"Destroy the world," a member of the crowd suggested.

"Yes, or destroy the world," he finished.

Meanwhile, a new breed, a much more solemn breed had begun to arrive in the park. Many had travelled all night in the buses that pulled up along the west side of Central Park. There were hundreds of buses and they came from Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, from all over the East.

There were teachers, many of whom wore academic gowns. There were doctors, some in white uniforms. One group identified itself with the sign, "Psychology--Psychotherapy: We Serve Human Needs, We Condemn Human Waste." Another sign read, "Architects Prefer to Create."

To the side, a couple of distinguished-looking gentlemen were arguing. One, a passerby, was disputing the effectiveness of peace marches. After a while he pulled out his credentials. The other gentleman, a marcher, responded, "Well, I have a Ph.D. in physics. We don't have to brag to each other."

Women's Strike for Peace was there in strength, toting shopping bags with anti-Vietnam slogans. A whole truckload of small children sang folk songs under the slogan "Children are not for Burning." Of course, there were students--straight ones, too--from Washington University in St. Louis, from Indiana to Howard. One section of the parade was reserved for a thousand labor representatives.

The Communist Party of New York City--about 100 strong--marched in the section for religious groups, right behind the Spencer Memorial Presbyterian Church.

The size and diversity of the demonstration was due to the kind of coalition which sponsored it. The coalition included from the far left the militant Youth Against War and Fascism, which has called for unconditional U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam; and the Sparticist League, a splinter of the Communist Fourth International, which calls the Progressive Labor Party right wing and Trotskyites middle of the road. It also included the more moderate Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Dr. Martin Luther King and the motherly-moderate Women's Strike.

Most of the groups joined the coalition with misgivings. The National Council of Students for a Democratic Society refused to endorse the march at the December meeting and finally came around just two weeks before the demonstration. Ronald Yank, a Harvard Law student and SDS co-chairman, commented on the hesitancy. He said many SDS people were turned off by King's position on the war, "which ignores the fact of U.S. imperialism." He said King was primarily concerned because the poverty program was suffering from the war, and Yank thought that was a pretty superficial basis for opposition. "They're not getting their pice of the pie so they're against the war," he concluded.

Other SDS members object to the whole idea of national demonstrations. They believe local organizing is a much more effective way of combatting the war. It is significant that Harvard SDS appropriated only $20 to its Mobilization effort and stipulated that the demonstration would not interfere with its ongoing programs, such as labor organizing.

The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, 23,000 strong, split over the Mobilization. It never endorsed the demonstration although Dr. Benjamin Spock, SANE co-chairman, was a Mobilization leader and many SANE members marched. It is understood that SANE withheld official endorsement because some members found the Spring Mobilization too one-sided in laying blame for the war--almost all on Washington.

Every group had some beef or other. Peter Orris '67, of SDS and the student Mobilization Committee, described the planning meetings for the demonstration as "dogfights." When Dave Dellinger, chief organizer of the New York march and editor of Liberation magazine, introduced the spokesmen of the Mobilization to the press the Friday before the march, his caution was almost humorous. The spokesmen ranged from Dr. Spock to Floyd McKissick. Dellinger emphasized several times that the statements would represent personal viewpoints, and "not an official Mobilization line, because there is none."

The press didn't help their unity, either. Dr.Spock accused the New York press corps of trying to split the moderates from the coalition by overpublicizing its radical elements. His gripe was no Richard Nixon. At the Friday press conference, the questions--almost all of them--fell into three general categories:

* Sir, there have been widespread reports of Communist control and manipulation of your demonstration. Is there any truth in this?

* Sir, you have welcomed extremist groups to your coalition, some of whom espouse violence as a tactic. Will there be any violence in tomorrow's demonstration?