Do American Funds Prolong War?

(We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest, but assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the editors of the CRIMSON:

It seems to me that we are doing as much to keep the present war 'a going', as any nation concerned. The soldiers do the killing, and we do the mending by sending Red Cross nurses, doctors, etc. We keep peasants from starving by liberally donating funds and we also look after as many refugees as we can. I admit it appears humane, but is it really so?

By the above means we help keep as many men in the field as possible; we free the soldiers from worrying about their loved ones; and we look after all those in need. If this were not the case, the present war would be a different story. It would not seem so much like a prize fight (although I fail to see any prize in it), wherein the United States was the second, patching up the blows of both participants and preparing them for the next round, and wherein the nations were the fighters. It would be a story of all sorts of miseries, cruelties and war horrors. The death lists would increase. The assurance that the soldiers had that their beloved ones were being looked after, would be gone, and the number of men on the field might diminish. Would it not tend to bring the war to a close? Would not war's carnage be so great as to force even the nations involved to make greater efforts for peace?

By doing this supposed service for Europe, are we not making possible the continuation of the war, where it might otherwise cease, and would it not be just as well to use these funds to better conditions in our own country?  ED. WEISSBUCH '18