VARIETY
American liberals toward Russia
during the war, and even now,
stems primarily from their uncrit–
ical worship at the shrine of politi–
cal power-the fictitious power of
"Big Three Unity," for instance,
and not, as PARTISAN REVIEW sug–
gested, from subservience to the
whims and wishes of the Kremlin.
Had the liberals been less enthusias-
Four Letters
Sirs:
605
I want to congratulate you on
your Summer issue. The editorial
and the article by Philip Rahv are
alone worth much more than a
year's subscription. It is a pleasure
to have plain speaking beautifully
phrased.
Yours truly,
JoHN DEWEY
tic about Teheran and Yalta, they New York City.
would not have had to face their
•
present dilemma of having to de–
fend an untenable position.
Finally, it is the shock of dis–
illusionment, I believe, rather than
PARTISAN
REVIEw's impugned
"fifth columnism" on behalf of Rus–
sia, that is largely responsible for the
liberal attacks on the State De–
partment, the domestic war party,
and British imperialism. I do not
have the slightest doubt that the
liberals will also resume attacks on
Russia (as during the Nazi-Soviet
Pact period). For they are now
pinning their hopes on the work–
ability of the United Nations
which, I think, is anything but a
"front organization" of Stalin, as
PARTISAN REVIEW put it. It is so
clearly an institutionalization of
the contemporary complex of in–
ternational power politics that
sooner or later the liberals alone
will find themselves in the unenvi–
able spot of being the sole defenders
of its nobler objectives.
HEINZ EuLAU
Sirs:
Your lead article in the Sum–
mer 1946 issue is a sharp con–
demnation of recent Soviet expan–
sionist policy as well as a splendid
analysis and criticism of the al–
legedly liberal journals and poli–
ticians whose behavior rightly calls
forth your label "The 'Liberal' Fifth
Column." But the editorial goes
further than that; it hints at a
political alternative to the policy
of appeasement in such a faint–
hearted way as to make this reader
believe that the editors are afraid
to face squarely the logical con–
clusion of their own position.
For example: you thunder a–
gainst Soviet aggression protected
by its veto powers. Would you have
Uncle Sam step into the Euro–
pean political vacuum, instead of
Uncle Joe, and seek protection by
the use of the veto? Again, you
say we ought not to sacrifice the se–
curity of Russia's neighbors, but
you do not tell your readers how
this is to be done. You maintain
that every argument the "liberals"
use "to justify intervention in Spain
is a valid argument for intervention
