Evening star., 1939-11-05

6. W. v. Low Professor
Expresses View, Citing
Conadion Situation
10 the Editor Of The Star:
The discussion about the merits of
the revised neutrality bill, shortly to
become law, has been much obscured
by two factors that should perhaps
be isolated and frankly recognized.
First. there is failure to recognize
the difference between the legal and
practical approach to the problem
Of planning and choosing the course
that the United States ought to pur-
sue and the moral or idealistic ap-
proach to this same problem. Sec
ond, there Is failure to recognize
that while very few persons would
desire to plunge the United States
into the conflict at the present time,
1t is equally true that in reality very
few persons are in favor of peace
at any price"
1t is not reasonable to maintain
that men are "warmongers" who
honestly think that peace for our
country can more probably be Sc
cured by policy of f1rmness, direct
ed toward protecting our true
national interests, than by negative
policy, in which We appear to have
no national interests of our own to
serve, but merely strive to avoid
'offending' other nations, and ac-
cordlngiy sacrifice our own national
interests to an unprecedented extent.
Even after such sacrifices, there will
be no guarantee that war, which is
simply the most intense phase of the
competition between nations, can
ultimately be avoided The failure
of Great Britain and France to Sc
cure lasting peace through the enor-
nous concessions that they made to
Germany in the case of the first par
tition of Czecho-Slovakia is an OBJ
vious Illustration.
In the immediate situation it Is
hardly fair. for example. to argue
that a United States Senator is a
conscious "warmonger" who desires
to maintain for citizens of the United
States the commercial rights which
so often have been insisted upon
under the title of Freedom of the
Seas" 1t would be more accurate
to say that such a Senator merely
does not feel it necessary or wise to
pay this high price for peace-to
sacrifice the freedom of the seas
for the sake of securing a temporary.
escape from actual military hostiIi-
ties.
Similarly, to come closer TO the
phase of the question in which my
own sentiments are more directly
involved, it seems hardly fair to
accuse persons of being war
mongers' who desire to give some
affirmative force to the policy of
the United Sta tes, and to direct it in
the line of cur long-range interests
even Though such action may not
please>eVery foreign power. There is
really no important diversity of
opinion as to the desirability of keep
Ing out of war, as an abstract ideal.
There is honest diversity of opinion
as to what price we need pay for
peace.
Recurring to the first distinction
above suggested, it seems to me that
1t would be well to set down Ger
tain leading arguments that are
framed to appeal to a strictly ma
terialistic and nationaistic view of
the interests of the United States
and which indicate why the Pitt
man bill has been approved. I am
assuming that the raising of the
embargo will be beneficial to France
and England, and also indirectly
harmful to Germany. These rea-
sons are as follows:
First, as indicated by Senator
Austin Of Vermont in a recent radio
address, the present strong and in
dependent position of England and
France has a genuine and vital de-
fense value for the United States.
1t has often been pointed out by
historians that Great Britain has
considered the independence of the
"low countries" Holland and Bel
gium, to be vital element in her
national position. England has
fought several tremendous wars in
order to prevent the absorption of
the "low countries" by Spain,
France and Germany in different
periods of history. It is not neces-
sary to explain this historic policy
OF Great Britain on the basis of
altruism or any special nobility of
the British outlook upon interna-
tional affairs. The controlling and
permanent reason doubtless is that
q far-sighted view of the interests
Of Great Britain herself show that
those interests would be injured If
the low countries" were annexed by
one Of the great powers of CONT
mental Europe.
1t seems to me that in the larger
scale of world affairs Great Britain
and France occupy the same rela-
ton to the United States that Hol-
land and Belgium occupy to Great
Britain. The great continental pow
ers in Europe at the present time
are Germany and Russia. If either
Of these great powers should con-
quer England and France and ac-
quire the wealth and possessions of
the latter countries the conqueror
would occupy position of exag-
gerated strength, dominating the
entire continent Of Europe. Such
great power would outweigh the de-
fensive power of the United States