Suchergebnisse

The SALT proceedings have been criticized as a case of US appeasement following the example of Neville Chamberlain. However, Chamberlain was in fact correct; the UK was unable to defeat Germany, Italy, & Japan, & the aftermath of WWII involved the collapse of the British Empire & the domination of Europe by the US & the USSR, whose involvement in the war was responsible for the defeat of Hitler. Noninvolvement in foreign conflicts was a well-established tradition in the foreign policy of many European states. Moreover, Churchill himself ended by taking measures based on appeasement of the US & the USSR. Significant parallels are found with the present situation of the US. It is not possible for the US to oppose the Soviets, the Chinese, & advocates of the New International Economic Order; restriction of opposition to situations in which US interests are vitally affected is necessary. W. H. Stoddard.

When Harold Wilson first became British prime minister in 1964 the possession of an independent nuclear capability had for some years been a major political issue which divided the political parties from each other and within themselves. But few of those who so boldly entered into polemics on the subject had any detailed knowledge of the origins and the development of the project over the previous quarter century. For until 1964 the subject had not been one evoking much serious academic enquiry. A decade later the position has been strikingly reversed. Wilson, with masterly sleight of hand, used the abortive Atlantic Nuclear Force (A.N.F.) scheme to kill simultaneously the Multilateral Nuclear Force (M.L.R) plan and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (C.N.D.) with the result that nuclear weapons have not been a serious issue in any of the last four general elections; while during the same period there has been a flowering of academic interest, official and unofficial, to the point where it almost qualifies as a distinct new sub-branch of international studies.