Motives for Preparedness Unsound.

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:--

Vague rumors have for some time been circulating in the University that the Editorial Board of the CRIMSON has suppressed many communications disagreeing with the CRIMSON'S editorial opinions. In as much as this is so obviously at outs with the fine tradition long ago set up by this paper,--as the open channel of expression for University opinion,--I decline to believe these rumors unless proved by specific instance; hence, this communication.

In your editorial of Dec. 22, you seem to claim for the advocates of "preparedness" a monopoly of "inexorable logic," leaving it to "the writers of pacificistic communications" to monopolize emotionalism!

Evidently every advocate of increasing our machinery of war believes in either an imminent danger to the nation through aggression by some foreign Power or group of Powers, or in the duty of America to "fight for the right," etc., whether in danger of invasion from the Orient is utterly imaginary, as anyone can verify by a conscientious study of Japanese problems. For instance, about 40 per cent of the total income of the Japanese people goes for taxes,--largely for the Chinese and Russian wars and their aftermath. As for Germany and all the other European nations, which we are told will invade America after this war, is it not clear that modern warfare requires first a long period of nursing the economic, financial, and human capital of the intended aggressor? that Germany's present successes are due primarily to her 40 years' peaceful accumulations of these three, efficiently marshalled? and that the present war will effectually prevent Germany from effecting any aggressive ambitions against America? The truth is that all these theoretical dangers so vividly framed before our eyes (by busy propagandists, movies, etc.!) are purely theoretical. This scaremongery is what I call "emotionalism"; what does the CRIMSON call it?

The other motive for preparedness,--the desire to enforce our righteous will,--at first sight looks worthy. But it is not; first, because no nation's will, even when not mistaken nor wilfully misled, can ever guarantee itself as righteous; and, secondly, because rights and wrongs are not vertically but horizontally stratified, and national boundaries are no longer,--can never be again,--ethical lines of cleavage. Are we more nearly divine than the other nations, that we trust ourselves to do always the right thing? No, indeed; moreover, our national desire to back righteousness varies inversely as our military power to do that which is good for us! Proof: Germany. Diplomatic history shows that the United States breaks its agreements when "essential to our vital interests." The only effective way of fighting the evils in the world is no longer quixotically to "teach a lesson" to other nations' evildoers, but to turn our attention to the organized viciousness of all kinds which we, in common with those other nations, have in our midst. W. A. BERRIDGE '14.