THE MISSION FROM MOSCOW

Commentator HENRY FAIRLIE in the London SPECTATOR:

THE fantastic dinner given by the Labor Party to Bulganin and Khrushchev will surely prove to be one of the most crucial meetings since the war. The visit has been primarily important for the light it has thrown on Mr. Khrushchev's character; and the light shone most clearly during Monday's dinner. What has proved to be sinister is the nature of his frequent outbursts—the occasions when he turns savagely and indiscriminately on all about him.

Khrushchev was not drunk. Nor was there anything ebullient or exuberantly extrovert about his outbursts. His fury carried the same impression of cold steel as his handshake. What Mr. Khrushchev cannot stand is criticism or opposition of any kind. One man in a crowd shaking a fist at him was enough to provoke in Birmingham a tirade which must have revived for most people memories of Hitler's speeches before the war.

[At the Labor dinner] Khrushchev was beside himself. When he really got the bit between his teeth and came near to identifying social democrats as enemies of the working class, thoughtful people began to realize that, given another situation, social democrats might well be replaced by Jews or albinos or any other convenient bunch of scapegoats.

The importance of all this is obvious. Above all that has been written about the possible changes in Russian tactics and strategy, there now stands this alarming factor: that we may be dealing with someone who is as ready to risk insensate actions as Hitler himself.

THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN:

PERHAPS the most significant of the Russians' points was the appeal for British help towards improving Soviet relations with the U.S. It was phrased with characteristic dexterity. It was flattering and complimentary to Britain, implying that here was a vital task which Britain alone could undertake. It also insinuated that the Soviet government was most anxious to be on better terms with the U.S., even if the American Government did not entirely share its feelings. The British should be able to, take up the appeal with the warmest satisfaction—and without any loss of Anglo-American accord.

London's OBSERVER:

THE Soviet visit could prove a turning point in Sir Anthony Eden's political fortunes. He gave nothing away and got something back: he may become co-founder of a useful new phase in international affairs. Certainly, his merciless detractors in the Tory press, and among the "Poujadist fringe" of the weeklies, who have always scorned the value of such a visit, are now looking rather silly.

London's DAILY TELEGRAPH:

THE communiqué issued at the end of the talks is an important Russian propaganda triumph. The fact that Sir Anthony Eden conceded nothing is far less significant from the point of view of Russian or satellite consumption than that his name should be coupled with Marshal Bulganin's at the end of a long, amicably worded document. For the purposes of the Russian propaganda machine this document, couched in exactly the kind of language to which Pravda readers are accustomed, is as useful as a 20-year treaty of friendship. Set side by side with smiling photographs, it will doubtless convince the Russian and satellite peoples that Britain, along with India, Burma and the rest, has fallen for Moscow's new siren song.

The London TIMES: