To the Editor of the Crimson:

In his letter to the Crimson of April 26, Professor Dodd described the choice before us in a way that most of us, I think, accepted uncritically before the November election: either a slight risk, in this case convoys, to assure British victory, or the prospects of America's "having to fight unaided and at the greatest possible disadvantage."

Arguments brought forward in recent weeks, however have tended to even the balance of choice. Many interventionists now state publicly that German defeat will require from three to eight years more of war and the sending by us of a huge expeditionary force to invade Europe or Africa. Obviously total war on a world scale for such a length of time is quite as likely to end in a stalemate of exhaustion or anarchy.

On the other hand it is by no means certain that Germany intends ultimately to try to crown her unsubtle dominion abroad by conquest of the United States. Military authorities say that an invasion of the continental United States by any combination of powers now foreseeable is not possible. Such an attempt would transfer to our enemies all those difficulties of distance, geography, transportation and morale which America will face if we attempt to carry on total war in Africa or the China Sea.

There are many important considerations besides those of strategy, but on purely realistic grounds I think it is possible to feel that the choice is not as clear as Professor Dodd's letter suggests. Robert G. Davis '30.