European Security Possibilities for progress By B. MATVEYEV INDITIONS in Europe are now more favorable for changes which can help to ensure European security. A failure to take advantage of this would be to play in the hands of those circles in Washington and Bonn which want to pre- serve tensions. ‘What are the factors of change? First is the increasing ~ influence of the peace policy of the USSR and other socialist states on sober-thinking capi- talists. As we see it, today more and more West European states- men are beginning to react po- sitively to the foreign policy moves of the socialist countries. A second factor is that the mounting aggressiveness of the USA is beginning to cause bour- geois politicians to. shy away. The weakening of U.S. posi- tions in NATO is to the benefit of peace supporters, even though U.S. diplomacy: is trying to make up for this loss of em- phasizing its links with Bonn and London. . A third factor is the example of France which demonstrates —how abandonment by that coun- try’s ruling circles of dirty colonial wars in Asia and Africa and the granting of indepen- dence ito colonial possessions have permitted France to con- solidate her position in West- ern Europe, getting out from under U.S. hegemony. The mounting African, Asian and Latin American national liberation struggles oblige all the metropolitan countries to revise traditional policies. This raises the question of a reduc- tion in costly military obliga- tions and paves the way for broader cooperation between all countries in Europe. No wonder an_ influential group inside Britain’s Labor Party is trying to get the gov- ernment to give up its ‘East of Snez” policy end is advocating talks with the USSR on Europ- ean security. The road to lasting peace is neither smooth nor straight. Washington, it is obvious, has not given up plans to involve its NATO partners in Vietnam. But these plans will be harder to realize if the West European governments work more ener- getically to uphold peace and security. There is obviously a direct link between the support given to U.S. aggression in South- East Asia by West German rul- ing circles and Bonn’s attempts h i as to thwart.a relaxation of ten- Srved recently ‘by US. State ‘Secretary Dean Rusk. sions in Europe. Can this stumbling block be overcome? Yes. While the Soviet Union absolutely rebuffs the re- vanchist policy of West Ger- many it has no plan to try to exclude thé FRG from peaceful cooperation in Europe. At the same time, any settle- Charles de Gaulle is the first French presidnt to visit the So- - viet Union since the end of World War Il. This article by a Soviet political commentator outlines some of the reasons such a visit is possible at this time. : ment of the problem of Europ- ean security is unthinkable un- less plans to give direct or in- direct control over nuclear weapons to West Germany are discarded. : Year in and year -out the Bonn politicians have harped on “unification of Germany” as a necessary prerequisite to peace and security. Even though the untenability of this approach is finding growing understanding in West Germany, it was reite- But changes are taking place in West Germany too. The re- cent congress of the Social De- mocratic Party called for better relations with socialist coun- tries and recognized that the questions of borders and of the FRG’s military statute must be solved on a realistic basis. The discussions begun be- tween the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the So- cialist Unity Party of Germany can favorably affect FRG-GDR relations. “From these discus- sions we expect changes in West Germany which would help to put on the agenda the question of normalizing. rela- tions between the two German states through negotiations and agreements between their gov- ernments,” said Walter UI- bricht. The integrity of the border between the GDR and FRG, a cardinal factor of European security, is part of a broader problem created by the con- frontation of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. © No agreement has so far been reached between these group- ings to exclude the possibility ‘of an armed conflict. Careful consideration must be given to any proposal to make the heart of Europe an atom-free zone, or at least to freeze nuclear armaments in this area. A positive statement on this was made recently by the Swedish government and Norwegian Defense’ Minister Tidemann declared _ recently that his government did not want foreign bases and atomic weapons depots on Norwegian soil. There is no magic formula for peace and security in Eu- rope. Security can hardly be confined to diplomatic moves and agreements. The promotion of business ‘ties and contacts between Eu- ropean countries, regardless of social system, is obviously @ contribution to peace. Tangible results have been — achieved in the sphere of inter- national trade, scientific and cultural ties. These results could be more impressive if the opposing military blocs were eliminated and if militarism and revenge did not growin the heart of the .continent. . De Gaulle’s visit to the Soviet Union shows the real prospects of peaceful cooperation of Eu- ropean states. Developing such cooperation is the principle task of Soviet foreign policy. “Our post-war border is permanent’ IVE OF US, journalists from five countries — a Hunga- rian,- a Czech, a Dane, a Japanese and myself — went to Western Poland to look at the territories that before the war were German. We visited the city of Wroclaw,.formerly called Breslau. Before the war Breslau was a big German city with a popula- tion of 650,000. Today only 200 of the original inhabitants are left. It was the Germans who de- populated the city and reduced it to rubble. Hundreds of thous- ands of persons were evacuated to the West. In January, 1945, Breslau was declared a fortress. The deputy mayor who protest- ed this lunacy to the German high command was executed. For three months there was heavy fighting. The German army practised a scorched earth policy. When the fighting ended _the city was 70 percent destroy- ed. Only 160,000 persons were left in it. On May 9, 1945, the city was taken under Polish administra- tion. From 1945-1947 most of the Germans left. Those that re- mained left in 1957. By the end of 1945 some 30,- 000 Poles had moved in. By 1947 there were 180,000 Poles there. Today the city has a po- pulation of 480,000, all new- comers, not one German. Professor Boleslaw Iwaskie- wicz, a mathematician and Lord Mayor of Wroclaw, received us at city hall. I wondered what at- tracted Poles from as far away as Warsaw to a city that was 70 percent destroyed. A bitter smile appeared on the mayor’s face. “It was only 70 percent destroyed,” he said. “Warsaw was over 90 percent destroyed. In Wroclaw people could move into a ruined build- ing. In Warsaw all they had was a hole in the earth.” Who came to Wroclaw? They were mainly young people who had lost everything and were determined to start anew. Many came from the west—from Ger- man concentration camps, pri- soner-of-war camps, from slave labor in Germany. Wroclaw was the first big Polish settlement on their way and they stayed. In the early years the Poles did not feel at home in Wro- claw. They were not sure it would stay Polish. ‘We lived in our suitcases,” one inhabitant told us. But by 1958 a feeling of stability and permanency held sway. Today they have as much local patriotism in Wro-- By MAX REICH Tribune Staff Correspondent BERLIN claw as an ancient Krakow, or as in the capital, Warsaw. The changed attitude after 1958 was reflected in a sharp rise in personal investment in cooperative housing, built with the aid of state loans. Some four million zlotys had been budget- ed; but the amount required was 60 million zlotys. Today these former German territories are an integrated, in- ' separable part of Poland. They - account for 33 percent of Pol- and’s territory, 27 percent of her population, 30 percent of her industrial and agricultural production. Wroclaw university trains 30 percent of Poland’s students. ; “Breslau was destroyed by the Germans themselves,” said Lord Mayor Iwaskiewicz. “Wro- claw was buit by the Poles for Poland.” What we saw in Wroclaw convinced us that because of what the Poles had suffered un- der the Germans and through their superhuman efforts in the past 20 years the Poles have ac- quired these territories as a rightful possession. At the Polish Institute for Foreign Affairs in Warsaw we met Professor Kaminski, an ex- pert on Germany. Referring to the former German territories, he said: “There are no historic Ger- man rights. If the Germans say these territories were theirs for 1,000 years it is a fairy tale. ‘Your ancestors Jived here,” we assure our people. ‘You are on your own Polish soil.’ “At the end of the 19th Cen- tury prayer books in Breslau July 8, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 4 were printed in German and in. Polish. “The Polish-German border after 1918 was not a satisfacto- ry border for us. But we ac- cepted it. We wanted to live in peace. “The border was like a pair of pincers around our northern province. East Prussia was like an armored fist extending to- ward Warsaw. In 1939 the_pin- cers closed and the fist fell on Warsaw. “A peaceful change in the present border is impossible, not because we are inflexible, — but because of the facts. The — former, German territories have become so fully integrated that a change today is out of the ~ question. “In West Germany — they speak of their ‘right to the homeland.’ This ‘right’ is their claim to Silesia, they say. “But it is the right of the — homeland that gives these ter- ritories to the people who to- day live in them and who have rebuilt the homes which the Germans destroyed.” a sles