YOUNG BLOOD

An organized youth movement is a fairly new thing on the American scene, a development of the post-World War disillusion and the economic strains of the depression. Growing out of this background, it has supported the social reforms of the New Deal, and has opposed forces making for American involvement in war. Looking back to 1914, many Americans of college age noted that there were no well-organized youth movements then working for peace, and took heart for the future, trusting that the mobilized peace sentiment of 1940 undergraduates would help make World War II a different story.

Last year a member of the Harvard Student Union wrote to the Crimson: "The parallel of 1914 and 1940 should not, however, make pessimists of us. In 1914 the ideals of the military scientists won out simply because undergraduates were not strong enough or unified enough to make their ideas prevail. It seems to me that we have much more militant peace organizations, and that we have learned something from the failure of 1914-17. Nevertheless, it is obvious that if we are going to put our ideas into practice we will have to work quickly. We will have to meet the militarists and the interventionists with a flood of facts and a solid and determined peace movement."

Over the past Christmas vacation, two important youth groups met in annual convention--the International Student Service and the American Student Union. The clear result of the meetings was that there is no "solid and determined peace movement" as far as youth is concerned. Last fall's split between the aid-to-Britain Harvard Liberal Union and the no-aid HSU bloomed in all its ominous vigor on the national scene. True, both groups stated their opposition to American entrance into the war, but their differences of opinion on methods for keeping out have successfully broken any united front of youth. By close adherence to a dogmatic position, the ASU has unfortunately isolated itself. And clustered around these two organizations are a crew of smaller groups, representing many varieties of opinion.

Many liberal interventionists, among them Ralph Ingersoll of PM, have felt since President Roosevelt's two strong speeches, that America has gone the limit as far as war is concerned, by committing itself to a defeat of Hitler. They have now turned their attention back to domestic social reforms, to support of labor's fight for a just share in America's war prosperity, to blocking war profiteers. These men will find their two aims diametrically opposed to each other, and youth will be aligned, on domestic issues, with powerful interventionists. But it will not give up the fight for the underprivileged of this country, who are threatened now, regardless of whether or not 1941 brings war for America.