To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

May I be permitted to comment upon the recent. Article in your columns by my former Commander and present friend, General Edwards? The subject is so important that I should regret one side only being presented.

It is to be assumed that even the most militant among us, not excepting General Edwards, devotedly desires peace for his country. The only question upon which pacifist and militarist reasonably may differ is as to what is most likely to maintain peace, or, conversely least likely to increase the hazard of war.

Wars start in two ways: a country may be attacked or may itself attack. In discussing the future fate of the United States it would perhaps be wise to scan what has happened in the past, and to ascertain whether we have been the victim or wars started by others or have indulged in those begun by ourselves.

In 1812 Congress not only first declared war, but actually did so five days after the objectionable. British "Orders in Council" had been revoked, though at the time ignorant of that fact. The Civil War is out of the picture; but the United States itself was the aggressor in the Mexican and Spanish Wars. Even the World War was begun by us under circumstances which not a few European nations were willing to accept rather than themselves fight, and it certainly cannot be used as a case for the necessity of defensive preparation. There was of course provocation of more or less grave nature in all of these instances, but the blank fact remains that the United States has never been attacked.

On past probabilities, therefore, it seems unlikely that the United States will suffer from the aggression of others. If as a young growing nation it was not a prey to outsiders during a century of world exploitation by European powers, it scarcely seems likely that it will be such at a time when its resources, both material and in man-power, exceed those of any other country; at a time, too, when these powers have just been very amply demonstrated.

On the other hand the great war breeders of history have been the nations who (I use the words of the militarists) prepared for peace by preparing against war. Tiny Switzerland is not a convincing analogy. Germany is the conspicuous recent example, but there are plenty of others. Japan, for instance, lived many centuries in external peace, but, since acquiring the "protection" of a modern army and a militarist frame of mind, has engaged in three foreign wars since 1894. Men die and a nation suffers in a war of aggression, even a winning war, just as surely as in a war of defence. Ideals suffer more.

General Edwards wants his country to avoid "peace at any price" or "peace with dishonor". So do ninety-nine out of a hundred of the pacifists he attacks. The avoidance of dishonorable peace does not, however, require incessant preparation for war nor a willingness to fight at the drop of the hat. It merely asks us to fight only when every conceivable honorable expedient has been tried to keep the country out of war. Countries armed to the teeth and with a conscious sense of military power are apt to be less fertile in finding and interested in following expedients for peace, even these whose seeking could bring only honor. Neither General Edwards nor any other militarist can point to the time when the United States has dishonored itself by endeavoring to preserve peace, although the press and the propagandists of many past cras have blazoned for war on what then seemed to them the best of grounds. "Fifty-four forty or fight" thrilled thousands in the forties, but the fact remains that for seventy-five years our northern boundary has run along parallel forty nine to the entire satisfaction and to the lasting honor of both Great Britain and the United States.

If we aim for peace and mind our business only the wanton assault of a wanton nation can ever embroil us. This may happen, it cannot be denied. But it is a dim, remote possibility, while the fruits of militarism are defined and all too certain. We are no more immune from them than are other nations, and the price we may pay will be that which they have paid.

In our brief recorded years human na- ture, contrary to General Edwards, is the only thing that has changed. The frame of mind that alarms him of itself proves this. Our young men and women do well in exercising themselves to find out how the peace of this nation and of all nations may honorably be maintained. It is a noble pursuit and in the long run far better for this country and the world than the more alluring oratory of war. It is, moreover, founded on courage and hope, while the exhortations of the militarist are those of timidity and despair.  WILLARD B. LUTRER 1905 L. March 31, 1923.