THE WEEK

Mr. Dulles now says that “nothing would so irreparably damage the relations” between the United States and her Western allies as a congressional investigation of Middle Eastern policy. Why? Because that policy is ignoble? If so, let us change the policy.—Or is it because we have no policy; in which case let us get one, and if the Administration can’t think one up, perhaps Congress can help it along?

Just a fortnight ago the eternal optimists were saying that a solid pro-Gomulka turnout in the Polish election would discourage the Stalinists from attempting to re-establish total control. But the optimists have, as usual, proved unrealistic. The flush on Gomulka’s cheek brought on by his dizzy electoral triumph had barely subsided when the Natolin (Stalinist) group in the Central Committee formally labeled the Gomulka agricultural program “a step back towards capitalism”—an accusation tantamount to a bill of treason. Though the Stalinists may not be able to make the accusation stick at the February meeting of the Central Committee, the pressure on Gomulka mounts. Ulbricht’s East German Communists, Stalinists all, are now threatening that if Gomulka’s “liberalization” is not stopped, the Oder-Neisse boundaries must be revised. Whether Gomulka remains or goes, the moral is the same: to appease Communism in the hope of getting a “milder” brand leads precisely nowhere. The way to strike against Communism is to strike.

Featured Tags

Mr. Dulles now says that “nothing would so irreparably damage the relations” between the United States and her Western allies as a congressional investigation of Middle Eastern policy. Why? Because that policy is ignoble? If so, let us change the policy.—Or is it because we have no policy; in which case let us get one, and if the Administration can’t think one up, perhaps Congress can help it along?

Just a fortnight ago the eternal optimists were saying that a solid pro-Gomulka turnout in the Polish election would discourage the Stalinists from attempting to re-establish total control. But the optimists have, as usual, proved unrealistic. The flush on Gomulka’s cheek brought on by his dizzy electoral triumph had barely subsided when the Natolin (Stalinist) group in the Central Committee formally labeled the Gomulka agricultural program “a step back towards capitalism”—an accusation tantamount to a bill of treason. Though the Stalinists may not be able to make the accusation stick at the February meeting of the Central Committee, the pressure on Gomulka mounts. Ulbricht’s East German Communists, Stalinists all, are now threatening that if Gomulka’s “liberalization” is not stopped, the Oder-Neisse boundaries must be revised. Whether Gomulka remains or goes, the moral is the same: to appease Communism in the hope of getting a “milder” brand leads precisely nowhere. The way to strike against Communism is to strike.