; new houses are being built on the outskirts of town; there are a few small industries, but in the main York exists for the surrounding farm population. It offers good stores, schools, service clubs and other informal institutions. The Church of Christ has recently established a junior college which soon will have a four-year program.

The people of York are highly educated. Well over half the population above 20 years of age has graduated from high school, and roughly one out of every eight adults holds at least a baccalaureate degree. For the past 20 years at least 40 per cent of the high school graduating class has gone on to college; of the class of 1956, 62 per cent enrolled in some institution of higher learning.

## ... with a rural economy

Like Syracuse, York is a "good" community; also like Syracuse, it has problems, though they are different from those of the little eastern town. It is a community which developed in one set of circumstances but which now must live in quite another. It is the product of an agricultural economy and a rural social structure. Now, however, the general agricultural base that has sustained its economy cannot carry the whole load. What should York do?

Its citizens are not yet agreed on the answer. Many feel that the town should try to attract more industry. Others feel that, although this should be part of the program, it should be only part. They think that York's best hope lies in improving the services already offered and in establishing a cordial relationship with the small towns nearby. Others argue that agriculture is, and always will be, York's basic economic strength. They say the pressing need is to examine closely the present crop pattern to see if new crops could be grown or whether improved methods would produce more and better of the present crops.

Questions of this kind are deep and far-reaching, and the people answering them have to display thoughtfulness, courage, and ingenuity. The people of York, who already have vigorous and enlightened leadership and a high level of education, have these qualities. And the newly constructed machinery through which they can work in the community education project should help them along the road.

## The cattle capital...

You might as well take the after-midnight train from York to go to Mullen, in the north central part of the state. You are due there at 4:30 in the morning (there has been an hour's time change) but chances are that the train will be an hour or two late, and so the sandhills will be bathed in broad daylight when you arrive.

2

tory practices and to 1,500 who had not. The students were on the same grade level, took the same courses and, in most cases, were taught by the same teachers. There was no marked difference in general intelligence and scholastic ability between the two groups. Both took the U.S. Armed Forces Institute examination in civics; a test on citizens' rights and responsibilities; another on attitudes (requiring selection of the best way to deal with contemporary problems); and a fourth to determine their knowledge of the citizens' political duties in a democracy.

CEP students showed much greater growth in their subject matter knowledge than did the others. They did substantially better than their other classmates in a test of knowledge of citizens' rights and duties. They showed more growth in interest in public affairs and, as might be expected, they showed improved citizenship attitudes.

A veteran social studies teacher in Tacoma, Washington, reports an example of how laboratory practices contribute to learning specific subject matter. His eleventh graders, in studying the U.S. Constitution, decided as a project to look at their own student government constitution. They thought that it was a pretty inadequate document and wrote a new one. At the same time, according to the teacher, they learned more about the U.S. Constitution than any other class he had taught in his 25 years of experience.

Time alone will tell—although not in readily measurable terms—of the ultimate success of the CEP. It does seem reasonable to assume that its youngsters will not soon forget the meaning of Lincoln's homely phrase: “I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist in bearing its burdens.”

## Man with an Idea

WAR, to Americans, has traditionally been an “all or nothing” business. But today, says Henry A. Kissinger in his recently published *Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy*, a nation that relies on all-out war as its chief deterrent against any aggression, large or small, “imposes a fearful psychological handicap on itself.” We must shake ourselves free, he says, of the preconceptions (now misconceptions) about military and foreign policy which are paralyzing us at our moment of gravest danger. We must have a revolution in our ideas as deep as the revolution in technology which has now placed in man’s hands the instruments of his total destruction.

Mr. Kissinger's book, published by Harper & Brothers, grows out of his work as study director for a group of distinguished Americans brought together, under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations, to explore the factors involved in the making and implementing of foreign policy in the nuclear age. Mr. Kissinger was one of the research fellows appointed by the Council under a program sup-

ported by Carnegie Corporation funds.

The new paradox in which we find ourselves is formed of two factors, one physical and one essentially psychological. The physical is of course the development of nuclear weapons which are capable of destroying civilization. The psychological is our response to this terrifying power. Straitjacketed by our traditional belief that war must be fought for only the highest stakes—that is, total victory—we at the same time recognize that such war is unthinkable since it would annihilate not only any possible enemy but ourselves as well. President Eisenhower himself has said “There is no alternative to peace.”

Is there then any alternative to allowing the Soviets to nibble away at the rest of the world piecemeal? Mr. Kissinger says that there is. It lies in our ability and willingness, after thoughtful political and strategic analysis, not only to meet all-out attack with all-out counter attack, but to meet limited aggression with limited warfare. We should use whatever weapons are appropriate to such efforts, and in Mr.

Kissinger's opinion, these would often include tactical nuclear weapons.

In order to be free to plan and execute such a policy properly, Mr. Kissinger believes, the United States should completely reorganize its existing military services. He would create two basic organizations: a strategic force and a tactical force. The strategic force would be the units required for all-out war. The tactical would be the Army, Air Force, and Navy units required for limited war.

Mr. Kissinger emphasizes that it is important that the Russians be clearly informed about our intentions—both our determination to fight aggression and, equally important, our intention to limit our aims to moderate objectives. If the Soviet leaders are rational (and if they are not there is no hope anyway), they would see that it is to their advantage no less than to ours to prohibit the general war which would destroy us both.

Mr. Kissinger's ideas will probably cause lively debate, but no one will quarrel with his assertion that the United States now faces a problem “long familiar to less favored nations: how to relate the desirable to the possible, and above all how to live with possible catastrophe.”

7

## NEW GRANTS

Grants amounting to $1,957,300 were voted by Carnegie Corporation trustees during the third quarter of this fiscal year.

The income for the fiscal year 1956-57 is now estimated at $9,246,000. From this sum, $2,265,000 has been set aside to meet commitments, including those for teachers' pensions, incurred in previous years. It is the Corporation's policy to spend all income during the year in which it is received.

Included among the grants voted during the last quarter are those listed below:

### United States

University of Arizona, for an undergraduate studies program on Asian civilizations, $54,000.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for visiting research scholars, $75,000.

University of Chicago, for expansion of its undergraduate program on non-Western civilizations, $48,000.

Educational Testing Service, for a study of the American comprehensive high school by James B. Conant, $350,000.

Illinois Institute of Technology, for development of a new approach to mathematics teaching, $36,000.

University of Maryland, for development of an experimental program of mathematics for the junior high school, $66,000.

National Education Association, for a conference on the identification and education of gifted students, $55,000.

Northwestern University, for support of teaching, research, and training in educational psychology, $156,000.

Princeton University, for a new undergraduate course on Asia, $35,000.

Social Science Research Council, for travel expenses of scholars to international meetings, $150,000. In addition, grants of $9,000 each were made for a

similar purpose to the seven professional associations which are members of the Council.

Tulane University, toward support of graduate education in the arts and sciences, $250,000.

Yale University, for research on comparative field administration, $41,600.

### Commonwealth

Travel grants for visitors to and from certain Commonwealth areas, $215,000.

University of Sydney, for a study of community attitudes toward the University, $12,000.

World University Service of Canada, to enable Canadian university faculty members to attend a seminar in Ghana, $12,000.

### Carnegie Officer Visits Southern Africa

STEPHEN H. STACKPOLE, executive associate in charge of the Carnegie program in the Commonwealth, returned recently from a seven-week trip to Africa. He spent the majority of his time in the Union of South Africa, where he visited all the universities, both Afrikaans- and English-speaking; he also went to Kenya, Uganda, and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The purpose of Mr. Stackpole's trip was to acquaint him further with educational problems and needs in Africa, and to consult with individuals to whom the Corporation looks for advice in connection with its grant program, including travel grants to individuals. Since World War II, 94 scholars and educational administrators from the Union of South Africa and 18 from Central and East Africa have traveled abroad under Carnegie grants.

Mr. Stackpole found that the South African universities are playing an increasingly important role in the national life of the Union. They face many problems-of expansion, financ-

### CARNEGIE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK

589 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK 17 N. Y.

Carnegie Corporation of New York is a philanthropic foundation created by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 for the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding. It has a basic endowment of $135 million and its present assets, reckoned at cost value, are approximately $183 million. The income from $12 million of this fund may be used in certain British Commonwealth areas; all other income must be spent in the United States.

The Corporation has a continuing interest in improving higher education. Grants are made to colleges and universities, professional associations, and other educational organizations for specific programs. Such programs include basic research as well as more effective use of the results of research, increased understanding of international affairs, better preparation of teachers, and new teaching programs.

Detailed descriptions of the Corporation's activities are contained in its annual reports, which usually are published in December.

**Board of Trustees:** MORRIS HADLEY, Chairman of the Board; W. RANDOLPH BURGESS; JOHN W. GARDNER; CARYL P. HASKINS; DEVEREUX C. JOSEPHS; NICHOLAS KELLEY; R. C. LEFFINGWELL; MARGARET CARNEGIE MILLER; FREDERICK OSBORN; ARTHUR W. PAGE; GWILYM A. PRICE; ELIHU ROOT, JR.; FREDERICK SHEFFIELD; CHARLES M. SPOFFORD; CHARLES ALLEN THOMAS.

**Administration:** JOHN W. GARDNER, President; JAMES A. PERKINS, Vice Presidents; FLORENCE ANDERSON, Secretary; C. HERBERT LEE, Treasurer; STEPHEN H. STACKPOLE, Executive Associate, British Dominions and Colonies Program; WILLIAM W. MARVEL, Executive Associate; ROBERT J. WERT, Executive Associate; FREDERICK H. JACKSON, Executive Assistant; ALAN PIYER, Executive Assistant, British Dominions and Colonies Program; MARGARET E. MAHONEY, Assistant Secretary; JAMES W. CAMPBELL, Assistant Treasurer; HELEN ROWAN, Editor.

ing, etc.-similar in kind and degree to those confronting universities in other parts of the Commonwealth and in the United States. In addition, proposed government legislation affecting university autonomy raises a number of new questions for the South African institutions.

Mr. Stackpole spent several days at the new interracial University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Although it was only in its fourth week of classes, it already was looked upon as one of the most important institutions serving the new Federation.

In Kenya, Mr. Stackpole visited the Royal Technical College; in Uganda, he went to the University College of East Africa, at Kampala.

PRINTED
U.S.A.

8

["PAGE TWO", "HARVARD SUMMER NEWS", "WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1957", "HARVARD SUMMER NEWS", "Published weekly for the Harvard Summer School at the Harvard Crimson, 14 Plympton Street, Cambridge 33, Mass.\nTelephone Kirkland 7-2811 or Kirkland 7-400, Ext. 2180.\nOffice hours: Monday through Friday, 9 to 12, 1:30 to 4:30.", "Crimson Printing Company, 14 Plympton Street,\nCambridge 33, Mass.", "Richard T. Cooper '55, Managing Editor\nLeo O. Gutierrez '55, Business Manager\nRobert M. Pringle '58, Photographic Editor\nCaldwell Titcomb '47, Drama and Music Editor", "Dorothy Austin\nWilliam W. Bartlett '56\nSidney Clifford\nRonald E. Loyd '58\nNancy Hoos", "Anna C. Hunt\nBlaise Past୍sley '55\nSara M. Pope\nPeter L. Tobin '55\nGeorge H. Watson '55", "WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1957", "The Theatergoer", "The Play's the Thing", "In the Union Common Room through Saturday", "The newly-constituted Harvard Players have concocted a most palatable summer sale of Shakespeare excerpts. Four caravans of four different plays, all neatly staged and well acted, add up to an extremely pleasing evening.", "Simplicity predominates: the stage stands black and bare, properties have been minimized, and the scenes presented a minimum of physical action. The result: enhanced emphasis on sheer ability to read poetry well suits the group's talents. But even in the final bit, the play-within-a-play from A Midsummer Night's Dream, entailing a certain amount of slapstick, the players do a fine job.", "So consistent is the quality of play that one finds it difficult to note high spots. But two performers particularly stand out: Barbara Tettleback and Eugene Gervais.", "Romeo and Juliet", "As Juliet in the Balcony Scene (which opens the evening) Miss Tettleback displayed a warm, lovely personality, perfectly suiting the part. And her reading was superb; she even appeared not at times to let the poetry behind her; and the listener was not aware of anything standing between him and Shakespeare.", "In the face of this excellence, Erich Segal's Romeo and Juliet was slightly, but effectively, but too often he exchanged light-of-lamp look for a wide-eyed stare.", "As Mercatio, Thomas Lumbard did well enough, but one felt he might have played his bawdy jokes less like an English professor and more like an old-timey burlesque comedian.", "Henry IV, Part One", "In the well-paced scene from the First Act of Henry IV, Gervais exceeded as Prince Hal. He acts with confidence and precision, and utilizes gestures and facial expressions with perfect appropriateness.", "Encel Edenton, handicapped by a slim physique, nonetheless took firm command of Falstaff and played an admirable complement to Gervais' lay-ing, buffeting, and blustering with gusto and expertise. Arthur Waldstein sparked surprisingly in the small role of Poinçãrie Tarrant, as the Hostess, played an uproarious game of pinch-bottom with Edgeron.", "Richard II", "Having performed so well as the wastrel Prince, Gervais showed remarkable change-of-place in the ensuing excerpt, the abdication scene from Richard II. Richard so completely dominates this section that its success relies solely on the ability of the actor portraying him. Gervais met all the requirements.", "Richard has been called to renounce his crown in the sight of the Commons, to cloak Bolingbroke's usurpation in an air of constitutionality. The formal phrases of abdication are written in rhyming couplets, which Gervais doles with, heavy emphasis on accents and rhymes, his hissing-song manner perfectly bringing out the empty formality and compulsion by which Richard is relinquishing his throne.", "The crown abandoned, Richard then discloses on his woes in flowing poetry. Gervais changes completely and obviously, heightening the difference in mood and building the scene to the climax of his actual departure.", "Midsummer Night's Dream", "The evening closures somewhat cheerfully in the Court of the Duke of Athens, with the antics of Peter Quince and his loutish crew. This scene invites displaying, a sin the Players certainly avoid. Edgeron as Quince, Waldstein as Bottom, William Trelock as Flute, Har-vey White as Wall, and Karl Cook as Snug clown with out haming. and Bruce Macdonald plays the ma-gan-dious Duke with special ability.", "The whole sequence takes only 90 minutes (brought in-cludes): local Shakespeare lovers-and students-will find the production a worthwhile break from exam teaching.", "HILLER B. ZOELB", "The Potting Shed", "At N. M. Mutiny Hall through August 24", "Ever since the publication of his first novel in 1929, Graham Greene has been a master of the psychological thriller. He has turned out a long series of serious novels, mystery tales and short stories. A few years ago he took his first crack at drama by writing The Living Room; and he followed that up last year with The Potting Shed.", "This new play enjoyed a considerable run on Broadway this spring; and fortunately it has come to Boston for two weeks. Let me say at once that The Potting Shed is a", "truly distinguished work-amazingly so for a second attempt. As a matter of fact it was by far the finest new member of the American stage of the late 1920's and 1930's, the core of the New York Drama Critics Circle, which Greene's best accomplishment since his novel The Heart of the Matter of a decade.", "Traumatic Experience", "The Potting Shed was billed as a \"suspense drama\" and a \"mystery thriller.\" Both terms are quite accurate. But the play is not a whodunit; it is rather a whadiddle. It concerns James Califer, who, good newspaperman that he is, tries to ferret out the story of what happened in the potting shed 30 years ago-somewhat soothful that it blanked out all memories of his pre-adolescence and caused both him and his uncle to be shunned by the rest of his family.", "The last element of pursuit is strong in all of Greene's work. Here, James' mother refuses to let the be-lief that it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, so James pursues his long-lost uncle and the widow of a discharged gardener, who have relevant information about his own past that is pursuing him.", "The play is an exciting tale and it has plenty of wit and humor. But it is at heart a serious play about religious faith. Religion has been an important concern to Greene since he embraced the Roman Catholic faith. (He says it is wrong to call it \"the convert\" and to call the other scenes in the only \"accepted\" Catholicism, because it was for him an intellectual one, not an emotional one.)", "Study in Gray", "One must not think, however, that this play is a piece of propaganda. It is not a pitting of black against white in which white finally triumphs. It is a complex study of grays. Almost every character undergoes a change of religious attitude during the play, but we still end up with a pattern of grays. And this is as it should be.", "A striking virtue of the work is the absolute honesty of the author. It makes thorny questions easy to solve in dramatic form some of the mental wrestling he must have gone through himself. He has a militant tradition of theathet-ic books; a devout Catholic housekeeper; a Catholic priest who says, \"It's a difficult thing, though, practicing a faith, day in, day out, when you don't feel like a Christian.\" A woman who believes in God \"on Sundays if the music's good; a man who exclaims, 'I don't want God. I don't love God, but He's there-it's no good prehending.' He's in my lungs like air\"-clearly not a simple being.", "Greene's psychological right enables us to examine both the conscious and subconscious moods of the characters, one of whom complains to James, \"You've spoiled our certainties.\" Greene's dramatic craftsmanship is not yet complete, and the first act betrays a number of weaknesses. But the third act goes too far, too weak, however, that is Greene's lofty achievement in this play. Its two scenes-especially the second, with its echo of the alco-hole Catholic priest-are classic confrontation scenes of the first order. This act is the most mor-ally forceful and compelling theatre since Eugene O'Neill.", "Frank Conroy", "This production is extremely lucky to have secured Frank Conroy, who played the priest in the Broadway original. His performance rightly won him two awards as the best supporting actor of the season, and it has lost none of its mastery. His years of playing Shakespeare in London have stood him in good stead, and he projects with perfect clarity even when his back is to the audience. Conroy is here only this week, so try to get to the show by Saturday. If you can't, go anyway next week; Conroy's role will be taken by Chris Gampel, who is a fine, reliable actor.", "Gene Lylles makes the role of James wholly believable and he picks up his cues with model slowness. Edward Flanagan's Dr. Baston is a delightfully Sympathetic old cedger-a carefully worded, Robin Morgan sparkles impecably as the perky, mischievous and not always truthful adolescent, Anne.", "Tom Bosley is genial as the psychiatrist, who believes that \"we all have great unconscious wisdom.\" Joan Croydon repeats her warm Broadway interpretation of the priest's housekeeper. Adele Thane makes the most of Mrs. Potter's one scene. and Maureen Hurley brings the right amount of neuroticism to the part of Sara. Edmund Rosey and Lawrie Spector give classic support as the right banker and the good-golfer roommate.", "Frances Starr", "The only real shortcoming in this production is Frances Starr's performance in the important role of James' mother. Of course almost anyone would be at a disconcert- age in having to follow Sybil Thridyke, who preferred the role with such magnetic graver. But Miss Starr is woefully inadequate to the demands of the part. Mrs. Califer is a protective woman who is used to having her way and being the boss; here is a dominant personality. In Miss Starr's hands the women emerge as soft and weak character. It's too bad that Florence Reed was not retained for the role from last week's play.", "Finally, a word of thanks to producer Lee Falk for his new policy of presenting only plays of high quality. I hope the box office returns to continue this policy next summer. His current effort has done much to make this the most outstanding summer theatre season that Boston has had within my memory.", "CALDWELL TITCOMB", "Also Recommended ...", "Explanade Concerts. Each evening at 8:30 for the rest of this week members of the Boston Symphony Orchestra give a free concert in the Hatch Memorial Shell by the banks of the Charles River. Take subway and blanket to Charles Station.", "Cyrano de Bergerac continues to receive an excellent performance at Wellesley, through this week.", "Sweet Smell of Success, the searing analysis of a power-mad and incipient newspaper columnist and a toady-ing, conscienceless press agent, will be at the WNT next Wednesday through Saturday.", "A Hateful Rain, the best of the films about dope addiction, still spills forth at the Astor.", "BRATTLIE TR 6-4226\nHARVARD SQUARE", "Thursday - Friday - Saturday\nMANON\nwith\nMichel Auelair Cecile Aubry", "Sunday - Monday\nNoel Coward's\nTONIGHT AT 8:30", "Stanley Holloway", "Martha Hunt\nNigel Patrick\nValerie Hobson\nJessie Royce Landis\nKay Walsh", "Tuesday - Wednesday\nLuis Bunuel's", "The YOUNG and the DAMNED\n(\"Los Olvidados\")", "ONLY TWO SHOWS NIGHTLY", "7:30 & 9:30 p.m.", "The Young and the Damned\n(\"Los Olvidados\")", "ONLY TWO SHOWS NIGHTLY", "7:30 & 9:30 p.m.", "Special", "Request Program", "FOR ONE WEEK ONLY", "Starts Friday, Aug 16", "Alec Guinness", "THE LAVENDER\nHILL MOB", "plus\nTIGHT LITTLE ISLAND", "Starts Friday, Aug. 23", "DOCTOR\nAT LARGE", "Kenmore Theatre", "NEAR EXTREME SQUARE", "KE 6-0777", "University Theatre Harvard Sq.\nUN 4-4580", "Now thru Sat. - August 14-17", "CinemaScope and Color\nJames Mason - Joan Fontaine\nHarry Belafont", "\"ISLAND IN THE SUN\"\n* * * * *", "Betty Hutton - Dana Andrews\n\"SPRING REUNION\"", "Sun. thru Tues. - August 18-20", "CinemaScope and Color\nPat Boone - Janet Gaynor\n\"BERNARDINE\"", "* * * * *\nSheres North - Jeffrey Hunter\n\"WAY TO THE GOLD\"\nCinemaScope", {"

["WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1957", "HARVARD SUMMER NEWS", "PAGE THREE", "## Summer Singers Make Fine Music", "Sanders Theatre rang with the sounds of fine singing yesterday evening. The occasion was the annual concert of the Summer School Singers. For the third successive year the Chorus was trained by Harold C. Schmidt '32, professor of Music and choral director at Stanford University; and for the third successive year the results were remarkable.", "Schmidt deserves tremendous credit for his ability to take an anonymous group of 30 amateurs and mould them in only six weeks into a single responsible musical body that can hold its own in a community accustomed to the very best", "choral singing.", "Schmidt chose a varied program wholly devoted to intriguing and rather out-of-the-way items. The opening \"Hall, bright Cecilia,\" by Purcell, had the proper major, though, though there was a bit of trouble with a few of the tricky entrances. Brahms brooding and richly colored Song of the Fates farmed well, and again showed that Brahms has no superior in the handling of the choral medium.", "For the group of madrigals Schmidt used a reduced chorus of two dozen. An interesting comparison was afforded in two settings, a half century apart, of the same text—one, by Voccia, lyric and smooth; the other, by Arcadell, most dramatic. The singers displayed excellent precision in Lo Scherenigo, one of the bright and rapid falsa-pieces that Gas- basso continuo (here executed by 'cello, basso and harpsichord). This piece of shifting moods makes use of countless different combinations of the solo, choral and instrumental forces.", "The fall Chorus, with soprano soloist Dorothy Crawford, gave three excerpts from Vaughan-Williams' enchanting in Winter Forest: the lair \"Falstaff and the Faries,\" the hash \"Wedding Chariot,\" and the sturdy \"Epilogue.\"", "The final work was Ode to the Virginian Voyage, written a year ago by Randall Thompson '70 for the Virginia 35th anniversary Commission. This big piece is in the tradition of the great Baroque \"occasional\" odes: In fact it is about two-thirds Handel and one-third Thompson. The third of the seven movements is in the tradition of the about Baroque \"occasional\" odes: In fact it is about two-thirds Handel and one-third Thompson.", "Duo-plantists Anne Chamberlain and Rafael Ferrer were an able substitute for an orchestra.", "—C.T.", "### Johnston", "(Continued from page one)\ntheatre is the most interesting side, because it is the only place where the actor can play a many great roles and where", "FREE\nELECTRONIC TEST AND\nREGULATION OF YOUR WATCH\nWHILE YOU WAIT AT\nTHE SWISS WATCH MAKER\nCHURCH ST.\nCAMBRIDGE", "USED TEXTBOOKS\nBought • Sold • Exchanged\nat all times", "HARVARD\nBOOK STORE\n1248 MASS. AVE., CAMBRIDGE\n(app. Lamont Library)", "### HARVARD BARBER SHOP", "1302 Massachusetts Avenue\nAcross from Wideren\nClosed Wednesday\nAIR CONDITIONED", "TUFTS ARENA THEATER\nLAST 3 DAYS\n\"TWO by MACLEISH\"\nfeaturing", "\"THE TROJAN HORSE\"\nPlus Another One-Act by A. MacLeish\nStudents $.75\nTUFTS Univ., Medford\nSO 6-9622", "Wellesley", "Last 3 Days\nMARGE MORN\nin", "Cyrano\nde Bergerac", "Aug. 20-31\nNANCY WICKWIRE\nin", "The Girl of the\nGolden West", "with\nMichael Higgins", "Sept. 3-8", "Playboy of the\nWestern World", "For Tickets call Wellesley 6-0669\nStudents discounts available", "Bus reservations may be made with\nMRS. CLOUSEUR IN GRAYS 1", "### Boston Summer Theatre Festival", "AIR CONDITIONED N.E. MUTUAL HALL — 225 CLARENCE STREET", "25% DISCOUNT TO STUDENTS\nMon. thru Thurs. Eve. Wed & Sat. Mats.", "upon presentation\nof credentials", "WEEK OF AUGUST 19\nFrances Starr • Frank Conroy\nIn Graham Greene's suspense drama\nTHE POTTING SHED", "WEEK OF AUGUST 26\nTennessee William's powerful drama\nSUMMER AND SMOKE", "", "FOR RESERVATIONS CALL KE 6-2033, CO 6-7262", "## MacLeish Dramas", "At Tufts through Saturday", "This week MacLeish offers two verse dramas by the distinguished poet, Archibald MacLeish. Crept By Me Upon The Waters is a sophisticated comedy involving five couples who have retired from the banalities of business world to a tropical \"Paradise.\"", "The Tufts production preserves the compactness of the play and gives it a uniformly smoothed pace. It also conveys the play's balance, emotional intensity, gaiety, sophistication and con- stance Walsh's sally add color, humor and vitality.", "Priscilla Foley skillfully portrays Elizabeth Stone's variances of emotions and smooth; the other, by Arcadell, most dramatic. The singers displayed excellent precision in Lo Scherenigo, one of the bright and rapid falsa-pieces that Gas- basso continuo (here executed by 'cello, basso and harpsichord). This piece of shifting moods makes use of countless different combinations of the solo, choral and instrumental forces.", "The Trojan Horse, a tragedy based on the Foundation material, Trimmer's daysey, tells how the Trojan people, covered by fear, transport the Trojan Horse into their city, thus ensuring their own destruction. More than mere tragedy, it is an ironical and powerful parable, with a profound significance for Americans, because the attitudes that cause the Trojans to accept the horse parallel certain attitudes that cause the Trojan Horse in America.", "MacLeish uses the ancient legend to criticize the tactics used by Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his Congressional report. He warns Americans that \"in adopting the tactics of the enemy and in branding those who try to reason with us, we haul within our gates the agent of our own destruction. Americans, as well as Trojans, can mistake a monster for a God...\" forgetting that patriotism must involve intelligent questioning, rather than passive acceptance of facts.", "Fred Blais as the Old Blind Poet, has a pleasingly sonorous voice, and Paul Fithian, as the Third Councilor, the embodiment of the past, is a monster. He's bom- bastic, verbose and dynamically forceful. MacLeish's poetry is tremendously powerful and his heightened richness of speech and every moving play, which is well worth seeing for its language as well as for its acting.", "The author can see his plays tried out without their having to be rewritten.\"", "\"The constant repetition in the repertory theatre makes for great plays, which are not constantly criticized as they are in Boston, Philadelphia and Broadway; and it is great pity there are not more such theatres.\"", "As to how material, theme and character you're clever and you have a foot- hold on the ladder.\"", "In fact, Johnston feels that one of the worst aspects of the contemporary theat- rical scene for plays \"made to order\" with a deadline rather than written freely for their creative brilliance and original dialogue.", "\"It's much easier for a woman to become a playwright than a man, because she has ways of working inside the theatre that men don't have. Men have two ways of getting inside the theatre: by starting amateur of semi-profes- sional groups of their own and two, by having their plays read by agents in foreign countries.", "\"Because far hills always seem greener, it's much easier for American playwrights to play plays produced in England than here; and conversely, for British playwrights to have their plays produced in the United States. By pro- viding a material, foreign plays help independent repertory groups of con- tinue,\" Johnston ended hopefully.", "Johnston was introduced by William Van Lennep, Curator of the Theatre Collection in the College Library.", "## THE PLAY'S THE THING", "SELECTED SCENES FROM SHAKESPEARE'S", "Tonight, Friday, Saturday Harvard Union, 8:40 P.M.", "ROMEO AND JULIET RICHARD II HENRY IV, PART I\nMIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM", "Tickets $9.00 Obtainable at Coop, Union, TR 6-7179", "## CASH for used BOOKS\nTOP PRICES PAID", "for textbooks and live books of all kinds", "Cambridge's Oldest and Most Modern Book Store", "THE\nPhillips\nBOOK STORE", "1354 MASS. AVE.", "in HARVARD SQUARE", "Founded in 1914", "### AMERICAN", "COBB'S RESTAURANT\n32 Tremont St.\nBoston\nCRONIX\n30 Dunster St.\nELISIE'S\n71 Mt. Auburn St.\nCambridge", "ELISIE'S\n71 Mt. Auburn St.\nCambridge\nEL 4-8362", "### FRENCH", "LA DUCHESSE ANNE\n224 Newbury St.\nBoston", "ITALIAN\nSIMEONE'S\n21 Brookline St.\nCambridge", "FOR DELICIOUS PROVINCIAL CUISINE\nCOME TO", "## LA DUCHESSE ANNE", "A Charming and informal corner of France\nComplete Dinners From $1.55", "224 Newbury St.", "OPEN EVERY DAY AND SUNDAYS", "## ELSIE'S", "Noted for the Best Sandwiches\nTo Eat in or To Take Out", "KNAKWURST • BRATWURST\nOR SAUTÉ SALAD", "71 Mt. Auburn St. Cambridge, Mass.\nElisie & Henry Bauman EL 4-8362", "FOR DELICIOUS PROVINCIAL CUISINE\nCOME TO", "## LA DUCHESSE ANNE", "A Charming and informal corner of France\nComplete Dinners From $1.55", "224 Newbury St.", "OPEN EVERY DAY AND SUNDAYS", "Charcoal-Broiled STEAK - SEAFOOD\nCOBB'S Restaurant\nSTEER ROOM\n32 Tremont St., Boston — CA 02402 — Complete Dinners to 1 A.M.\nA few steps from the downtown hotels, next to King's Chapel\nLUNCHDIN • DINNER • COCKTAIL LOUNGE • BAR • AIR CONDITIONED", "Special - Sirloin Steak $1.75", "Enjoy the Finest in Italian-American Food\nIn Our Air Conditioned Restaurant", "## SIMEONE'S", "Pizza — Spaghetti — Ravioli — Cacciatori\nSteaks — Chicken — Chops — Clams\nGOOD FOOD AT LOW PRICES —", "1 Block from Central Square", "(Open Every Night till Midnight)", "• OPEN SUNDAYS\nTELEPHONE EL 4-9569", "## CRONIN'S", "30 Dunster Street", "Cambridge, Mass.", "• SPECIAL LUNCHEON 75c", "• JIM'S SPECIAL DINNER 95c", "• TRY OUR PORTERHOUSE STEAK FOR TWO", {"bbox": [675, 1200, 895, 1215], "

THE NEW YORK TIMES, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1957.

[LC]

AIR AIDE ASSAITS
SMALL-WAR IDEAS

Strategist Calls Theories of
Big or Little Conflicts
an Escape From Truth

By JACK RAYMOND
Special to The New York Times.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15—A
leading theorist on Air Force
policy has challenged recently
publicized statements favoring
new defense doctrines to deal
with “limited” wars.

Col. Ephraim M. Hampton,
deputy for evaluation at the
Air War College, Maxwell Air
Force Base, Alabama, sug-
gested that some current dis-

tinctions between "total" and
"limited" war were an "es-
capist device—a case of candy-
coating the bitter truth."

"If war is viewed in its broad-
est context, there is no such
thing as limited war," declared
Colonel Hampton in the Air
University Quarterly Review,
the Air Force's professional
journal.

"It does not exist in fact; it
is at best a hope and not a
reality," he emphasized in an
article entitled, "Unlimited Con-
fusion Over Limited War."

The article was prompted by
the growing discussion of mili-
tary policies in the nuclear era
that has been stimulated here
by a book, "Nuclear Weapons
and Foreign Policy." The au-
thor, Henry A. Kissinger, based
his book on studies for the
Council of Foreign Relations.

The book has found favor
with Army leaders because it
appears to reinforce a major

Army contention. The Army
feels that overemphasis on the
policy of massive nuclear re-
taliation from the air, in the
event of aggression may result
in neglecting forces, such as
the Army's, that can deal with
"limited" or "brushfire" wars.

The Air Force attitude was
indicated when Gen. Thomas D.
White, Chief of Staff, intro-
duced an article in a new service
magazine with the statement:

"Today, the air-nuclear coun-
terpunch of the United States
Air Force is the keystone of our
national progress and security."

The Army's not necessarily
contradictory but differing
attitude was seen in the state-
ment of Gen. Maxwell D.
Taylor, Chief of Staff of the
Army. In a report to the Sec-
retary of Defense he said that a
massive nuclear war was be-
coming highly unlikely.

"Therefore the threat of sub-
version and local aggression

tends to become the most
serious threat to world peace,"
General Taylor emphasized.

Charles E. Wilson, Secretary
of Defense, and Admiral Arthur
W. Radford, former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
previously had asserted that the
capacity to deal with general
war included the capacity to
deal with limited or brushfire
wars.

Discussion Widespread

Discussion of these concepts
has become widespread here, in
view of increasing limits on the
funds available to the services.

Colonel Hampton dealt with
the suggestion, underscored in
Mr. Kissinger's book, that
United States policy should be
directed to specifying the limi-
tation of aims by both sides in
the event of a struggle.

The Air Force theorist con-
tended that this was "unreal-
istic" for "it is not possible to

predict the precise form, scope,
location, significance and scale
of combat actions that will be
involved."

Discussing the use of nuclear
weapons, Colonel Hampton
asked:

"How could we ever be sure
an enemy possessing nuclear
weapons would keep his agree-
ment not to use them?"

First priority in weapons
should go to those forces that
can establish power for total
war, Colonel Hampton declared.