Prophylaxis

War, like venereal disease, is not spread by frank discussion. Some people think it is. Last week was a bad one for them.

A European diplomat in Washington summed up the reaction of many of his colleagues to current international developments. He said: "In the inner circles of our Government it is no longer a question of whether or not we are on the eve of a world war. The question we would like answered is--will the U.S. make its stand on the Elbe or the Pyrenees?"

Public creation of the "Little Comintern" widened the split at the United Nations, where the Russian bloc has lately abandoned all pretense of cooperation. The New York Times's James Reston remarked: "Probably never in the history of international gatherings has the simple, demonstrable untruth been put forward so often with such force and passion."

Rumors that the Russians now have an atomic bomb began to grow. They will doubtless continue to proliferate. It is obviously to Russia's advantage to encourage such rumors, and some Russian agents have, in fact, encouraged them. (In all probability these reports are false. The U.S. Government may or may not know when Russia makes a Bomb, but the minute it tests one U.S. War Department detection devices will record that fact.)

Not a Matter of Manners. Did all this mean that "the situation was deteriorating," or, in plain English, that the world was closer to war? It did not. Two years ago, when honeyed words flew between Russia and the West, the basic ideas, methods, objectives and interests of Communism on the one hand and democracy on the other were every inch as far apart as they are today. The only change is that two years ago a lot of Americans did not realize how big the gap was, and now they do. For this, thanks is largely due to the harsh words and harsher politics of the Russian bosses.

The man who, in the 1930s, was more right than any other about how World War II might have been prevented, was not pessimistic this week about the danger of World War III. In an inspiring speech, Winston Churchill faced the possibility that the Russian bloc might make the break into two worlds complete by quitting the U.N. organization. Churchill added: "We should all be sorry to see that, but if one of these worlds is far more powerful than the other and is equally vigilant, and is also sincerely desirous of maintaining peace, there is no reason why a two-world system should lead to war."

The danger of war, then, did not depend upon whether the Comintern was hidden or open, whether manners at U.N. were rude or Chesterfieldian. It depended upon whether the part of the world which wanted permanent peace would continue to be 1) "more powerful," and 2) "equally vigilant."

A Good Scare. Viewed in that light, recent events were not leading toward war but away from it. Creation of the Little Comintern would help both Europeans and Americans understand the necessity of work and sacrifice in support of the Marshall Plan to keep the non-Communist part of the world stronger. True, the fear of war had grown. But fear and vigilance were close kin. The danger of war between Russia and the West had always lain in the possibility that the West would not understand the danger. The bitter candor of recent weeks was prophylactic, not symptomatic. As Ed Howe used to say: "A good scare is worth more to a man than good advice."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.