Counter-Offensive

There is something curious about the phrase "peace offensive." Something curious and something ominous. Strictly speaking, it has been used to suggest that various Russian and Russian-in-spired statements which seem to be peacefully inclined are actually nothing of the sort. Instead, the words "peace offensive" indicate, these statements are snares for the unsophisticated and delusions for the unenlightened, serving only propaganda purposes, and having no resemblance to a genuine effort to come to some sort of general settlement.

That is the strict interpretation of the phrase. Whether or not it is justified by facts is difficult to say, chiefly because there aren't any that can be used. The lack of conciliatory Russian actions in the UN is supposed to be a useful fact, but it proves very little so far as this particular issue is concerned. It does show that Premier Stalin's statement to the press was not necessarily made in good faith; but it does not show that the statement was necessarily and beyond the shadow of a doubt made in bad faith. It would have to do that to prove that the situation implied by the phrase "peace offensive" actually exists. And the only way to discover whether or not that situation does exist, as Walter Lippmann has pointed out, the only way, in fact, for the United States to act in good faith itself, is to take the Russians at their word, confer with them, and hear what they have to say.

What can be lost by such an action? Nowhere will you find an answer to that question. Everywhere the issue has been blurred by what might be called the broader interpretation of "peace offensive." Actually it is a kind of inarticulate interpretation--the one that is both curious and ominous. It implies that we are being attacked and that we must defend ourselves. The phrase "peace blitz" has even been used here and there recently; it emphasizes this implication. But just where the danger lies in such a "blitz" is peculiarly unclear. Nor is it clear how, in the name of peace, you can defend yourself against the "blitz."

So much for the curiosities of the phrase. It becomes ominous when it symbolizes a cynical attitude in this country toward any overture from Russia. Undoubtedly it is wise to move carefully--to study Stalin's statement thoroughly, in terms of both its phrasing and its timing. But this study should be to determine the nature of the negotiations, not whether they ought to be attempted. So long as there is the slightest glimmer of a possibility that the Russians may be seriously interested in casing the present tension, then they should be given a chance to do so. And certainly such a glimmer exists, at the very least. So let us find out just what Stalin has in mind. Let us launch a peace counter-offensive, and perhaps everybody can live happily ever after in a world torn by peace.