The Wilmington morning star., 1944-03-13
BY CARLYLE MORGAN
,re ua fighting this war?

Why are We fighting this war!
Is it. as one Of Americas bluntest column
lists put it just after Pearl Harbor, to ''save
our own skins?
Or is it, as former Senator Norris of Ne
braska has stated 1t more recently:
There is, I believe, a unanimous senti-
ment in the civilized world that the victory
we are about to obtain :. must be followed
by a peace that shall be everlasting
otherwise the struggle is not worth the sacri-
flee in human lives that has been necessary
to make this victory possible"
Survival or crusade-that is the question.
These attitudes are worth study; they
represent thoughts of millions Of Americans,
and the thoughts they represent will deter
mine both the outcome Of the war and the
durability of the peace. If we are fighting
to save our skins, then the struggle remains
worth while as long as we have hope OF
survival. If it takes an assurance OF ever
lasting peace to compensate for our losses,
we may feel justified in giving up whenever
lit seems probable that permanent peace is
not around Victory Corner.
Discussions with numerous peace workers
LEADS me to the question: Shouldn't we Am
orleans remind ourselves that we did not
deliberately choose war for other people
sake; that war was forced on us by an enemy S
attack? True, many of us repudlated the
suggestion that we were fighting merely for
our own skins even in those grim days after
Dec. 7, 1941. We had approved Lend-Lease.
We had decided we could not afford to see
the Axis win mastery over Britain's hall Of
the Atlantic because our half would then
be endangered, too. We had been taught
to dislike Nazis-by Nazis; the avowed intent
of the super-race theorists to extermlnate
some peoples and subject others to German
necessity had left few OF us impartial
Yet when the Americans took up arms it
was in an immediate sense, as the blunt
col,1mnist said, to save our skins. We had
not followed up the logic Of the position we
took when we adopted Lend-Lease; we had
NOT vet underwritten our fine words about
liberty and equality with deeds. The peoples
who had placed their hopes in Wilson were
once again to observe that any nations ideals
lie pretty close to it's skin; that the ideals
are not fought for till the skin is endangered
IF we keep these facts in mind, we may
.nnroach the postwar opportunity with more
practical idealism.
It is true that the save-our-oWn-skln att
tude is not usually sufficiently inspiring
influence to lead humanity upward. Yet il
NAV provide a more useful thesis than per.
fectionist idealiSm. For one thing, IL WILL
make us reader to understand why not all
our suggestions to Europeans as to how te
put their houses in order are received with
salaams of gratitude. It will enable us tc
remember that our position in this war is
not that of a nation which rushed to arms
to make world over in line with any pre-
conceived specifications.
If we do remember, we shall not expec1
other nations to accept all our stands for their
conduct But we shall cooperate with them
in the fundamental task of organizing world
order and the measures for its enforcement.
We shall do this even though we 90 MOI
agree with some Of the secondary obJectlves
of many of the details Of postwar patterns.
Above all, if we do remember these Things
we should be immune to the disillusion which
helped to wreck the last peace We should
be more patient when we see other nations
apparently intent on saving their own skins
in the peacemaking. And we may remain
through it all, grateful for having been able
to save our own. Maybe even grateful enough
to stick to the job of working out general
plan for mutual skin-saving. Christian Science
Monitor.