The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-01-18
DIVIDING WORLD INTO TWO GROUPS IS NOT MOVE
 FOR PEACE
Waterbury, Conn,
 January 16, 1888.

waterbury, Conn,
 January 16, 1888. Editor Waterbury Democrat:
 The armament race feverishly go- ing on in each and every one of the European nations is rapidly reach ing the maximum swelling point after which the dreadful bursting of it will be only a matter of the fall of the last drop of inflammable liquid. And then, millions of people will face each other in the air, in the seas, in the land; locked in a desperate struggle, the result oi which will be the complete destruc- tion of all that represent the stu pendous accomplishment of three thousand years of civilization.
 Being that the prospect of the cre- ation of a careless situation, it is only natural and human that a numerous part of the best citizens of the United States strive for the at- tainment of what they think will have the moral force to prevent the acts of war: the abandonment of this country's policy of splendid iso- lation for that of an active and pre- dominant part in international af- fairs. But, is it possible for our sec retary of state to shift the United States diplomacy in the leading role of the world troubles without plung- ing the nation in the boiling caldron of war?
 It is more apparent that only the judicious use of the privileged po- sition of the United States far away from the troublesome areas and ir possession of everything that is needed coupled with just concep- tion of the needs, rights, and duties of every nation, can bring to a suc- cessful result any approach for an understanding solution of every na- tional and international problem ot every single nation, and in the same time keeping our country free from partiality and highly respected by all.
 Actually, instead, the declarations of President Roosevelt, the action ot the state department, the editorials in a large part of the newspapers and the purpose stated by the citi- zens representing the peace groups are all aimed at aligning the United States with a coalition of nations against another group of nations and, if that new foreign policy will be adopted, as d consequence of it. the eventuality of this country be- ing co-involed in a general conflag- ration will be unavoidable.
 To foster before the people the necessity of discarding their tradi- tional neutral policy because "o1 the increasing attempt held by treaty breakers" and for the appli- cation, in the name of the great democracies, of sanctions to the so- called aggressor nations, is a prior proclamation of the rectitude of oul conduct which, right or wrong, we will uphold and defend, but WHEN THE SAME BENEFIT OF IMPEC- CABILITY IS EXTENDED TC OTHER NATIONS, WHICH HAVE IN THEIR ACTIVITY A LONG RECORD OF APPROVED AG- OMISSIONS, THE CASE BE- COMES ESSENTIALLY DIFFER ENT: IT IS PREPONDERANTLY ABSURD.
 Most of the so-called breakers oi treaties or aggressors are a direct consequence of the peace treaties o1 1919, unethical, pernicious and re- sponsibie for causing a breeding of hatred and vengeance, which the United States representatives to the after the World War peace confer ences, helped to impose and which the congress and the people repu- diated, without ever trying to pro- pose, when their rash injustice be- came visible, the revision of them.
 How can we condemn the nations namely Germany and Italy, that after years of moral Subjection and of warm appeals for justice had to recur to the force for restoring their national independence and pride, or for the occupancy of savage ter ritory for the high purpose Of civil- ization?
 It is natural and human to have sympathy or aversion for a prin- ciple or for cause, nonethelesS it is against the practical enunciation