GREENE PASTURES

One point of view in the neutrality controversy has been expressed by Harvard's Jerome D. Greene in a Boston Herald article notable for its logic and calm. Had this article been written some two decades ago, it might very well have been taken for an utterance, likewise reasonable and collected, of Woodrow Wilson. The specific line of argument and the names mentioned may differ. But the broad sentiments outlined, the implications drawn, and finally the social myths preached are identical.

Mr. Greene, to put the matter unoriginally, is an idealist in this question of war. He accepts the protestations of France and Britain that they are waging a crusade in complete good faith. He is convinced that this is essentially--nay entirely--a conflict between naked power and reason in international affairs, between the suppression of human rights and liberties and the glorification of the same.

It is hardly necessary to point out that very many observers would label this view naive to say the least. They would hear in the booming guns along the Saar merely the clash of rival imperialisms. And they would see in Mr. Chamberlain's devious line of march from appeasement to war merely a crass game of power politics gone beyond his control. But Mr. Greene might be left to his charitable thoughts were it not for their alarming implications. For if they are true, is it not imperative that America once more go to war for the defense of human liberties and of democracy?

Mr. Greene will not say this outright. America need not join the fight until "issues vitally affecting our national interests" are at stake. But here Mr. Greene's interpretation of what these issues are leaves America very little choice. For it is his opinion that a "final victory of German force over Britain and France has implications impossible to reconcile with the future peace and security of our own country." Here, then, is the vital issue.

In brief, the United States must fight if there is any chance of an Allied defeat. Under no circumstances must Hitler win. Mr. Greene perhaps envisages a Nazi-dictated peace which would reduce the Allies to vassal states, which would impose upon them the Fascist ideology, which would force the acceptance of gangsterism as the usual method of international negotiation. Fascism and the use of might would sweep over the world like the Black Death; and in such a world, a free and democratic America could not survive.

It is impossible to grant Mr. Greene his "implications." This war is only a prelude to the decades of Napoleonic struggles which would have to be waged before any such peace could be concluded. But to avert anything less than this, the United States must not go to war.

Of course, America would look sorrowfully on any sort of German victory, and she should do what is in her power--short of war--to ensure an opposite result. Any Nazi success means an upsurge of this political and social creed, which would certainly be felt in the United States. But Mr. Greene has little faith in the virility of democracy and in American integrity if he considers this an overwhelming threat. And surely he will not proceed to the ridiculous argument of actual Nazi aggression on American soil.

Mr. Greene undoubtedly has a very great sympathy for Great Britain. Perhaps he has allowed his sentiment to point the direction of his arguments. But he must not permit himself to be stampeded into a jingoistic position. Reality and patriotism justify America's entrance only in the case of inconceivable eventualities.