What makes me mad about our national policy is that it is based on incomplete reasoning. The equivocal speeches of the President fail to carry the idea of defeating Hitler through to a practical program. There is no military prospectus which deals with the actual facts in front of us yet. Such a prospectus it seems to me is of vital importance. It is the first premise of our whole Beat Hitler policy.

The situation as I see it looks roughly like this. Either we are to beat Hitler in a sort of war of endurance in which economic and other factors will wear him down and make his final collapse easy, or we shall have to fight him directly on the continent with a combination American and British army: Success of the first course seems highly improbable. Shattering of morale by air bombing, an upraise of the conquered nations and eventual starvation of the continent are the three possible ways in which it might succeed. The failure of Germany with a 4-1 air superiority to break England, one-tenth the area of Europe, seems to rule out the bombing theory. Revolt within Germany is highly-tenuous, especially in actual war, with martial law enforcing the German will and starvation driving the conquered to work. New acquisitions of industrial and food areas make the economic blockade no longer very creditable.

Thus we may virtually rule out the idea of victory short of complete war. Auchinleck, Wavell, and de Gaulle have all stated flatly that invasion of the continent is the only way a Crush Hitler policy can be effected, yet though this is our declared aim, the possibilities of a successful AEF are openly discussed by no national leaders. The facts that relate to it are by no means encouraging. To me they look hopeless, and because of that, I think the defeat of Hitler and restoration of a lasting peace must be approached in a different way. The facts that bring me to this conclusion are: 1. the failure of Hitler to invade England over 22 miles of water, 2. the failure of the large and idle British army to make an effective rearguard action with an army of 10,000,000 as its ally, 3. the failure of the one totalitarian force in the world with its own forts and inside lines to prevent huge German victories.

With such practical doubts of the military program I cannot support our present policy of destroying Hitler. Furthermore, I think there is a distinct alternative which I want to talk about in my future columns. Behind this alternative is the idea that Nazlism reveals fundamental faults in the world economy which an irrational war completely prevents us from understanding and curing. Behind it also is the simple faith in men as individuals who only want to live, a desire which transcends ideologies and explains them. Only through a combination of these two things--of reason, that considers facts, and of belief, that is more than superficial prejudice--does it seem possible to me to achieve the peaceful world we want