Even the often-maligned "left wing" professors agree that North Korea is an out-and-out aggressor in the present Far East conflict and that United Nations intervention is a good thing.

The CRIMSON yesterday interviewed six faculty six faculty members nationally prominent for their liberal outlooks. From Life magazine to the halls of Congress, almost all have been called Communists or fellow travelers at one time or another.

Not one of them questioned America's motives in sending troops to Korea, or suggested that the war was other than Communist invasion.

The six teachers are Professors Mather, Shapley, Chafee, Ciardi, Harris, and Schlesinger, Jr. All but Harris appeared on the list of "Reducators" publicly field this week by the Cambrdige City Council.

The professors were more inclined to the Right than their left-wing students. Young Progressives and the John Reed Club have already declared that South Korea is just as responsible as the Reds are, and that "America is trying to use force to back up an unpopular regime."

Lowell P. Beveridge '52, Y.P.H. president, has predicted that his group would follow the Progressive Party and not Wallace, and J.R.C. is bound to go at least as far.

Both Mather and Shapley had one reservation: They weren't positive that Russia had engineered North Korea's attack.

Kirtley F. Mather, professor of Geology, said he has no faith in Russia's claim that South Korea attacked first. But he added here" whether Russia was behind it all.

"I expect stated that he had been asked many times this summer in Scandinavia, "Why can't America follow the advice of Lie and welcome China into the U.N.?" He said he himself believed it would be "surely better" to recognize the Communists in China.

Not Enough Evidence

Harlow Shapley '10, Paine Professor of Practical Astronomy, also condemned the invasion as "definite aggression" but said he didn't know whether it was Russian or not. "We don't have enough evidence," he explained.

Shapley added that America "had no alternative when the invasion came, if we were to save the prestige and effectiveness of the U.N." He also said that "under the evidence, we should recognize Communist China."

"I don't see how North Korea could do it alone," was the opinion of John Ciardi, Briggs-Copeland Assistant Professor of English Composition and a Wallace-backer during the 1948 elections.

Ciardi said he favored what America is doing in Korea, "with some hesitation and doubts."

"We must resist aggressive moves on the part of the Russians," he said, "and Korea seems to be as good a place as any. But sentimentally, I wish I could admire the South Korea government. I'm afraid it's a corrupt police state.

Elections Suspicious

"Syngman Rhee wasn't even living in Korea before the election and was forced down the peoples' threat. The election was suspicious. But there's no doubt that North Korea is the aggressor, and Russia is in with them."

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. '38, associate professor of History, called U. N. action "the most fortunate thing for peace in the world. There's no doubt that the Korean trouble was started by Russian aggression."

"We must continue to press for rearmament of the world as the only way to avert war," he added. "But this must be conducted in an atmosphere of affirmative social objectives such as the Fair Deal in America and the Labor Government in Great Britain."

"This war should be conducted by the U.N. and not by the United States," was the one statement that Zechariah Chafee, Jr., University Professor, wanted to make. But he implied that the U.N. is correct in waging a war against aggression.

Plan Boomeranged

Seymour E. Harris, professor of Economics, also approved of U.N. intervention. "It seems quite clear," he said, "that the whole thing was engineered by the Soviets. It appears that they supplied tanks to the North Koreans and trained troops.

"Now the thing has boomeranged. It started mobilization both here and in Western Europe." By acting sweetly, Harris said, "the Russians are now trying to get out of it."

This is the fourth in a series of stories orienting the University against a war background. The first three articles covered left-wing clubs, faculty views on the Far East, and the new anti-Communist law. Economic mobilization and Western Germany will be the topics for two of the future features.