Mr. Bollinger in his comments on the Peace Movement reveals this Marxian weakness to the full and while not wishing to question his sincerity it is to be regretted that he chose to cloud the issue with a mass of quite irrelevant information. I rather received the impression that he has been so busy fighting for peace that he has forgotten what the word means and worse still so intent upon dragging the Catholic Church into his condemnations that he has overlooked the important fact that he has failed to prove the case for this Peace through War Movement.

Peace Spelt C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M

I first want to make it quite clear that I cannot accept Mr. Bollinger's thesis that the Communist Party and its affiliated organisations are in any way interested in peace as Western civilisation understands the word. It is a dogma inherent in the morality of Communism that every action must be directed towards the ultimate goal of world revolution and the setting up of the complete and universal Communist society. This objective may be concealed. It may be ostensibly abandoned for a period in a particular sphere or country, but if Communism is true to itself it can never be forgotten. It follows quite logically therefore that if the Communist Party suddenly—and surprisingly so—evinces an interest in peace it does so but to further the ctiuse to which it is pledged. Those people therefore who think that they will be furthering the cause of real peace by aligning themselves with a movement instigated and encouraged by the Party are either blind fools at the best or at the worst opportunists who hope to be in on the triumphal march if ever the Party wins the day.

It is op to Mr. Bollinger to prove that Communism has not as its ultimate aim the subjection of the world to a compliance with its tenets. If he will not—for he cannot—prove this then all his evidence of tin-pot ecclesiastics and starry-eyed Idiots and stupid signatures either represents the paucity of his Intelligence or the admission of defeat.

Peace Spelt A-T-H-E-I-S-M

There are some interesting facts to be gleaned from Mr. Bollinger's adumbrations. For example I gathered that one of the advantages of an Anglican upbringing is that it leads one to a disbelief in God and I fall to see how a Christianity that ends in Atheism is to be extolled without some measure of hypocrisy. Again out of the thousands of clergymen throughout the world a whole 19 have rallied to the cause of the "genuine Peace Movement." When one remembers that all the Catholics from this magnificent band have had their priestly powers suspended or curtailed by the Church due to their membership or support of the Movement and that the Orthodox clergy are within the Russian orbit of power and cannot therefore be free Christians, then Mr. Bollinger's contention that the Movement has a Christian background is just sheer bunk.

Proof of Nothing

Then the old and hackneyed Party flag is waved by stating that 205 delegates represented 45,000' people at the National Peace Congress. This takes me back to the time when a past executive of VUC representing the whole student body congratulated President Gottwald of Czechoslovakia on his successful grab for power. We all remember how we were all so happy to be associated with this message and how we so willingly confirmed our representation. Try another line Mr. Bollinger, thin one is a little stale.

Peace Spelt P-E-R-S-E-C-U-T-I-O-N

Again the question is asked if Archbishop Stepinac is to be left to his fate? Mr. Bollinger surely has not read the article which he professes to attack very carefully. To refresh his memory the point raised therein was that if the Peace Movement is universal in its application it seems strange that when Tito so naughtily abandoned the Moscow line and the abject sycophancy that this line demands, he was very quickly accused of abandoning the cause of peace. Either Moscow and the Peace Movement are one in essence and in thought, or was this just one of those happy coincidences that appear so often throughout the tortuous life of this unsavoury" organisation.

No, we have not forgotten Archbishop Stepinac, nor Cardinal Mlndzenty, nor Archbishop Beran, nor the men who disappear without a trace; it is only the Communists who have forgotten the people of Warsaw sacrificed to a Russian whim; forgotten also that Latvia and Esthonia and Lithuania were once free and now enslaved; forgotten their comrades in arms such as the Christian members of the Maquis in France. Perhaps it is for this reason alone that we are not particularly interested in this "Peace Movement."

Scurrilous Denunciation for Peace?

Mr. Bollinger also fails to see that the language of Pravda, the Cominform Journal and the tone of statements by the Czech Minister of education are like in style and words to the announcements of the Peace Movements. If they are not then we can conclude, according to Mr. B. that the Movement can dissociate itself from the doubtful advantage of their support. When we remember, however, that the two journals quoted are the main instruments of Communist pronouncements and that the Czech Minister, if he is not a Communist would be the only non-Communist politician in the whole of Eastern Europe; when we also remember that the World Peace Committee comprises 88 per cent. Communists and "fellow-travellera"; then I fail to see whether it matters if the statements of the Peace Movement do not quite descend to the scurrility of Pravda and the open war-mongering of the Cominform Journal, etc. Is it not clear that the pronouncements from these various sources are for the edification of differing audiences and elementary common sense would indicate that you cannot palaver to the "let us lead them up the garden path people" in the same language as you can bo a movement which is supported by men who are primarily interested in the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the Marxian concept of the seizure of power, the people in the know?

Mr. B.'s Sinister Picture

Mr Bollinger draws for us the sinister picture of Messrs. McIntyre, Cook and Hurley cold-heartedly earning their living while people in Korea are suffering the ills of war in the first place I can well accuse Mr. Bollinger of doing the same thing and if he thinks that by trotting around bleating the word "peace" every time he hears the word Korea he will end the misery of these people then he has a poor appreciation of the problem of war. Furthermore, what relationship the dead in Korea have to the question of the integrity of the Peace Movement seems to me quite beside the point. Except, perhaps, that the Korean signatories to the Movement all came from that part of the country that commenced the slaughter, namely the north.

Freedom Spelt S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-O-N

Then we learn that the World Peace Congress demands freedom for subject nations. Unfortunately the Congress was not quite clear as to what subject nations were involved but perhaps it would be too much to ask it to include the Eastern countries of Europe; perhaps also the Congress saw the subtle difference between subjection and slavery and hopes to deal with the latter at a later stage. However, this interest in the colonial countries somewhat lets the cat out of the bag for, after all, is it not a cardinal principle of Marxist action that these countries are particularly suitable for revolutionary endeavour? This shows again that what the Peace Movement is interested in follows closely the Communist Party line and tactics. As an isolated incident it could pass without comment but when related to all the other examples of this compliance with the Party line then the horrified objections that emanate from the Movement can at the best be attributed to an emptiness of head and at the worst, hypocrisy of the most flagrant kind.

Communism—Late as Usual

Mr. Bollinger seems to be under the impression that the cardinals and archbishops of France were goaded into a condemnation of the A-bomb by the activities of the Peace Movement. Perhaps I can remind the writer that the indiscriminate use of means of mass destruction was condemned by the Catholic Church long before the idea of peace dawned upon the Communist mind, at least their idea of peace as a cloak for the third world war. It is particularly noticeable that no explanation has been given as to why the Stockholm Appeal did not evince any interest in condemning other methods of mass destruction apart from the A bomb. After all, it is a question of a principle and not of a means but it so happens that, on the Communist principle that the means justify the end, it is expedient to condemn the means that you do not have or sufficiently so, and to gloss over the means that you are quite prepared to use given the opportunity.

Let's Be In—let's be Subject

Mr. Bollinger finally ends with the old Papular Front idea, namely that a particular end can be best served by all groups and organisations joining with the Communist Party in a mighty and liberal push. Unfortunately the usual end of this policy is to find all the other interests pushed into the mud and the Party sitting on top smugly dictatorial. It has been sufficiently proved that the Peace Movement has not the slightest interest in the attaining of real peace and an open invitation to join its ranks is but an insult to the intelligence of normal men. It is a movement designed to destroy the United Nations at the instigation of a world power that openly advocates the use of force as the most suitable means to its ends and with all its claptrap and the use of force as the most suitable verbiage represents the depths into which men will descend who cannot perceive that truth and lies are not synonymous.

If you wish to further the machinations of Soviet Imperialism I cannot see how you could do better than join the ranks of the Peace Movement; if, like most men, you do not then you will most heartily say—to hell with the Peace Movement!

A.A.N.

Answer Please!

It is typical of the friends of the Peace Movement that they avoid answering the vital questions; it may assist them if I put them more clearly

Collaboration or co-existence with capitalism or religion is in the long run undesirable and impossible.

We want democrat and the United Nations not Vommunism and the Peace Movement And you

M. F. McIntyre

Soviet Mouthpeace

To our cry of "Moscow," Mr. Bollinger has answered "Rome." But as he has since learned, my religious upbringing is the same as his. To our cry of "Communists" he answered "resistance record." But Tito's resistance record did not save him from Mr. Bollinger's ire.

We tried to show that the Peace Movement was a misguided diversion of peaceful effort from the United nations, and was being used to bolster Soviet foreign policy.

Sow that Mr. Bollinger has seen the two articles can he say why the Peace Movement can be termed so categorically "the only effective mass organisation for peace?"

For that is the crux of the whole question.

A. W. Cook