Wild Sees U.S. Ahead of Churchill on World Council

Winston Churchill's Sunday speech and Anthony Eden's cautious attitude in Washington show misunderstanding of the international outlook of the American people and their willingness to join a post-war world organization. Payson S. Wild, Jr., associate professor of Government, declared yesterday.

Eden is probably finding this out to his surprise, as he sees reactions to reportedly cautious British outlines of peacetime government, and his speech on Friday at Annapolis may show a change of emphasis to account for what neither he nor the Prime Minister expected.

According to Wild, Prime Minister Churchill envisioned a primarily European council in his last speech in order "to aid the American government in attracting the population to post-war without much involvement" after the war. Believing that Americans are afraid of deep commitments after the war, Churchill outlined a plan for the continent alone, with what he called active "participation" by the United States.

Furthermore, it has been reported that British plans call only for "consulation" by the United States in European affairs, and include no automatic moves to be made by all countries for the preservation of peace. "Consultation," Wild said, has usually proven an ineffective means of international cooperation, notably during the Manstrong measures now desired by a churian crisis, and is far behind the healthy majority of Americans.

Want World Union

England, represented especially by Churchill and Eden, is genuinely anxious for a strong world government, with the United States closely integrated. But their misjudged fear of isolationist sentiment here has forced the halfway proposals so far made he feels. That sentiment, of course, is still unfortunately strong both in the country at large and in Congress, but recent measures such as the Hatch and Gillette bills show a strong will for decisive steps to be taken now.

Churchill's speech, far from aiding U.S. efforts toward cooperation, will have an opposite and dangerous effect. Wild fears. It will strengthen existing isolationist feeling by drawing a wall around Europe, and a "let-them-alone-ever-there" idea would be the result in America.

This would lead to a renewed divoreing of the United States from European affairs, and subsequent friction between the large bloes of the post-war world. This regional federation idea is "the woral possible thing if American opinion is to support a vigorous world government," he said