To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Harvard should indeed be proud of her publications and more than proud of her Crimson. The editorial in that paper for January the eighteenth on the subject of pacifism was the most striking example of distorted thought, muddled expression and hideous English, which I have ever seen, even in the monthly efforts of a country high school.

Pacifism is described as "Gotten on cowardice by misplaced idealism in the emotional stress of the war." I have a vague notion that if I could grasp the meaning of that phrase, I should most certainly disagree with it. Pacifism, in some cases, may have been used as a cloak to hide cowardice but it has grown out of clear-cut, highminded thinking and has been fostered by a greater courage and a more noble war.

". . . pacifism in war time is inexcusable. But pacifism in time of peace is a very different thing. And for the men who wish to impress in the world the utter absurdity of contemplating war there can be nothing but favorable and enthusiastic applause." This, I understand to mean that war is not even to be contemplated in peacetime and also that peace or any effort to obtain peace in time of war is anathema. In other words, a doctor is a very appropriate person to have around while one is well but when one becomes sick. Away with him. This places pacifism on the shelf along with all those other interesting theories which "are all very well, you know, but don't mean anything." Pacifism does mean something and somehow I draw from the very word itself the conclusion that perhaps it means even more in time of war than in peace.

"And while few men lack the physical courage to risk their own lives, none will be willing to take the chance of having his wife and children die in their home because an enemy he has never seen can drop a bomb on his city." There is another puzzler. I can't make out whether it is an argument for war or for peace. The preceding paragraphs of the editorial would lead one to believe that war was all right, in fact rather amusing and delightful until it became so horrible, so sort of unfair and uncertain. This business of the unseen enemy and all that, not at all the correct method of fighting, let's not have any more war if we can't battle in the good old way.

"Nor will it do any good for men to pledge themselves to anything." Then we may thing about pacifism during peacetime but we must not do anything about it. Considering the alacrity with which delegates are capable of pledging and unpledging themselves, I should not think it would do much harm.

"But what is essential is pacifism, active pacifism, as long as peace lasts; the impressing on those in power of the complete absurdity of war." That is simply sublime. It is worthy of a great humorist. "Active pacifism" this said in a loud forceful voice, then whisper "as long as peace lasts."

Since the Crimson represents in a manner Harvard's thinking and Harvard's expression, let us have, at least, a thoughtful proof-reader. IRVING KNICKERBOCKER '25