To the Editor of the Crimson:

I was amazed at your editorial "Declaration of Peace"; I was amazed to see so many false suppositions and fanciful propositions in so few words.

To begin with some of the lesser inaccuracies, I grant that direct military invasion of this country is highly improbable. But demonstrating our safety by pointing to England's resistance to invasion is completely erroneous. As we all know England is having a very, very difficult time and I for one would rather fight in Europe than see our country placed in a situation so precarious.

Again, to say "the surrender of the British fleet is a very remote possibility" is sheer speculation and cannot be used as a reasoned argument on either side. Recall how so many misjudged the action of the French fleet.

Yet the height of ridiculousness is your proposal of peace. How is it possible to imagine Churchill's England and Hitler's Germany compromising with any opponent. How much more impossible is a peace treaty between these two enemies which have sworn to annihilate each other? Yet even supposing that the Crimson editorial board has engineered a settlement how can you ever be so native as to think Hitler will abide by a treaty?

Finally, you talk of the future course of Am-

erica, suggesting a "revolution, in the broad sense of the word." Our way of life, this system of democratic or capitalistic government, this-the best practical and the best practiced system-needs, according to you, some fundamental changes. To accomplish these you propose to set aside those very principles which you supposedly are trying to save: Girdler, Ford, et al must be put in their proper places. Perhaps you of the editorial board will offer your services "when the revolution comes" for judging the proper violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and for compiling the "list of society offenders who never would be missed.