Concessions, the Path to War – Folha de S. Paulo, May 28, 1972

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

I do not think the time has come for an overall assessment of the significance and outcomes of Nixon’s visit to Moscow.

The event’s magnitude requires a certain amount of time to pass before it can be properly analyzed.

The same can be said of the German Parliament’s ratification of the Moscow and Warsaw treaties. This event, clearly the result of Kremlin-imposed conditions and White House “recommendations,” is both a preliminary and a corollary of Nixon’s dealings in the Soviet capital. It must therefore be viewed in that context.

*    *    *

As I wait at least another week to comment on Nixon’s latest move, I take this opportunity to answer a question raised in my previous article.

Readers will recall that last Sunday, I described the enormous offensive Russia has launched worldwide to promote communism. Faced with this, the US government, despite its undeniable military and economic superiority, has inexplicably been acting with the meekness of a lamb, continually retreating before a young wolf. And, I would add today, a lamb continually allowing the wolf to grow stronger by stealing all its resources.

Someone asked what I hoped to achieve by publishing these assertions.

Here is my answer.

Since the end of World War II, if not before, the Soviets launched a huge “peace offensive,” or rather, an offensive of lies. By gradually appearing more affable and accessible, Kremlin leaders have led the entire West to believe, ever since, that they have renounced world conquest and seek only peaceful understanding with non-communist peoples. By presenting this new phase, they demobilize the vigilance and willingness to fight among the nations on this side of the Iron Curtain. And while they smile and lie, the communists cunningly expand their sphere of influence across the globe through wars and revolts.

With this, we are all sinking. In the present case, the way to avoid it is to prevent the demobilization of people’s minds in the West.

In turn, the way to halt this demobilization is to expose the insincerity of Moscow’s (and, incidentally, Beijing’s) professed pacifist intentions.

Finally, the best way to demonstrate this insincerity is to expose the fact that, while smiling and negotiating, the Soviets continue advancing their interests.

That is what I did in my last article. One fact I did not mention at the time, due to lack of space, is relevant here. While Nixon was at Camp David, finalizing preparations for his trip to Moscow, the Iraqi cabinet fell, and a new ministry emerged. This was based on a coalition between communists and non-communists. As we know, wherever communists come to power in a coalition, they never leave it.

Thus, while the Kremlin rulers ordered the removal of anti-American slogans from the streets of Moscow to welcome Nixon, they, with one fell swoop, brought Iraq closer to their jaws to swallow it. Such is the sincere pacifism of the men at whose table Nixon sat to sign treaties.

However, someone might object that all this is clear from a different perspective, so clear, in fact, that they are surprised I felt the need to present it with such crystal clarity, in an almost academic manner. The well-known ease of understanding among the Brazilian people means there is no need to explain the obvious to them.

That is quite true, but not for all Brazilians in this matter. There are specific sectors of public opinion among us—in no way inferior to others in wit and culture—that display toward communist maneuvers a kind of complacent naiveté that has spread throughout the free world like an epidemic. I am referring, of course, to socialists, progressives, and other “useful innocents.” In the United States, people with this mentality include readers of The New York Times, admirers of the Kennedys, and supporters of Roosevelt’s policies and the Yalta agreements. In Italy, the Christian Democratic Party is the epitome of this current. In Chile, it is Frei and his followers. In Germany, it is the followers of Willy Brandt. And in Cuba, it is those who trusted Fidel Castro until he finally tore off his mask. And so on.

With this kind of mentality, only elementary, straightforward arguments grounded in obvious facts have any chance of success. And even then…

Thus, I am compelled to demonstrate the obvious with the clarity typically employed in high schools.

*    *    *

This vast spiritual family of useful innocents is essentially emotional. Most of its members, when pressed by facts or the tenacity of reasoning, end the discussion with a question: “What do you want then? Do you want war? Don’t you understand that Nixon and all those you rebuke are working with generous optimism for peace?”

In my view, their optimism is evident, but I do not believe it necessarily implies generosity. For there is optimism and optimism. It is one thing to be in high spirits even in the most serious situations; this is a virtue. It is quite another to see things through rose-colored glasses even when they are not rosy, which is precisely the case with Nixon and his admirers. For example, were Daladier and Chamberlain generous statesmen or complacent when they stubbornly saw everything through rose-colored glasses in Munich? It is always easy to give in. But by giving in, did they preserve peace or make war inevitable by encouraging Hitler to believe he could invade Poland with impunity? Did Roosevelt’s concessions at Yalta pave the way for peace? Or did they open the door to all the bloodshed the communists have caused ever since in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere?

*    *    *

Concessions sometimes advance the cause of peace when made by measured, unambitious people who religiously keep their word. Are the Kremlin overlords in this case?

Obviously not. Therefore, we will encourage our adversary to attack us if we do not adopt a course of action that combines flexibility, astute vigilance, and a position of strength to defend what is essential. Consequently, we will be heading toward war.