Not Synonymous.

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I have been following with increasing interest and decreasing sympathy the communications of Mr. Fairbanks. In Thursday's edition I see that Mr. Fairbanks is supported by two others.

All three of these gentlemen seem to be making the same serious blunder. Apparently they all consider the terms "militarism" and "universal military training" as synonymous. Because the former is deservedly odious and vicious, they conclude that the latter is odious too.

Militarism is a state of mind which poisons the acts and life of a whole nation; and as such it may be totally independent of universal military service. Switzerland, for example, maintains a system of military training that has proved of inestimable value alike to the individual and to the nation; yet, few would venture to say that Switzerland is "burdened with an incubus" or that it suffers from "the odium of professional militarism."

Mr. Fairbanks even goes so far as to declare that General Pershing is "biased by his profession"; yet General Pershing advocates a standing army of exactly half the size recommended by a civilian Secretary of War, and certain civilian members of Congress.

The fact is as that the CRIMSON states: League or no League, we must have a force adequate for self-protection. The League, we all hope, will do much to lessen the number of future wars; but it seems most irrational, to say the least, to advocate placing practically our entire reliance upon it as a means of defense.

In the hands of an autocratic government, universal military training may perhaps justly be regarded as dangerous and apt to lead to "militarism." In the case of a democracy like ours, the "danger is non-existent. P. R. CHANDLER, '21.