To the Editor of the Crimson:

How much longer is the Crimson going to sulk in its lonely ivory tower? The editorial of Monday, October 14, betrays a state of mind in the editors which would be comically naive, were it not so dangerous to the safety of our country. The editorial said, in regard to the President of the United States, One man has give this military aid to England and no one has made the effort to stop him." Does any sane American really want to stop him? Regardless of the fact that we obtained vital bases in return for those obsolete destroyers, can you really believe it unsound to try to bolster desperate England in the hope--even were it ten times as faint--of keeping war away from an appallingly unprepared America?

The warning that such actions might involve us in war is an extremely academic one. The enemies of freedom will make war on us when and if they beat England. England at present is our one and only big stick for defending our liberty. Without her fight, our democratic life would already be at an end. While the unappeasable Hitler is rapidly blowing up the remnant of democracy in Europe, the Crimson worries over the possibility of our involvement in the battle, when, by the very nature of our way of life, we have been involved from the outset.

"Temporary sacrifices are preferable to permanent losses." If this nation had the same attitude toward war that the Crimson has, the freedom of press which its editors use so blindly would never have existed. Last Spring, I wrote you a letter on this war which, for some unexplained reason, you did not see fit to publish. I hereby make the attempt once more to see whether the Crimson really practices the democracy about which it talks so much. John F. Sciberling, Jr. '41.