The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1941-06-20


istic societies then all over the
place We have some today, too,
but now they're largely discredit-
ed-referred to as Nazis, Fascists,
Communists, appeasers and even
traitors. Back in the 1920's they
put their stuff across-as witness
the Kellogg pact, our naval limita-
ton bargain with Britain and ia
pan. and finally our neutrality law.
That law has been modified Of late,
is due TO be modified some more.
may be repealed entirely and is
spoken OF in the most uncompli-
mentary te>ns. Yet the thing
went through aki.eg directly after
Senator Gerald F@NNye introduced
it in congress; we were still pacif-
istic at that stage Of the game.
Gerald had preceded introduc-
ton of his neutrality plan with an
elaborate senatorial investigation
Of the causes Of World War No. l.
The witnesses general ;erdict was
that capitalism got us into 1t. The
appeasers still say so, but at the
present writing they're bawled out
like fury for saying it. Then It
was widely agreed that they were
right. Else neutrality couldn't have
passed.
And Nye? While he was inves-
tigating he was amply commended,
as being engaged in great work.
Now how about him? The mildest
name he's called is "isolationist,"
like Senator Burton K. Wheeler
and Charley Lindbergh.
"All-Around Disarmament"
At the time armament limita-
ton was being urged, Congress
man Fred Britten was chairman of
the representatives naval affairs
committee. He was an extremely
hard-boiled individual and I, like
most folk, took it for granted that
he was a big navy man. thought
I'd drop in on him and get the
anti-limitation side of the argu-
ment. l did, and, "A man who
hasn't got gun" said Fred, cant
shoot I don't know Of any way of
preventing wars except by all
around disarmament,
That just goes to show how
strong the sentiment was.
Why, American entrance into
the League of Nations wasn't de-
feated by militarists, who objected
TO an alignment they were afraid
would keep us OUT of future wars.
It was defeated by isolationists.
who were afraid such an associa-
ton would involve us IN 'em.
World War No. /, in short, was
regarded. after 1t was over, as a
lesson AGAINST preparedness. 1t
was overwhelmingly so regarded,
as demonstrated by all the arms
limitation and neutrality legisla-
ton I've mentioned. It evidently
was so regarded also by Britain
and even Japan, or our Kellogg
and $3.50 naval limitation treaties
couldn't have been put across.
Now, will the same conclusion
be drawn following the end Of
World War No. 2?
I'd guess not. Ny guess would
be that we'll say pacificatory poll
cies have been tried and have
proved to be provocative Of war
instead-that the right way to be
pacihcatory is to be loaded for
bear.
OF course. II EVERYBODY
would be peaceful and stay so, pa
cihsm doubtless would be o. X.
But, seemingly, all hands can't
be depended on to stay put. Some
outlaw nation apparently is GER
tain, sooner or later, to tear loose.
The remedy evidently is not to
whale the tar out of the outlaw
and then to hogtie the cannibal so
effectively that he never can start
anything again. That was tried on
Germany in the treaty Of YER
sailles, and it hasn't worked.
Besides, II a particular Of
fender really can be permanently
squelched, a different one may 90
on the rampage later on. For in.
stance, Italy wasn't any especial
hellion in 1914-1s. Since then IT.
become a pest
We May Ease Up
I wouldn't judge, then, that we'll
saw off on our preparedness pro-
gram at the current wars end
Perhaps we'll ease up bit, but my
impression is that wen continue to