Letters
Calling All Gliders
To THE EDITOR:
I was very much interested in John Pearson's account of the Intercollegiate Balloon Race in the February issue, and am glad it has been made a matter of permanent record. That article should be supplemented by a similar account of the Intercollegiate Glider Meet—also the only one of its kind, to my knowledge. That was also held in 1911, I believe, or possibly 1912. As I recall it, Williams, Harvard and Dartmouth participated, together with Cornell which acted as host. Dartmouth won the "big" event—the towed glider flight. I do not recall just who the Dartmouth team were, but have a feeling Marc Wright '13 was one of them. Someone who was on that team should write an account of it for the ALUMNI MAGAZINE. I would like to hear from any members of that team, or others who recall it.
Syracuse, N. Y.
The editors second Mr. Edson's proposal that the facts be recorded for posterity. Can anyone tell the story?
Universal Military Training
To THE EDITOR:
Some sixteen years ago, a member of the Economics Department and myself were discussing a speech in favor of Universal Military Training, delivered by an officer of the U.S. Army, which we had heard. The major's strongest argument centered on Switzerland. Because of the mighty Swiss army, said he, no country in Europe dared attack that people during 1914-18. "Louis," said the Dartmouth faculty member, "I've never been able to figure out whether the Army naturally attracts that type of mentality or whether they get that way as a result of their West Point training."
I had always maintained that it was the latter. I heard an R.O.T.C. commander tell a college audience "The United States" he paused, then added, sotto voce, "of course," then finished in his original timbre, "has never fought an aggressive war."
In discussing the speech with my history class afterward, for the young people were greatly amused at the Colonel's naivete, I pointed out that in all probability he had never been taught, in West Point, that the War of 1812 was brought on by the "warhawks" in Congress who saw a glorious chance to annex Canada and Florida while England and Spain were tied up in Napoleonic wars, that the Mexican War dated back to a law passed by Mexico in 1829, which proclaimed slavery illegal in Texas as in other parts of the nation, that in 1898 the U.S. had declared war on Spain after that country had yielded completely to our demands, etc. Of course our sixty Indian wars, in most cases involving broken treaties (see A Century of Dishonor) were not counted as wars in West Point, in all probability... .
How can the Korean truce talks succeed with a lot of military men, interested, not in banishing war from the earth, but in jockeying each other into a position that will make the resumption of hostilities a prelude to certain victory?
The thing that concerns me is that General Semmes was taught to think in Dartmouth College, and this is what he believes:
"We tried every possible expedient to stay out of war" (World War II). Let him read Pearl Harbor by Morgenstern; PresidentRoosevelt and the Coming of War by Beard; Pearl Harbor by John Chamberlain in Life magazine Sept. 24, 1945; the speech of Jeannette Rankin, Congressional Record, Dec. 8, 1942; I Fly for Vengeance, Lt. Clarence Dickinson, Sat. Eve. Post, Oct. 10, 1942.
"Military service .. . enabled the French to hold in World War I until we made up our minds that it was our war." Let him read page 148 of Propaganda in the Next War by Capt. Sidney Rogerson of the British Army; also the speeches of Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania and Mr. Caraway of Arkansas in the Congressional Record for Feb. 9, 1917.
"True the British without universal military training but with the English Channel to protect them were able to survive"—but "We can never depend safely on this happening again."
Somehow, the British seem to think it can happen again, but we, protected by the North Pole and the two greatest oceans, need U.M.T.!
"Gangster nations are on the prowl," says the General. Remembering how Russian submarines used to be seen prowling around San Francisco Bay a few days before the Navy Department had a big appropriation bill coming up, I was looking for a "prowl" to be reported just before the House vote on U.M.T. Sure enough, it came, a few hours late, but genuine.
Strange submarines, at a time when the Caribbean was filled with our own naval vessels, came snooping into Ocoa and Samana bays in Santo Domingo, seeking, no doubt, sites for air bases from which Miami and Palm Beach might be bombed; and the little Dominican Republic solemnly protests to the United Nations that these were Russian vessels, as detected by certain signals flashed from their lights.
If Russia, like Hitler's Germany, was really "on the prowl" for conquest by military force, why has she sat by supinely, waiting to launch the drive until the U.S. and her allies are 100% ready for it?
General Omar Bradley was quoted, four years ago, as saying that at any time during the past three years ('45-'48) when Russia had really set out to overrun Europe to the North Sea and the Channel, there was no way to stop her...
"The world's 'free peoples' fear that American concern with military preparedness 'may lead to war,' that American policies mask 'an urge to expand,' Assistant Secretary of State Howland H. Sargeant warned here yesterday." — New York Times, Jan. 30.
Something that I read in a local paper gave me the first hope that World War III would never be fought. It should have been headlined on the front page, I felt, but I found it in an inconspicuous setting. It was last spring, as I remember it, that Lloyds of London bet the Canadian Government that there would be no war in Europe in 1951. The odds were 50 to 1. Fifty chances for peace to one chance for war, and Lloyds knew that they'd win the betl ...
Heinrich Heine said, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history." With history's lesson on the dividing of Korea, and providing each half with an army, before us, we are heading into a similar jam in Germany. If we set up a large army in West Germany, will not East Germany feel the necessity of matching it? Walter Lippmann in his Feb. 20 column, says, "It is only reasonable to suppose that both the Germans and the Russians, when that time comes for a showdown, will prefer a mutually profitable and cold-blooded deal to a suicidal war." Perhaps, but let us not forget that Messrs. Churchill and Roosevelt, in their zeal for an immediate military victory, made concessions to the Poles that make any friendly final settlement with Germany practically impossible. The Russians in 1939 had taken back the territory which Poland had annexed by force of arms in 1920. Very few Poles lived in these lands. But, to salve the pride of the Polish government (and Churchill, with his illustration of the three matches, each representing a frontier, proposed it) the Allies donated to Poland all that part of Germany east of the rivers Oder and Neisse, which was one of the great wrongs of history. The Germans, being deported from Breslau at the rate of 5000 per day, shook their fists at the Poles and said, "We'll be back some day, and God help you when we come."
It will take delicate diplomacy and compromises to maintain peace. And U.M.T. is not a diplomatic weapon.
Evansville, Ind.
