Regarding the future, Cherington maintained that an effective world government will not be possible for a long time to come--"only when the Russian government has been completely transformed from its present state. Right now world federalism is palpably absurd; it would be like an alliance between the 13 Colonies and imperial Spain."

Arthur N. Holcombe '06, Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, disagreed with Cherington on world government. According to Holcombe, world federalism has been, and still is, one of our major objectives.

Resolving the Great Debate

"Unconditional surrender in the last war meant nothing," he said, "if we now neglect the ideals for which we were fighting. America is throwing away her opportunities. To insure peace, we must strengthen the U.N. since we are no longer in the pre-atomic age for which it was designed."

The Great Debate has been resolved in Holcombe's mind differently than in the minds of many others. "The United States is sending troops aboard to give pledges--not to defend Europe. Eisenhower has shown that we are not interested in rearming Germany."

The Cold War is over, Holcombe feels. "We lost it when China moved into Korea," but he believes that Americans have exaggerated the warlike disposition of the Soviets. "They won't provoke a general war."

As far as the ideological conflict with Russia is concerned, Archibald MacLeish, Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, said that "time is on our side." "If we can avoid a police state--McCarthyism--we may well have a fairly pleasant period of peace ahead of us. Russia has frozen itself into a static state, while we have the fundamental strength and resiliency of self-government behind us."

Taking the Responsibility

The policy of containment, MacLeish noted, is an ambiguous position in foreign policy. "A ring of force would insure peace, but it must be an effective ring. Passive containment will not work; it won't hold back the stooges."

MacLeish commented that the important question at present is "how much are we going to accept our responsibilities now that the debate is over?" He added that "Mr. Hoover holds as much ground as he did in the beginning of the debate: none at all."

The primary objections to Hoover's isolationist theories are not military, MacLeish said. "These can be disposed of in two sentences." What is important is that "temperamentally, we must follow our convictions. We cannot cower in cellars."

"The Russians," according to Mac- Leish, "are motivated too much by self-interest to consider war. It would be a terribly costly business." Political and social infiltration, he believes, will be their chief methods of encroachment in the near future.

MacLeish hopes that, to combat this, the trend will be toward world government. This will not be possible, MacLeish feels, while Russia remains "in the tin can in which she lives."

Bundy Backs MacLeish

McGeorge Bundy, lecturer on Government agreed with MacLeish that containment was toe passive a foreign policy. "What is necessary is active opposition to Soviet imperialism. You can't just build the dike and then put your thumb in it."

In line with this theory of resistance, Bundy feels that MacArthur should move across the 38th parallel--perhaps at first on tactical maneuvers. If these succeed, he should keep going to Pyonyang. "Otherwise they're getting off awfully cheap," Bundy commented, "and aggression shouldn't pay."

The re-armament of Europe advocated by Eisenhower, Bundy said, will have two results. It will deter the Russians and will strengthen the will and confidence of Europe. "It is the natural continuation of the Marshall Plan.