Fáklyaláng, 1961. február-október (2. évfolyam, 2-10. szám)
1961-10-23 / 8-10. szám
Hungarian Torchlight 5 principle or philosophy of life); the materialistic philosophy of the American people and the lack of Statesmanship in the United States. It is generally accepted that the most important economic and political problems in the United States are solved on a compromise basis - even in the field of moral values. It is regarded a highly developed sense of responsibility in a sharp contrast with European traditions. Ultima ratio is not regarded as a means to solve any problem. It is an American principle to sit down to the conference table to bargain and to attempt to reach some mutually acceptable agreement. When we accepted the principle that nothing is too bad or nothing is too good, thus no attitude can be wholly correct and entirely incorrect, this principle seems to be just and appropriate. Nevertheless - and this cannot be disregarded - the United States made, quite strangely, two departures from this principle: It entered both world wars with the total disregard of this principle. It considered Germany the idtimate wrong and the opponents of that Germany the ultimate good. Thus it fought both World Wars on the basis of false premises because, in both cases, the opponents were only partly bad and partly good. Accordingly, the friends of the United States in these wars were not all angels and its main enemies not all devils. Nevertheless, - despite the Soviet actions - no mention was made by the United States that it participated in the Second World War on the basis of false premises. Disregarding the principle that a compromise solution is better than an armed conflict, it must be clear that two are needed for a compromise. The history of the Soviet Union proved that she is ready to accept a compromise solution if she was left no alternative. No one can state that - since June 22, 1941, the day Germany attacked the Soviet Union - the Soviet Union was acting under duress. It must, therefore, be understood that no compromise is possible with the Soviet Union, as proved by her history. The Soviet Union may accept a compromise solution to mislead her opponent and or violate this compromise at the first possible moment, or reject any compromise solution, if it does not serve her interest. Various sources in the U. S. prepared a long list of Soviet treaty violations. This figure, even according to conservative estimates, is well over one hundred. It is, thus, incomprehensible why the policy of compromises is still the leading motive in the American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union. It is rather discouraging to read the optimistic statements of American figures over seemingly possible compromises with Moscow in some question. Nevertheless, the question must be raised when shall the chasing of mirages by grown ups come to an end? Another reason for the rapid Soviet advance is the attitude of the American public toward the outside world. It is not bad to be rich but too much wealth ruins public morale. Civilizations grew out of misery, want and, most of all, of human suffering. Who has no needs cannot create anything great. Anyone who can have everything in abundance becomes selfish, materialistic, sybaritic and a distorted version of a human being whose mind is limited to cars, steaks, drinks, comfort, sex and recreation. Such a man is so much concerned about the today that he loses his tomorrow. Such a man does not risk anything as he may lose everything he has. It is impossible not to compare the workers of Europe, who, at forty, contracted tb, are clothed in rags; and the slow-moving, corpulent American, who, at thirty, drives his car to the mailbox from his house only about a hundred yards distance to post his letter. And while we have compassion toward the stricken and ill we have only contempt for the degenerated who became burden for himself, a liability for his fellow men and danger for his country. It is obvious therefore that this hedonistic type has no interest in what is going on around him in the different parts of the world and his selfishness, materialistic-individualistic egotism and greediness over the pursuit of his wealth prevent the development of any feeling. It is equally despising to see human beings grabbing whatever they can and disregarding human dignity. Stoned hearts, hypocratic pseudo humanism, all selfish business-urge did not put an end to any destructive mass movement in history. Deep-rooted reasons lie behind the present international situation. The Americans who run politically this country, as can be characteristically seen in the party political jungle in New York, are not the descendants of the pilgrims, of the pioneers or settlers who pushed toward the West with gun in one hand and plow in the other. No, they are not their descendants, neither physically nor spiritually. The greatgrand sons and daughters of the mixed peoples from the reservoirs of Eastern Europe run this country from the East coast of the United States. They ceased to be the people of Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln since long. This is a completely different human type. The real American stock, however, still survives behind the great plains of the Mississippi. It is, sadly, excluded from the country’s political arena in which the real leadership slipped into incompetent hands. Once Ferenc Kölcsey wrote about the Hungarian nation; “The brave people who could suffer and amidst suffering could harvest heroic deeds, lived in name alone and does not exist any more.” And what was true at the Tisza then is true in Manhattan today. The series of these sad events, finally, may also be attributed to the fact that the United States does not have statesmen who would really deserve this title. In the political arena - as on the battlefield - three factors must be observed most painfully: 1. that the initiative should not slip into the opponent hands; 2. that defensive is no alternative to win a war; and 3. that the will in itself to preserve something is not enough without new ideas. As can be seen, initiative in all respects is solidly in Soviet hands ever since the Conference of Teheran in 1943. It is also characteristic of the present situation that the United States hails as a crushing victory when some defensive measure stopped the Soviet Union’s aggressive actions somewhere in Asia or Africa.
