HUNGARY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

First of all, it should be noted that the co-signers of this letter represent various political views, and write in a spirit of strict nonpartisanship. Events of the past two weeks leave neither room nor time for narrow partisan polemic. Liberation for Hungary is an issue to which all Americans of good will may subscribe, whether Republicans or Democrats, liberals, conservatives or whatnot.

Frankly, it has been shocking to us to observe the apathy, complacency and, indeed, cynicism, on this great issue. Official views on the situation have been limited to expressions of sympathy and calls for the application of moral pressure. Unofficially, even here at Harvard, reactions generally seem to fall into two categories. One, "Yes, it's all very sad but what can we do about it?" The other, "Any action on our part would be a direct invitation to World War III." Taking each in order, let us try to see what we might be able to do about it, for something, we believe, must certainly be done.

In our opinion, we in the colleges and universities might take the following steps:

1.) Inform ourselves to the saturation point of the current events abroad, particularly as they relate to the situation in Hungary and the other satellites. We should be aware of the great fight for freedom still in progress there.

2.) Organize drives for funds and clothing to be sent to the refugees and rebels through such associations as the Red Cross, CARE, the United Nations, and any others engaged in this humanitarian task. Surely if Harvard students and faculty members could organize fund drives for Wendell Furry, Leon Kamin and others, would they not be willing to contribute to this great cause? We could contact the National Student Association and Radio Free Europe, also, and offer our help in whatever projects they may have on this matter.

3.) Contact our Congressmen and the State Department as soon as possible with out ideas on the crisis in the satellites. In a representative democracy it is through these agents that our views may be felt.

4.) Not only talk about the situation in Hungary and elsewhere to others, but be ready to volunteer and fight, if necessary, to secure the liberties of our fellowman, though they might be 4,000 miles away. Anyone who heard or read the urgent radio appeals from Hungary last Saturday night would be callous indeed, were he not ready to strike a blow for freedom now, even if he has been in Korea or in a concentration camp aboad during World War II. Refugees streaming into Austria from Hungary, asked this:

"Where is NATO? The UN? Where are the Americans? The British? The French? We listened to your radios. We believed in freedom. There is no time now for conferences and discussion. Give us arms. Send the bombers. Crush the Soviet terror which is about to end our hard-won liberty."

As to the Government, we would suggest these measures:

1.) Talk less and act more! Press in the UN for for a resolution branding the Soviet Union an aggressor in Hungary. Let us have done with talk of "moral force." The history of the Soviet Union can give us no comfort on the sensitivity of her leaders to "moral force" or "world public opinion," whatever that may be.

2.) In the UN, press for a Korea-type armed force to enter Hungary and drive the Russians out. Let us forget about the advisability or the possibility of sending in a UN observer corps, the members of which, as a matter of fact, have not yet been named. This UN force should be composed of smaller nations and neutral nations preferably, but they should be strongly backed the United States and by Britain and France, if they could disengage themselves from their present activities. This country could at least supply the arms and transportation that may be necessary for a successful operation. In addition, this Government might extend diplomatic recognition to the Gyor Government in Hungary (still extant as of November 6th) if it shows sufficient signs of stability.

3.) The United States, as leader of the free world, should be prepared, nevertheless, to enter the conflict itself if there is no other way to hearten other nations in the cause of freedom. Therefore, the Government should issue a stern warning to Russia that she withdraw her troops from Hungary, or face the certainty of armed UN action.

4.) Having tried the UN and failed to get satisfactory action, the Government should speak to the people frankly on the realities of the situation and should take action against Russia in Hungary, to be joined by those nations desiring to help, outside the UN.

It is our belief, based on the stirring in the other satellites, that if an armed force, either of the United Nations or the United States, should enter Hungary, there would very likely be a general uprising against Russia in the satellites. The Russians, even if they do not follow the UN directive to withdraw their troops (which they might do if they knew it were backed by force), would find themselves with a great revolt on their hands. They could not then concentrate their forces on Hungary alone. The struggles in Hungary and Poland have clearly destroyed the myth of Communist ideological domination of the satellites. They have clearly shown that the only thing holding the satellites loyal to Moscow is Soviet military power. The events of last week satisfied every condition for liberation that we might require: Addressing themselves to this country and the UN, Premier Nagy and his Government called several times for aid--military, economic and medical--and Cardinal Mindszenty, representing at least 80 percent of the people, did likewise. What more can we ask of the Hungarian people?

There are those who argue that by facing the Soviet Union in the manner set forth above, we would be inviting World War III. To those we should recall the words of Patrick Henry, no less true today than in 1776: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery?" Peace at any price is a craven doctrine unworthy of the American nation.

Diplomatic decisions relating to war are reached by a balancing of the strategic and the moral factors involved. If we choose to fight, it will be because the strategic factors are favorable and/or because the scales will be tipped so heavily in favor of moral and ideological considerations that we must. We have emphasized the ideological factor in the power equation because the requisite information about the associated strategic risks is of course classified. Since the risk of precipitating a Third World War is implicit in any decision to confront Russian military power, such a policy must be adopted only after the risk of a Third World War has been minimized in so far as possible.

Based on available evidence, we support a policy of intervention and liberation in Hungary. Of primary importance is the fact that the Hungarian revolt has gloriously reaffirmed the spiritual basis of democracy itself, that man essentially hungers for freedom, and that it cannot be denied to him forever. We must defend this principle. Otherwise, democracy and freedom will become empty words. William C. Brady '57  Marc E. Leland '59   Robert E. Ausnit '57  Edward C. Pinkus '59   A. LeRoy Ellison '58  David A. Horgan '56   David G. Taylor '57  James H. Manahan '58   Thomas E. Haskins '57