606
in Russia." True enough, but an
investigation of Russia by an in–
ternational commission would not
get anywhere and P.R. knows this.
(I recognize of course that it is
legitimate to demand it, neverthe–
less.) After asserting that war is an
unreal issue being manufactured
by Russia's friends you go on to
say:
"If
Stalin believed that war
were an issue now, he would very
quickly change from lion to lamb
and pull back from his aggres–
sions." Are we then to assume that
you desire the State Department
or our military to threaten war to
make him withdraw? Instead of
recommending a forthright policy,
the editorial merely raises the fol–
lowing rhetorical question:
"If
war
is that inevitable, does it not be–
come a man's duty to cry stinking
fish and face up to the inevita–
bility?" From which point you go
on to argue that if war is not in–
evitable then the only way to avoid
it is to stop licking Stalin's boots.
That is not enough. What policy
should be substituted for the boot–
licking one?
Your position resembles some–
what that of William C. Bullitt in
his recent book,
The Great Globe
Itself.
He opposes appeasement and
rejects war "with absolute finality"
but desires that this government
warn Moscow that new Soviet ag–
gression will be met by American
action. Now it seems to me that this
is the kind of double talk to be
expected from a former ambassa–
dor. The language of diplomacy
has always required a translator. Is
the same true of political analysis
by literary critics?
PARTISAN REVIEW
If
we have learned, as the editors
say, that appeasement is not the
way to stop aggression, then per–
haps it is equally true that we
should have learned that war is
also not the answer to the Euro–
pean problem. However, if your
thinking leads you to conclude that
Stalin's aggressions cannot be stop–
ped by appeasing his insatiable ap–
petite and that war is the only
alternative, then stop beating a–
round the bush and say so. It is
ill
becoming for the editors of the
best left-wing literary journal in
the country to talk war in parables
of peace.
Sincerely,
JULES KoLoDNY
Brooklyn, N. Y.
•
Sirs:
I have just read your editorial
entitled "The 'Liberal' Fifth Col–
umn" and I welcome it most en–
thusiastically. I wish that it could
be given universal distribution.
As a veteran of five and a half
years of war who returned to a
changed America, I wish to state
that I have never seen the case a–
gainst our native Fifth Columnists
put more succinctly. There is the
choice between the United States
and Russia, and for an American
there is indeed no middle way.
Very sincerely,
HowARD HuNT
Albany, N.
Y.
•
Sirs:
As an old friend and well-wisher
of the PARTISAN REVIEW, and a
reader whose opinion in the present
case is apparently shared by many
