(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

Your reprint of the Yale "News" editorial, Isolation and Peace, was valuable, because it brought out the three main points upon which high-handed Interventionist policies rest. These are, that America cannot isolate herself from the rest of the world, and so if a European war starts we are sure to go in; therefore we might as well enter such a conflict at the earliest opportunity; and finally, that the "people," being the most warlike group in the nation, should not be trusted with the responsibility of deciding whether to fight or not fight.

It is dogmatic to state that isolation is "sheer moonshine." No one knows. We do know, however that the United States was able to isolate herself during the last war for three years, three years of great prosperity for our country, and that even at the time of the sinking of the "Lusitania," there was no real economic need for entering the conflict. We know now that at all events, the costs of isolation, if there are any, are never greater than the cost of participating in a war on foreign soil, for foreign interests and foreign capital.

There are those who say that even if isolation is economically possible, the attitude of the people in time of crisis would inevitably lead us into war, the people being too stupid and impressionable to withstand harmful propaganda. If this is so, then why was the proportion of voluntary enlistment during the last war higher among college students than among any other similar age group in the whole country? Evidently, a college education is no guarantee of being unimpressionable with respect to propaganda.

It seems foolish to have to point out that playing the desperate game of international sanctions, believing that "the best way to stay out of war is not being afraid to go into it," and believing that war is inevitable anyway are the surest means of getting us involved in European and Asiatic difficulties. The only way to stay at peace in time of crisis is for every American to believe it is possible for his country to stay at peace. . . . Nalum Z. Medulla '40.