Cautious Guidance?

In Edmonton last week, a reporter asked a World War II officer, now a prosperous father of three children, what he planned to do if the Korean crisis should develop into World War III. Said he: "I guess I'd be a damn fool again and join up." Across the Dominion this was a typical attitude. But like most Americans, most Canadians galloped off in all directions when they talked about ways to resolve the crisis.

In Toronto, an oil truck driver said: "Let's drop the damn bomb. Why do we always have to wait until someone swats us in the puss?" In Vancouver, the News-Herald took a straw poll, reported two-to-one sentiment against dropping the bomb now. In Quebec, newspapers condemned the bomb as immoral, but the province's outright pacifism of World War II seemed to be gone. If there was a pattern at all, the Canadian tendency was to seek a scapegoat; more often than not it turned out to be U.S. leadership. Many newspapers across the nation splashed the news that Prime Minister Attlee was flying to Washington almost as though the editors were turning to the old country for cautious guidance that the U.S. had failed to provide.

Official Ottawa's first reaction to the crisis was one of silence. Later, after a cabinet meeting, External Affairs Boss Mike Pearson warned against use of the atom bomb by U.S. decision alone. Said Pearson: "Before a decision of such immense and awful consequence . . . there should surely be consultation . . . with the governments concerned. One of those would be the Canadian government."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.