Fáklyaláng, 1960. október (1. évfolyam, 3. szám)
1960-10-23 / 3. szám
THE CHALLENGE At the Commencement of a progressive high school in New York City, a guest speaker, the wife of a multi-millionaire, addressed the graduating class. She had just returned from a visit to Soviet Russia, where she had been deeply impressed - she confided - by the good-natured, peace-loving people there whom she found to be so very similar to the Americans. Even the institutions in Russia resembled those of our own far-away land; the judges, for instance, appeared at Court in robes. Except for the language, which she did not understand, the trial she attended at Moscow could have been held just as well in New York City. There was, however, she pointed out, one fundamental disagreement between us and the Soviets which could cause dangerous conflicts and even lead to war. That is the unshakable determination of the Russians to hold to their present Communist system. War, she cried out, is the greatest evil! It is unthinkable, in the Atomic Age. Since the Soviet will not change, it is we who have to learn how to live at peace with them! With this advice, to adapt our free way of life to the Soviet slave system, this class of receptive young American girls was sent off to face the hazards of our troubled world. Moral degradati on, i n order to escape physical harm, this is the course of action recommended to our perplexed good people by a number of educators, commentators, all types of confused intellectuals. Outstanding among them is Sir Bertrand Russell, with the shocking sincerity of his disgraceful dictum: "Better Red than dead!" Lester B. Pearson, the Liberal Canadian leader, also prefers life under Communism to atomic war, but he assures us, in his naiveté, that he would continue to fight the Communists "from within" [ ! ] Leading a host of well known columnists and journalists, the erudite American, Harrison E. Salisbury, expresses no such bellicose intentions. He seems quite disposed to condone, in a peaceful mood, the Soviet way of life, as described in his slanted reports. The inclination, widespread among our intellectuals and some business leaders, to drift toward the Soviets, is based on their defeatist appraisal concerning the inability of the West to resist the world-revolutionary tide in the long run. These partisans of coexistence-at-any-price have been silenced temporarily by Khrushchev's inexcusable brutality, but they await, anxiously, the day when at his first friendly beckon they may resume their downward trek. Victims of a defeatist complex, our radicals in the Democratic party refuse to consider the oniy favorable solution of the contest imposed upon us by the Communists. They have accepted every loss we suffered since the end of the war, as final. They reject the oniy sound solution, global victory, in *he otherwise endless Cold War. Victory, however, is always the result of initiative and of an offensive strategy which would demand effort and sacrifice on our part. Stalin chose Hitler, not Chamberlain, as an ally at the outbreak of the Second World War, and served him until the day when Hitler attacked Russia, not because Stalin preferred the German Führer, but because Stalin feared him. If only for four years [ one Presidential term ] we would make an effort equal to that which the Soviet peoples were forced to put forth for more than forty years, the build-up of Ameri can influence and power would soon compel the Soviet steamroller to start moving in reverse, the captive European Nations, whose stand against Communism does not depend upon any giveaway programs, could be liberated, and with a peaceful but resourceful policy the present deteriorating balance of power couid be corrected.
