Evening star., 1941-01-05

to conclude that the British can with
our material assistance successfully de-
fend themselves is not to say that they
will be able to take the offensive and
loosen the German grip on the continent
of Europe.
Yet when Mr. Roosevelt ruies out a
negotiated peace he indicates that this
outcome can be expected, and can be ex-
pected without American military par
ticipation. 1t is not defeatism but sober
realism to inquire whether the odds to-
day actually favor a knockout British
victory over the axis. To assume that
this is the case might we'll be to indulge
in that wishful thinking which the
President rightly decries.
There is the further consideration Of
the moral position of a country whose
Chief Executive announces that "ap-
peasement" of Nazi Germany is impos-
sible but in the same breath tells the
American people that the sole purpose"
of our policy is ito keep war away from
our country and away from our people"
A staggering responsibility is assumed
by neutral nation, as we are under our
own statute law, when it's chief of state
informs one belligerent that he hopes it
will keep on fighting in order that our
peace may not be jeopardized.
Questions Raised.
In that cold light of realistic analysis
which the President himself urges, it
must be said that his recent radio speech
y,oouo c11octio,or
AS preliminary to measures looking
toward more active involvement in the
war, perhaps to be outlined in the forth
coming message to the new Congress. it
was a very effective presentation. But
the speech was too full of unresolved in
consistencies to permit its definition as
really satisfactory statement of policy.
Undoubtedly this is why its delivery
has been followed by sharp intensiflca-
ton of discussion, in which Senator
Wheeler has assumed leadership by
openly advocating the type of a nego-
tiated peace which the President declares
to be unthinkable. And one need not be
wholly In agreement with the senior Sem
ator from Montana to realize that in
stronger than that taken by the Presi-
dent.'
AS long as this country is legally a
neutral it is meaningless to talk OF
| American "appeasers." And it is wholly
| in order for a powerful neutral TO en-
deavor to ascertain whether the condi-
tions for just peace exist. The solemn
| ,e;a ~, l,s1
ee left to the Pope alone.
President Roosevelt, 1t seems to me.
writes of the issue too easily by saying
that: mo man can tame a tiger into
kitten by stroking it." The trouble with
the comparison is that our law at present
recognizes no difference of status be-
tween this tiger and his victims.
Individual Responsibility.
We even officially welcome and protect
the tigers diplomatic representatives in
Washington. His consular cubs are
recognized in all our leading cities. And
the President himself practices a form
of "appeasement" by maintaining this
situation, just as he Endorsed its basis
by signing, instead of vetoing, the
Neutrality Act.
In a democracy, as contrasted with a
dictatorship, it is an individual re-
sponsibility to formulate a considered
opinion on the tangled issues of the day.
1t is decidedly an individual re-
sponsibility to think as carefully as pos
sible before accepting the easy judgment
that war is inevitable Therefore, the
current concentration on this problem
is to be welcomed as a sign that our
democracy still hourishes and is not dis
couraged by the use of epithets against
minority which very likely has its full
share of sincerity, information and
patriotism.
During 1910 the issues of national de-
fense and war participation were much
entangled in this country, some times
consciously so. With the dawn of the
New Year the distinction between the
two has become more clear.
A further clarifcation, whether the
| outcome be war or peace for the United
States, is the outstanding duty Of the
Seventy Congress.