Ian Hall's letter in your issue No. 2 takes you to task for your editorial comment on the Soviet role in the Paris talks. I can't see his objection. Your editorial made the point that the continuation and escalation of the war jeopardises the present policies of the Soviet leadership, including the policy of peaceful coexistence. If, as I believe, this analysis is correct then it follows that the Soviet leadership, if they wish their policies to succeed, must welcome a compromise solution. Ian Hall does not seek to argue with your analysis but merely relates "what a difficult position Russia is in", i.e. she could help the Vietnamese to achieve victory but only at the expense of nuclear war.
As to his suggestion of an International Brigade as the only method of making the United States pull out of Vietnam, I imagine that if the Vietnamese thought that foreign volunteers would assist. they would say so. The arguments against the use of foreign volunteers seem obvious. The method of warfare itself precludes them, Guerilla warfare in both urban and country districts assumes a detailed knowledge of the locality, population and its customs and language, as well as guerilla tactics. Certainly Europeans would be at a distinct disadvantage in Vietnam. The use of foreign volunteers would also be a most welcome medium of espionage and terrorist activity by the enemy. It may also be that the Vietnamese feel that the use of foreign volunteers would be inconsistent with the essential aim of the national liberation struggle, i.e., to rid Vietnam of foreign troops,
Ian Hall must learn that the most valuable support that can be given to the Vietnamese can be given here at home. By constant struggle to weaken and eventually destroy capitalism his actions will complement those of the Vietnamese.
Henry Montague (London S.W.6)