The Demand for a Peace Pact scit,--1 am getting used
to, but do not agree with, papers talking of "the necessity of reaimament," as, indeed, the Spectator does in referring to Mr. Jack Tanner's recent speech. I am getting used to, but again do not agree with, those who claim that the U.S.S.R. and "satellite States" have a preponderance of arms over those of the Western Powers. I am gradually learning to take seriously those who imagine that the "iron curtain" countries are threatening the numerous U.S. bases surrounding these countries: All these things ate not new to me. What is new to me (though I make no claims to _having discovered it first), is the statement in the Spectator that " No one has been able to suggest any means of averting war except the mobilisation of such 'defensive forces in the West, as to deter Russia from attacking." (The italics, I confess, are mine.) Shad I be iarcastic and rub salt into the wound by reminding you of such things as the demand for a peace pact- between the five great Powers? Ot should I be generous and merely exclaim: "Utter nonsense ! " ?
[A demand for a peace pact will not avert war. A peace pact itself might, though that is not certain. But there has been-no evidence so far of Russia being willing to disarm except on a percentage basis, which would leave her her present immense military preponderance. There can 'be no peace pact on that basis.—Eb., Spectator.]
Previous page
