To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Harvard Committee for Wallace would like to clarify its position on the Marshall Plan. We feel that the "Marshall Plan" which has achieved a wide acceptance by honest liberals suffering from a "Lesser of two evils" psychology, ought really to be recognized to be made up of two quite different things. There is the Marshall Proposal of the Harvard speech of June, 1947; and there is the European Recovery Plan as formulated at present.

This distinction between the "Marshall Proposal" and the E.R.P. has recently been noticed by the Harvard-Radcliffe Committee to Save the Marshall Plan. The Harvard Committee for Wallace supports, and has supported, the Marshall Proposal, but feels compelled to oppose the European Recovery Plan. The E.R.P., instead of carrying out the original suggestion, rather, effectively distorts it into an extension of the Truman Doctrine, (which has tended to confuse Fascism with Democracy.) We advocate, as does the Committee to Save the Marshall Plan, economic reconstruction through the U. N. with no political strings attached. Up to this point, the two committees seem to agree.

The crucial problem, seems to be this: if the amendments to put the Marshall Plan through the U.N. with no political strings attached and solely for economic recovery, are rejected by the Congress, should liberals nevertheless' support E.R.P? We say no. If the Committee to Save the Marshall Plan says yes, then we believe it is taking an ineffective political stand. This position assumes that it is best to float with the stream, ever hopeful that things won't be too bad. If the Committee to Save the Marshall Plan admits that they will accept E.R.P. even without the basic changes, then the reactionaries will inevitably realize that the proposal amendments needn't be taken seriously. Thus it is a question of backing up fundamental aims with conclusive action rather than wishful drifting. Executive Committee   Harvard Committee for Wallace