To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your suggestion that the U.S. should withdraw from Chiang Kai-shek and view the probable communistic domination of China with calm, as brought, out in your editorial "Chinese Puzzle" (Nov. 6), appears to be quite practical, but is actually a masterpiece of near-sighteness. That Harry Truman is a follower of this same policy is only another factor that makes his recent victory such a tragic event.

Be it admitted that, in the absence of serious U.S. intervention, the Chinese Communists would take over in China. Having done so, they would sieze all land from the landlords and the well-to-do farmers for redistribution, Aside from the fact that this would mean a massacre of three times the enormity of the Soviet "Khulak" liquidation, it would also mean agricultural collectivism, without which land-redistribution would be meaningless since "khulaks" would forever rise above the others and stifle them economically. As Russia's experience in the field of collectivization would be too valuable to be ignored, the Chinese Communists, regardless how different their "brand" of Communism is, would have to welcome Soviet technical, administrative, and material aid and advice. Follows the vociferous Soviet propaganda, and the ubiquitous Soviet secret agents, and from them on it is the monotonously familiar performance that Russia has acted out for us time and again in central Europe. As a result, a communistic China of a "different brand" would become a totalitarian state under Kremlin control, with Politburo, Secret Police, Five Year Plans, Sakhanovism and all.

Would it not be wiser for America, then, to assist Chiang Kai-shek-outright, check the Commiunists' advance, and then support the liberals if you wish? Chiang is much easier to deal than the Communists, especially if you make military support to him conditional to his agreement to reform his government. . . . Oliver Lee '51.