THE RIGHT TO FEAR

President Conant has a favorite theme. He stated it in a letter to Alf M. Landon last fall. He repeated it on a nation-wide radio hook-up Wednesday night. It is: "Fear of war is no basis for a national policy." This sentence throws dust in the eyes of those interested in keeping this country out of war. It pretends to be a universal principle, applicable in any given case. But it is not. If we feel that a particular war offers nothing but disaster for us, we have a right to fear our entrance into it, and to make that feeling the basis of our national policy. This is our belief in regard to the present European conflict.

But beyond that, Mr. Conant is contradicting himself, for no national policy is more thoroughly motivated by fear of war than the very preparedness program he supports. He admits that its object is to make us secure. But in this hope, he is misled. There is no surer way to war, and a terribly destructive one, than to arm as we are doing. In effect, we are at war with Germany already, practically committed to fight her openly in case of an Allied defeat. Already Walter Lippmann is calling for sacrifices for "defense" that are no different from those demanded by war itself. Already civil liberties are being drastically curtailed, especially by new laws directed against aliens. Phenomenal sums are being demanded by the President for armament. We are only a short distance away from an actual state of war.

All this because of the terrible German "threat"! Mr. Conant stated flatly that he did not think this country could live at peace with a victorious Germany. Sober analysis throws much doubt upon this statement. First, the Allies themselves tell us that Germany is throwing everything she has into this war. If so, she will have little left for the enormous task of invading this hemisphere. If Germany wins, it is only human nature that the people will be tired of war and anxious to enjoy prosperity and peace. The country will, moreover, have a tremendous job of consolidation on its hands.

Above all, there is the question of Germany's ultimate aims. Just last week, Major George Fielding Eliot said: "The historical and fundamental German objective is in the east of Europe, not in the west . . . Hence any war Germany fights in the West is primarily for the purpose of freeing its hands--providing, as Hitler says, a 'rearcover' for the continuance of its eastward march." Yet Mr. Conant prefers to believe that a German victory in the present war will menace us directly. Such fears should hardly be made the basis of our national policy.