The classical cold war period began with the founding of the Cominform in the fall of 1947 and ended with the death of Stalin in June, 1953. But, as the Soviet poet Yevtushenko has observed, “Stalin's Heirs” are still very much with us; not only Soviet but also U.S. policy is heavily burdened with the Stalinist heritage of the cold war period.

For the USSR the Geneva Summit Conference cleared the way for the 1956 20th Party Congress and the new General Line which recognized that in a world threatened with thermonuclear holocaust, coexistence is better thari no-existence, and that war —meaning general war—is no longer inevitable.

A rational grasp of the opposition to U.S. policy requires an understanding of that policy's method and presuppositions. It is a prudential policy posture, in which the end is identified and possible means are judged in terms of their contribution to the end. Such a decision presupposes several extremely important points. First, it presupposes that ethical principles, whether religiously or philosophically derived, do not in themselves solve problems, but go into the solution along with the circumstances. It perceives, for example, that in a concrete case such as Vietnam, typically several values, ends, or principles will be in conflict: we value life as a good-in-itsclf, but we value also freedom and order.

A careful look at a map of the world will indicate the puzzling and perplexing situations in which the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy find themselves. (The term Eastern-Orthodoxy as used here includes the three basic branches of Eastern Christendom: (1) the Byzantine or Chalcedonian churches, the most numerous, (2) the “monophysite” or non-Chalcedonian churche's, and (3) the Eastern Catholic or Uniate churches, the least numerous.) In approximate terms the Eastern churches seem to be facing two contrasting contexts—communism and Islam. Whether it be communism or Islam, the Eastern churches are confronted with alien and competitive systems of thought which threaten their survival. How has the contemporary—and the historic stance —of Eastern Christians prepared them to face this threat, which finds support in the state?