Letters

A Tribute

To THE EDITOR: I should greatly appreciate your printing a word or two about John Kearney '43 on behalf of his many friends in the Marine Corps who deeply mourn his death out here. Also in order that many people in and out of the College may be informed who otherwise might not know. As a communications officer (2nd Lieut.) out here on Peleliu, John was doing a splendid job. He combined the finest qualities of the rugged individual and the efficient Marine officer—the type that is continually being sought after and seldom being found. Out on a communications recon-patrol three weeks ago, up on Bloody Nose Ridge, he was shot by enemy sniper fire and died almost instantly. To us who had come to know him well and to appreciate his sterling character and outstanding ability, it was a bitter blow to lose him—and that is putting it mildly. To think that he, of all our younger officers, had to be one of the first to go seemed almost unbelievable.

We miss him immeasurably—for the great contribution he was making, yes, but above and beyond that, for those fine gifts of mind and heart which made us all so devoted to him. At the little service held here in the cemetery the next day were many of his associates. I heard one make his expression of profound esteem with the simple but touching statement that bespoke the minds of all of us, "There was a man."

No doubt John's class will have the word on this. Regardless, I wanted to add this bit as a final token of deep respect and great esteem. His loss is an irreparable one, to College, Marine Corps, and country.

Captain, USMCR.

Peleliu.

Pattern for Peace

To THE EDITOR: I have been reading a number of things which seem to form a pattern, indistinct as yet, but one which may become clearer with further thought. They are: "Notes and Comment" in The Neiv Yorker of October 21 which talks of the seedtime of union and observes that the political world must keep pace-with the scientific world; Carl Hess' letter in the October MAGAZINE and President Hopkins' reply; the announcement of President Hopkins' acceptance of the chairmanship of Americans United.

The elements in the pattern are: A need for applying restraints which will prevent mankind from destroying itself; "an educated young man of good will on the threshold of his most productive, his most vigorous years" in quest of a way to "contribute to the establishment of Truth, Peace, Progress, Virtue, Wisdom .... " and the reasonable assurance that many other men may be seeking some way similarly to contribute; President Hopkins' acceptance of leadership of an effort to rise above the differences of "causes" and parties to find a way to prevent mankind from self-destruction.

Here, then, are a need, a leader, and the evidence of availability of a potential following—how great no one today can guess. With out leadership and without a following for such leadership, I doubt that any attempt to set up a world organization for preservation of peace can succeed.

Throughout the years leading up to Pearl Harbor I sat at the news desk of a daily newspaper and read dispatches from all parts of the world. I remember the news of Japan's attack on China and I wonder what type of world peace organization would have been effective in preventing it had the American people been in the same frame of mind they were then; specifically whether the people of the United States would have been willing to enter a collective war against Japan to stop the attack on China?

I remember Italy's attack on Ethiopia. I wonder whether Americans would have been willing to cross the Atlantic to fight and die to save Ethiopians.

The fact is that in neither case did America so act. The fact is that a League of Nations then existed and that, even though America was not a member, the League was certain America would not side with either of the aggressor nations. (Or was the League sure, for we were shipping scrap iron to Japan?)

Only when we experienced attack by one of the power-mad nations did a majority of the American people become ready to fight. Then they were fighting for self-preservation, not for the preservation of freedom of some smaller and weaker nation threatened by an aggressor. Despite this, we, the United States, are perhaps more altruistic than any other nation in the world.

We talk about fighting for Four Freedoms while at the same time we have no assurance that another of the United Nations will extend freedom to India or that Holland, being liberated with the sacrifice of American lives, will grant freedom to any of her Far Eastern possessions.

Are we fighting for freedom once more ourselves only to surrender some measure of it, as a nation, to two other nations who happen to be fighting a common enemy or enemies?

Perhaps too many questions of this sort should not be raised now, before the war is won, but such questions certainly are relevant before delegation to any international group of any of our powers as a nation.

America's evasion of world responsibilities prior to World War II cannot be charged to lack of responsiveness to public opinion on the part of Congress. Had Congress been acting (or failing to act) contrary to public will, the people could have elected a new Congress.

How are we to preserve our democratic system and at the same time delegate to some international agency the authority to take action, in which we must participate, when such action even though for the future good of the world is contrary to the will of a majority of the American people at the time when it should be taken?

To help a majority of the American people to have vision—not now while the war is going on but in the years to come—may well be a task for the uncounted men of good will with a great and wise leader. Perhaps some sort of world government can be found which will merit such support. Perhaps, even though it may be imperfect in its beginnings, it can be improved throughout the years.

To find the unfailing answers will not be easy. The uncounted men, young and old, in search of Truth, Peace, Progress, Virtue and Wisdom and their leader have the most difficult task which has ever faced a group of men except one and their task is essentially the same which that small group undertook nearly 2000 years ago.

Reduced to its most elemental form the issue to be faced seems to me to be a conflict between the recognized will and determination to survive and the principle of the Christian ethic, unselfishness. The only real and sure solution seems to me to lie in developing among men of all nations an understanding of this ethic and a willingness to adopt it. Permanent peace must come eventually, not through some super-government, but through a change in the hearts of men. Impossible of achievement? No, not with a great wise leader and enough educated men and women, young and old, who are truly seeking to "contribute to the establishment.... of Truth, Peace, Progress, Virtue, Wisdom "

Albany, N. Y.