(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Those whose sense of patriotism is not summed up in enthusiasm for the military side of national life could not but feel a poignant sense of regret at the unexpected announcement in Monday's issue of the CRIMSON of the vote to be taken on Wednesday by way of registering the sentiments of the student body in regard to the much-agitated system of universal military training. Without having given an opportunity in its columns for discussion pro and con, the CRIMSON declares emphatically that "Harvard's immediate task is to throw her influence in support of this principle by registering an overwhelming vote in favor of universal military training," and concludes by pointing to such action as a means "to strengthen Harvard's position as a patriotic institution."

Is it possible that the lessons obvious- ly enforced by our own history, end, above all, by the recent lamentable breakdown of the European system of military preparedness and armed alliances, should be so completely lost sight of, as is suggested by this proposal to overturn American ideals--to depart from the traditional American policy, as President Nicholas Murray Butler has said, "in the face of the most impressive and emphatic lesson that history records that the traditional American policy has been right"? The advocates of this program of military defence seem wholly to overlook the fact that our national security, far from being threatened by the militarism of the Europe of the present and the immediate future, has been vastly increased, in view of the crippled and impoverished condition of that continent, resulting from the great war. If Dr. Eliot's former assurance is valid, viz. that danger to us from "either a European or Oriental invasion is practically infinitesimal," how much more true is this judgment at the present time!

Do the advocates of the proposed system of universal military training realize that not one of our foreign wars was undertaken in self-defence, and that our country has never been attacked, even when its navy was almost a minus quantity? Again, shall we disregard the testimony of such military experts as General Erasmus Weaver, who has assured the House Committee on Military Affairs that our coast defences are inferior to none in the world, or shall we lose eight of our system of mines, submarines and fortifications, which Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt declares make "a navy almost unnecessary if all we want is to defend our coast"? The oceans have always constituted, and always will constitute, our first line of defence; the tremendous significance of thin asset becomes quite apparent when it is remembered that the finest navy in the world could make no landing at Gallipoli and has not been able to bombard a single German town.

So much for the negative aspect of the question. Let us consider for a moment some of the almost inevitable consequences of the inauguration of a system of universal military training. In the first place, every student of international relations is well aware that the strengthening of a nation's military establishment incites either nations to do likewise; so that, not only are the resources of all the countries concerned taxed to the utmost, in the vain hope of successfully vying with one another in the up building of armaments, but the very act of increasing a country's military forces necessarily breeds suspicion in the minds of its neighbors, and inevitably results, sooner or later, in an armed clash. Thus Japanese and Australian militarism were given a decided impetus by President Roosevelt's somewhat jingoistic performance a few years ago, in sending our navy around the world. On the other hand, an unequivocal and bona-fide statement of our foreign policy and aspirations, accompanied by just treatment of other nations, has been shown to constitute a factor of the first importance in preserving amicable relations with them.

Again, every one who inquires impartially into the fundamental causes underlying modern wars is struck by the fact that in almost every case a nation declares hostilities, not in self-defence or to ward off invasion, but in the secret interest of powerful and unscrupulous commercial, manufacturing and financial combinations, who, for their own selfish purposes, play upon the public's sense of fear, patriotism or national pride. "National honor" and "manifest destiny" represent hackneyed--though, alas, still potent--catch-words employed in this connection. What assurance has the American people that a vast and efficient military establishment will not constitute such a source of temptation to our imperialistic interests as inevitably to be used for purposes of foreign exploitation? We have, since the Spanish-American War, embarked on a career of imperialism, which, together with the fact of the admitted aggression and exploitation of the Mexican War of 1846-1848, gives us little assurance that our politicians and diplomats will necessarily use such power for righteous purposes.

Space forbids discussion of the highly undemocratic phases of the system which the National Security League, e.g., sophistically characterizes as "promoting democracy and unity." Incidentally, be it said that the advantages claimed for universal military training could be achieved and its pernicious features avoided by the practical application of the plan of the "Invincible Army," offered by the Society of Constructive Defence of New York City. Hereby we should be possessed of a moderately large and well-trained army, which might be used in support of a world league of nations to enforce peace.

Thus, instead of placing our chief reliance on military force in a way to breed the very conditions that will create hostile coalitions against which there can be no adequate defence, we should strive toward the realization of the longing of the war-sick nations of Europe for a new and rational order, and avoid a policy calculated to frustrate completely the hope of a permanent reconstruction of international relationships.  K. G. DARLING 2G.