To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

In his letter to the CRIMSON of February 14, in which he deprecates this newspaper's new short of war policy, Mr. Howard W. Young makes some interesting assumptions. First, he assumes that the only sane people in the United States are those who favor his policy of complete isolation, and that those who urge aid to Britain, short of war or all out, are therefore "warmongers and fanatic speech makers." He does not take the trouble to show why his attitude is the only "humane and logical viewpoint"; he either cannot or will not explain his reasons. Secondly, he assumes that the fact that so many leading men and newspapers have changed their minds about the meaning of this war is indicative of the baleful results of a "warmongering diet". Mr. Young seems to believe that a man can never change his opinions except for the worse. Thirdly, he makes the blank statement that "the issues at stake in this war are not the slightest bit changed since its beginning." It evidently does not occur to Mr. Young that he may not have understood the "issues at stake" at the beginning of the war, and may not understand them now.

The purpose of this letter is not to justify aid to Britain, but to protest against the attitude exemplified by Mr. Young's letter, an attitude of closed mind and irrational name-calling. Behind such screaming words as "propaganda," "warmongering," "fanatic," "hate"' bloodshed"' and such reassuring words as "realistic", "farsighted", "logical"' "clear" is hidden an appalling lack of thought and reason. No where in his letter does he give a rational basis for his stand; he contents himself with assuming that he is right and then blackening his opponents to the best of his ability. By such methods of argument it is obviously impossible to reach any sensible conclusion. N.R. Landon '42