"We are in no position to invest much more in Korea," Edwin O. Reischauer, professor of Far Eastern Languages, told the CRIMSON last night. But a voluntary withdrawal would be taken by the people of Asia as a token that we didn't believe in our reason for going; to fight aggression and uphold world order.

John K. Fairbank '29, professor of History and specialist on the Far East, agreed that the present campaign is coating too much and is not worth the price. If we were pushed out, however, we would not loose as much "face" in Asia as if we merely withdrew, he said.

Should we leave Korea, for one reason or another, continued Fairbank, concentration of military strength in Western Europe must be increased. In addition, a program of political and social aid to Asia must be begun on a scale far larger than that provided by the U.N.E.S.C.O.

"For instance," he said, "India now needs several million tons or grain. We would be crazy not to give it to her; not to buy friendship, but to illustrate the humanitarianism we claim. We certainly can more than afford it."

Both authorities agreed that bombing of China would be "suicidal."

"We can't hurt the war potential of China." added Fairbank, "because it's not concentrated. The massacre of the people that would ensue would be called 'victimizing the Chinese' by the people of Asia, and would hurt our reputation seriously."

Concerning Formoss, Fairbank felt that negotiation is futile, but that we should be willing to try. We needn't give in to Communist China, he said. He urged calling the island a separate unit and putting it under U.N. jurisdiction. The problem, he admitted, was Chiang Kal-Shek. The Chinese on the continent, although fed up with the Red regime, are not willing to follow Chiang as a way out.