THE MISSION FROM MOSCOW

Commentator HENRY FAIRLIE in the London SPECTATOR:

THE fantastic dinner given by the Labor Party to Bulganin and Khrushchev will surely prove to be one of the most crucial meetings since the war. The visit has been primarily important for the light it has thrown on Mr. Khrushchev's character; and the light shone most clearly during Monday's dinner. What has proved to be sinister is the nature of his frequent outbursts--the occasions when he turns savagely and indiscriminately on all about him.

Khrushchev was not drunk. Nor was there anything ebullient or exuberantly extrovert about his outbursts. His fury carried the same impression of cold steel as his handshake. What Mr. Khrushchev cannot stand is criticism or opposition of any kind. One man in a crowd shaking a fist at him was enough to provoke in Birmingham a tirade which must have revived for most people memories of Hitler's speeches before the war.

[At the Labor dinner] Khrushchev was beside himself. When he really got the bit between his teeth and came near to identifying social democrats as enemies of the working class, thoughtful people began to realize that, given another situation, social democrats might well be replaced by Jews or albinos or any other convenient bunch of scapegoats.

The importance of all this is obvious. Above all that has been written about the possible changes in Russian tactics and strategy, there now stands this alarming factor: that we may be dealing with someone who is as ready to risk insensate actions as Hitler himself.

THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN:

PERHAPS the most significant of the Russians' points was the appeal for British help towards improving Soviet relations with the U.S. It was phrased with characteristic dexterity. It was flattering and complimentary to Britain, implying that here was a vital task which Britain alone could undertake. It also insinuated that the Soviet government was most anxious to be on better terms with the U.S., even if the American Government did not entirely share its feelings. The British should be able to, take up the appeal with the warmest satisfaction--and without any loss of Anglo-American accord.

London's OBSERVER:

THE Soviet visit could prove a turning point in Sir Anthony Eden's political fortunes. He gave nothing away and got something back: he may become co-founder of a useful new phase in international affairs. Certainly, his merciless detractors in the Tory press, and among the "Poujadist fringe" of the weeklies, who have always scorned the value of such a visit, are now looking rather silly.

London's DAILY TELEGRAPH:

THE communique issued at the end of the talks is an important Russian propaganda triumph. The fact that Sir Anthony Eden conceded nothing is far less significant from the point of view of Russian or satellite consumption than that his name should be coupled with Marshal Bulganin's at the end of a long, amicably worded document. For the purposes of the Russian propaganda machine this document, couched in exactly the kind of language to which Pravda readers are accustomed, is as useful as a 20-year treaty of friendship. Set side by side with smiling photographs, it will doubtless convince the Russian and satellite peoples that Britain, along with India, Burma and the rest, has fallen for Moscow's new siren song.

The London TIMES:

THE swing of comment from one extreme to the other is not at all surprising. Few people in Britain would like to be positive in either way about the results of the conference, for the simple reason that all which emerged has to be tested in the future. The two governments were able to appraise each other better: that is certain, and it is a great gain. Yet the conference did not end in hard decisions. It simply set out intentions. These cannot be despised or belittled, but the fulfillment of them in practice has still to be seen.

THE NEW YORK TIMES :

THESE were the ten days that shook the Russians. The two "traveling salesmen" failed. The triumphs to which they had become used in Yugoslavia, India, Burma and Afghanistan could not be repeated in Britain. This time the Russians blundered, and it will always be a source of wonder why they did or how they could. They should have been prepared for firmness and bluntness in an atmosphere of correct and polite welcome. The fact that Khrushchev lost his temper several times, antagonized his hosts, alarmed neutral opinion everywhere, and set back the Communist campaigns for popular fronts with Socialists proves that the Russians were not prepared for the reception they received.

This has been a lesson for all concerned, but above all for the Russian visitors. They are both men of considerable stature and intelligence, and they certainly cannot be expected to make the same mistake twice.

THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER:

WE do not believe this mission from Moscow adds up to failure. True, the joint communique of Premier Bulganin and Prime Minister Eden suggests scant agreement on anything important. But benefits may be measured in less tangible terms, and we think that these are a few such benefits:

First, some further diminishing of the prospect of war;

Second, the Russians now know their slim chances of cracking the Anglo-American alliance;

Third, the West has been made to see clearly how little the Russians are prepared to yield, and how much they want to take, in the name of "better relations";

Fourth, prospects for progress in disarmament are a little bit brighter;

Finally--and we mention this guardedly--the very fact of the visit itself, the very contact of the Soviet leaders with a people free to jeer as well as cheer, gives hope that the undeniable changes within Russia will continue, however slowly, in the right direction toward peace and better understanding.

THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE:

SIR Anthony Eden cannot be too pleased with the visit, but it must be remembered that the burden of accomplishment was on the Russians, who had wanted to make the trip in the first place. The Soviet leaders were not seriously interested in concluding agreements on world problems. They had hoped to achieve personal popularity which could have caused much mischief between Britain and her ally the United States. In this they failed.

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:

THE Soviet leaders are losing friends and influencing nobody. The whole thing has its funny side. But it is too important to dismiss with a smile. Anyone who really knows the British could have foretold some surprises for B. and K.

But the point to remember for the sake of Anglo-American solidarity against the Communist stratagems is that basic elements in the Soviet and British outlook are mutually and permanently repellent. They were present in the McCarthy era when Americans were being told to be on guard against a sellout by the British to the Communists. They would be present the next time a similar strain fell on the Anglo-American relationship--and the time after that.

Not only B. & K. but some Americans can learn basic lessons in world politics from the current London house party.

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