The Path to Public Service at SEAS


Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits? That ‘Would Be Fine,’ Breyer Says at Harvard IOP Forum


Harvard Right to Life Hosts Anti-Abortion Event With Students For Life President


Harvard Researchers Debunk Popular Sleep Myths in New Study


Journalists Discuss Trump’s Effect on the GOP at Harvard IOP Forum



Ed. Note-The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the "Crimson":

In Wednesday's "Crimson" there appears another editorial on the Rhineland crisis, and a letter from Professor Francon containing three questions, unsolved by your previous analyses. No doubt these could be answered by still another editorial; but in order, if possible, to forestall that eventuality, I am attempting an answer.

I will take them in reverse order. First, why won't Hitler make a non-aggression pact with Russia? Beside Russia's fostering of domestic disorder, there is the Polish question. Germany at no point adjoins Russia, Poland being the buffer; and Poland, the one nation of consequence friendly to Germany, is unwilling to sign. Aside from the folly of forfeiting Poland's good will by an agreement which would rule out German aid to an invaded Poland, Germany would have, by the terms of the proposed "Eastern Locarno", to face the prospects of affording passage to French troops through her territory in case of a Russo-Polish disturbance. The German people have already come into contact with French troops (of all colors), and have no desire to renew the acquaintance.

This brings us to the second question-against whom is Germany defending herself? Incomprehensible as it may seem to M. Francon, the answer is France. Strangely enough, the Germans cannot follow the Gallic-Anglo-Saxon logic which makes it an axiom that, of the two nations, Germany will be the aggressor. They will even point to the little unpleasantness of 1924, when a defenseless frontier was crossed and the old experiment of wringing blood from a stone performed by this same French Army. If a reason such as was advanced then for the invasion of prostrate Germany suffices for the French, Germany sees little reason to count on permanent privacy-a view which M. Flandin's appalling propositions tend to corroborate.

I have partially anticipated the third question -how 90,000 German troops in German territory can advance the cause of peace was always served by the righting of an injustice. But if M. Francon feels that troops per se endanger peace, he must feet that France has been endangering it ever since the War, in defiance of the terms of her own Treaty of Versailles, and that in bringing up 300,000 re-enforcements, she has assumed the lion's share of the present crisis.

The choice is now up to France-to give Hitler's pacifistic proposals the benefit of the doubt, or to continue her old policy of suppression and make war a certainty. A. G. Hills '37

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.