Evening star., 1941-02-10
Discusses Motives
OF Paciist Groups.

To the Editor or 1he star:
Sincere citizens who earnestly proclaim
their views as to the policy which this
country should pursue toward the war
inevitably fall into two groups. One says,
essentially: Keep out of war if possible,
but whether it is possible or not, defend
the country at all costs" The other
group says, in effect: Defend the coun-
try If you can, but keep out of war
whether you defend the country or not"
Stated thus badly, the position of this
second group is appalling. If in 1776
and 1851 our leaders had gambled on
their chances of succeeding without
fighting, should we have any country
today to defend?
The pacif1sts' undiscriminating oppo-
sition to war has led them into still
greater absurdities. There are Just two
alternatives; one is to go in and fight. if
this becomes the most practical strategy:
the other is to cease prof1ting by British
sacrifices, which means giving in to Hit
Ter. The pacihsts, in trying to scare the
people by charging that the Presidents
policy may lead to war, actually have
demonstrated that under some circum-
stances We ought to go to war.
How can it be that presumably intelli-
gent and patriotic men are passionately
devoted to ideas so mistaken and un-
patriotic?
Three evident hatreds seem to account
for it. First, hatred of England. the
best remedy for which is a comparison
between England and Hitler's Germany.
Second disgust at the deplorable out
come of our action in 1917. which led to
the delusion that we had been buncoed.
Third. the hatred which hates war sim
cerely. This laSt-named motive seri-
ously proposes to answer the riddle of
the ages, not by removing iniustices nor
by restraining those who make war for
revenge, power or loot, but just by doing
nothing. WALTER P WHITE.
Replies to Mr.. Werbers Letter
On Labor and National Defense.
To the Editor of The Star:
In answer to Bill Werber's allegations
in The Star of February 5, I wish to
make this reply. although there are many
L
Labor for some 10 years or more has
been the "underdog" in our employer
emploW relationship and being the
underdog has been kicked around. The
abuses inflicted upon labor have been
many. 1t was not uncommon in the
past for a man to work for as little as
so cents day or even less and under
frn aIx ho0 orl1 av,l l,,;,.1
conditions. Today, Congress through
appropriate legislation, has raised the
standards of living, by the establishment
of a minimum wage, etc, and the courts
unequivocally have upheld labor in its
right to strike.
A man who earns his bread by the
"Sweat of his brow" is surely entitled
to economic consideration. However,
this workman alone has no bargaining
power with his employer. 1t is only by
concerted action with his fellow en-
ployes and by the threat to strike that
bargaining equality be reached. This
bargaining power has been assured to
labor by the Wagner Act. Hence, no
employer has the right to refuse to allow
his employees to unionize. The courts
also have held that it is legal and proper
that agreements reached between a union
and an employer should be set forth in
writing.
But Henry Ford, according to spokes-
men for labor, refuses to abide by the
laws of the land. It is true that he main
tains . fairly high Standard of paS, but