Skip to main content

Full text of "The campus strikes against war"

See other formats




HO 3:53 

rial De 

ibrary, I 

The Campus Strikes 
Against War 



National Secretary, Student League for Industrial Democracy; 
Member, National Student Strike Committee 



112 East 1 9th Street, New York 




Copyright, 19H5, by 



The news of the Student Strike Against War has already 
winged its way to the students of countries all over the world 
"carrying encouragement and incentive to the building of a stu- 
dent anti-war movement that will ring the world in its steely 
embrace. The famous motion passed in the Oxford Union Society 
two years ago provided a common intellectual basis upon which 
students of all countries can unite in their opposition to war. The 
students of America, who came out on strike this year and last, 
have shown to the world an effective method of organizing student 
opinion against war. 1 

Such expressions of opinion cannot but create a profound im- 
pression upon public opinion in all countries. But the organization 
of student strikes must be only the beginning, and not the end of 
our opposition to war. Past events have shown that there are 
economic and social forces at work within every capitalist country 
which cannot be checked by mere expressions of opinion however 
well organized they may be. The latter can only serve to delay 
the outbreak of war. This delay is valuable mainly because it 
offers to students the world over an opportunity to fight for the 
elimination of the economic causes of war, which are inherent in 
the capitalist system itself. 

The Student L.I.D. has played a leading part in the anti-war 
strikes because its members understood better than the other parti- 
cipants the causes of war and the method of fighting them. It will 
continue to lead this movement and its leadership will provide an 
inspiration to students far beyond the confines of this country. 
There is a growing feeling of solidarity among students all over 
the world and it is this solidarity of students with students, and 
students with workers in all countries that provides the only sane 
basis for the struggle against war and against the capitalist system 
of which it is a part. jqhk CRIppg 

University Labor Federation of England 



The Campus Strikes Against War 

Roger Baldwin tending 3,500 students from Columbia, Barnard, Union Theological 
Seminary, New College and Teachers' College in Oxford pledge on April 12, 1935. 

THE 1935 student strike against war which brought out of 
the classrooms 175,000 students and in one way or another 
affected every institution of higher learning in America was, in a 
world haunted and terrified by the spectre of war, a historical 
demonstration for peace, lit was more than that; it was a mobili- 
zation against war inspired by a clear-eyed vision of the causes 
of war and the ways of combatting it. The student strike neither 
marked the beginning nor the culmination of the anti-war move- 
ment in the schools. It was a dramatic episode in a movement of 
which the community will hear more in the future. 

What accounts for the present attitude among students toward 
war and peace? Patrioteers ask whether the generation of 1935 
lacks guts. The liberal New York Post pats us on the back for 
our demonstration against war and genially takes it for granted 
that we will defend our country despite all our resolutions to the 
contrary. How serious are we about our slogans, "Strike against 
Imperialist War," "Schools not Battleships/' "Abolish the 
R.O.T.C" T Will our movement hold up when the propaganda 
apparatus is mobilized for war? These and many other questions 
have been raised by the student strike against war. 

The Anti-War Movement in 1917 

In 1917 there was slight resistance to the war frenzy that swept 
the school system. Indeed the whole intellectual class, writers, 
ministers, scholars and artists, outdid themselves in order to prove 
their loyalty to the United States in wartime. "Kill the Hun 1" 
echoed in newspaper columns, church pulpit and classroom with 
an equal ferocity. In the high schools students collected peach 
pits — a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of gas masks. In 
the mens' colleges, undergraduates waited to be called to the 
colors. The sex appeal of the womens' colleges was enlisted in 

recruiting drives, German clubs were disbanded and the German 
language no longer taught. The faculties of the University of 
Chicago on March 19, 1918 met together and solemnly revoked 
Ambassador von BernsdorfFs honorary LL.D. 1 

These examples can be multiplied endlessly. It is more signifi- 
cant to inquire into the student anti-war movement that existed in 
1917. That is the proper background against which to evaluate 
today's anti-war movement in the schools. 


| The center of anti-militarist activity in the colleges before the 
war was the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the predecessor of 
the Student L.LDJ The outbreak of the World War and the 
failure of the European socialist movement to put up any opposi- 
tion to it had had a sobering effect upon American socialist students. 
How little the student movement had been aware of the problem 
of war can be seen from the following statement of the Chairman 
of the Yale Chapter of the I.S.S. in 1914: "The subject of militar- 
ism, its cause and effect, has not yet been made a special course of 
study and discussion among our chapters," It was the proposal 
of the Yale Chapter that the I.S.S. should invite the Cosmopolitan 
Clubs and the International Polity Clubs for joint discussions of 
the forces leading to war. 

In 1916 the I.S.S. was confronted with an act of Congress 
which gave tremendous impetus to the introduction of military 
training in the universities. It set about to organize an opposition. 
The Intercollegiate Socialist Review for April, 1916, reports: 
"Some of the prominent students in our large eastern universities 
are leading a fight against the introduction of military training 
and last year the daily papers of several colleges openly criticised 
the boards of trustees and the faculties for encouraging military 
agitation in the colleges." 


'The University of Chicago and the Kaiser," Georg Mann, Soapbox, Ani-il 
published by the U. of Chicago Socialist Club. 

L]$ut already in 1916 it was difficult to carry on the fight against 
the growing American war-mindedness, for even the ranks of the 
LS.S. were divided over whether war with Germany might not 
be justified. This division was reflected in the 1916 summer con- 
ference of the I.S.S. in which J. G. Phelps Stokes argued his belief 
in defensive wars "where the liberties of a people are deemed by 
the people to be at stake" and even in aggressive wars "where 
deemed by the people essential to the overthrow of tyranny." 
George W. Naysmtth declared on the other hand that men "by 
affirming their willingness to join in a war of defense, would place 
too great a weapon in the hands of the ruling class, inasmuch as it 
is possible for almost any ruling class to convince its people, at the 
outbreak of war, that the war is defensive as far as its country 
is concerned." 

This debate was ended by the actual declaration of war in 1917. 
The active spirits in the I.S.S. backed the inspiring St. Louis declara- 
tion of the Socialist Party: 

"The Socialist Party of the United States in the present grave 
crisis solemnly reaffirms its allegiance to the principles of interna- 
tionalism and working-class solidarity the world over, and proclaims 
its unalterable opposition to the war just declared by the government 
of the CT. S. . . . As against the false doctrine of national patriotism 
we uphold the ideal of international working-class solidarity . . . 
We brand the declaration of war by our government as a crime 
against the people of the United States and against the nation of the 
world. In all modern history there has been no war more unjustifiable 
than the war in which we are about to engage.-' 

When the I.S.S. refused to support the war, many of its mem- 
bers resigned and it was practically shattered^] In some places 
chapters survived by pointing out they were study and not propa- 
ganda societies, but even their activity was severely limited. Pro- 
fessor John R. Commons of Wisconsin would not allow Dr. Harry 
W. Laidlcr, field organizer of the I.S.S,, to address Wisconsin 
students unless Dr. Laidler repudiated the St. Louis declaration, 
which of course he would not do. Mobs raided meetings of the 
chapters. They were called pro-German. 

In very few instances did the students see the issues clearly, nor 
was there any student anti-war movement as such. Instances such 
as the following of refusal of support to the government were rare 
because students lacked insight into the imperialist basis of modern 
war and the shrewd techniques the capitalist state uses to 
conceal this basis. t Carl Haessler, a member of the LS.S. 
had just received his^Ph.D, from the University of Illinois and 
was slated for a teaching job. For refusing military service he was 
court martialed and sent to Leavenworth. This is his statement 
to the Court: 

"I, Carl Haessler, Recruit, Machine Gun Company, 46th Infantry, 
respectfully submit the following statement in extenuation In connection 
with my proposed plea of guilty to the charge of violation of the 64-th 
Article of War, the offenHe having been committed June 22, 1918, in 
Camp Sheridan, Ala, 

The offenHe was not committed from private, secret, personal, impul- 
sive, religious, pacifist or pro-German grounds. An admixture of quasi 
personal motives is admitted* but they were in no sense the guiding or 
controlling factors. I have evidence for each of these assertions, should 
it be required. 

The wilful disobedience of my Captain's and of my Lieutenant-Colonel^ 
orders to report in military uniform arose from a conviction which I 
hesitate to express before my country's military officers but which I 
nevertheless am at present unable to shake off, namely, that America's 
participation in the World War was unnecessary, of doubtful benefit 
(if any) to the country and to humanity, and accomplished largely, though 
not exclusively, through the pressure of the allied and American com- 
mercial imperialists. 

Holding this conviction, I conceived my part as a citizen to be opposi- 
tion to the war before it was declared, active efforts for a peace without 
victory after the declaration, and determination so far as possible to do 
nothing in aid of the war while its character seemed to remain what 
I thought it was. I hoped in this way to help bring the war to an earlier 
close and to help make similar future wars less probable in this country. 

I further believe that I am and shall be rendering the country a service 
by helping to set an example for other citizens to follow in the matter of 
fearlessly acting on unpopular convictions instead of forgetting them in 
stress. The crumbling of American radicalism under pressure in 1917 

has only been equalled by that of the majority of German Socialist leaders 
of August, 191+. 

Looking at my case from the point view of the administration and of 
this court, I readily admit the necessity of exemplary punishment. I 
regret that I have been forced to make myself a nuisance, and I grant 
that this war could not be carried on if objections like mine were recog- 
nized by those conducting the war. My respect for the administration 
has been greatly increased by the courteous and forbearing treatment 
accorded me since having been drafted, but my view of international 
politics and diplomacy, acquired during my three years of graduate study 
in England, has not altered since June, 1917, when I formally declared 
that I could not accept service if drafted. Although officers have on 
three occasions offered me noncombataiit service if I would put on the 
uniform, I have regretfully refused each time on the ground that "bomb 
proof" service on my part would give the lie to my sincerity (which was 
freely granted iby Judge Julian Mack when he and his colleagues examined 
me at Camp Gordon). If I am to render any war services, I shall not 
ask for special privileges. 

I wish to conclude this long statement by reiterating that I am not a 
pacifist or pro-German, not a religious or private objector, but regard 
myself as a patriotic political objector, acting largely from puhlic and 
social grounds. 

I regret that, while my present view of this war continues, 1 cannot 
freely render any service in aid uf the war. I shall not complain about 
the punishment that this Court may see fit to mete out to me." 

A true copy. 

Captain, Inf. R. C. 46 Inf. Judge Advocate. 

Signed: Carl Ilaessler/ 

As another gauge of anti-war sentiment in the universities before 
the World War as contrasted with today, Dean Gauss of Prince- 
ton compares the acceptance that Norman Angell's book. The Great 
Illusion gained twenty-five years ago among college men with today : 
"If only one u\ ten considered his thesis favorably twenty-five years 
ago, today they would probably approve it by about four to five to 

one. . ♦ .*' 

The Christian student groups which supported the anti-war 
strike loyally supported the war machine in 1917. Indeed the 

Y's earned the undying gratitude of the ruling classes by their 
co-operation. Lillian Symes in Rebel America states: 

"Much of the brutal treatment to which the conscientious objectors 
were subjected by petty guards and officials was condoned by Y.M.C.A. 
secretaries and army chaplains. In his carefully documented book on this 
subject, Norman Thomas quotes a letter from one objector who writes, 
in part: 'I think it was a common experience of conscientious objectors 
that their most bitter and intolerant enemies in the army were the 
chaplains and the Y.M.C.A. men. No doubt there were individual excep- 
tions, but I believe this enmity was the general rule. I think these 
representatives of "the church in arms" must have felt that the very 
existence of the conscientious objectors implied a vital criticism of the 
whole program of these militant churchmen.'" 


Todays Anti-War Movement 

Nta one who has participated in any of the many student anti- 
war conferences of recent years, no one who took part in the 
anti-war strike can assert that we have not travelled a long way 
from 1917, [To explain the powerful student anti-war movement 
of 1935 we must first deal with the turbulent events going on in 
the world outside the university and school which undoubtedly 
have exercised the chief influence on student thinking about wan] 
The following is an attempt to enumerate these leading influences. 
Although many students are only vaguely aware of them, they 
find sharp and critical formulation in the program of such organi- 
zations as the Student League for Industrial Democracy, 


UThe men and women who fought the World War believed they 
were fighting in defence of their fatherlands. The populations of 
the Allied countries were honestly convinced /that it was the lust 
of Prussia for world dominion that had caused the war and 
made a sacrifice of 13,000,000 lives, 20,000,000 wounded and 
$250,000,000,000 necessary. But in the twenties the researches of 
historians in the war archives of foreign offices annihilated the 
"War Guilt" clause of the Treaty of Versailles and its corollary that 
German lust for world-domination had precipitated the war. These 
researches proved that neither the Triple Alliance nor the Entente 
could alone be blamed for the war. They. showed that the Foreign 
Offices of none of the Great Powers wanted a war, if they could have 
realized their ambitions in a peaceful manner. And in destroying 
the myth of "war guilt" these men demonstrated the real causes of 
the war, imperialism, nationalism and militarism^J 

But American public opinion still under the benevolent spell of 


Wilson's idealism was in for an even greater shock with the pubii 
cation of Walter Hines Page's memoirs: 1 

Page's Cable- to President Woodrow 
Wilson, March 5, 1917 

". . . The pressure of this approach- 
ing crisis, I am certain, has gone 
beyond the ability of the Morgan 
financial agency for the British and 
French governments. The financial 
necessities of the Allies are too 
great and urgent for any private 
agency to handle, for every such 
agency has to encounter business 
rivalries and sectional antagonism. 
"It is not improbable that the 
only way of maintaining our pres- 
ent pre-eminent trade position and 
averting a panic is by declaring 
war on Germany, The submarine 
has added the last item to the dan- 
ger of a financial world crash. 
There is now an uncertainty about 
our being drawn into the war; no 
more considerable credits can be 
privately placed in the United 
States, In the meantime a collapse 
may come." 

Wilson's message to Congress, 
April 2. 1917 

"... I am not now thinking of the 
loss of property involved, immense 
and serious as that is, but only of 
the wanton and wholesale destruc- 
tion of the lives of non-combatants, 
men, women and children engaged 
in pursuits which have always, even 
In the darkest periods of modern 
history, been deemed innocent and 
legitimate. Property can be paid 
for; the lives of peaceful and inno- 
cent people cannot be. The present 
German submarine warfare against 
commerce is a war against man- 
kind. . , , 

"Our object, now as then, is to 
vindicate the principles of peace 
and justice in the life of the world 
as against selfish and autocratic 
power, and to set up among the 
really free and self-governed peo- 
ples of the world such a concert 
of purposes and of action as will 
henceforth ensure the observance 
of those principles." 


Thus the Great War which was to end war and autocracy proved 
to have been basically inspired by a drive for profits. Yet out of 
the war had emerged one hope— the League of Nations and the 
World Court. Education and propaganda for the League and 
tile Co urt found a ready response among students. This was 

1 The following juxtaposition is not Ambassador Page's. 


reflected not only in student support of the League of Nations 
Association, but as late as 1925, the National Student Federation 
of America was founded to support the World Court and all peace 
institutions. Yet today all the instrumentalities of peace, the pacts 
and treaties as well as the League have shown themselves impotent 
when defied by a great power. The seizure of Manchukuo, the 
unchecked war in the Gran Chaco, and finally Hitler's repudiation 
of the Versailles treaty were the finishing blows to the system 
of collective arbitration ; and the world stands today where it 
was in 1914. How could it have been otherwise? [The League and 
the other instrumentalities of peace did nothing to end the basic" 
cause of war — the expansive drive for profits which ends in im- 
perialism. And therefore it was impotent to destroy the other 
causes of war such as militarism and nationalism, I Geneva became 
the Leipzig fair of world diplomacy and when a nation could 
not get what it wanted at Geneva it withdrew or disregarded it. 
To date the League has been chiefly effective as a mechanism 
through which the Allied Powers led by France prevented any 
revision of the Versailles Treaty. 


(jThe failure of the League of Nations under capitalism was ac- 
companied by the failure of attempts to bring about disarmament 
and the revelations of the part that munitions makers play En capi- 
talist society in fomenting .wan This is not the place to examine 
what is now common knowledge about the merchants of death. 
But certain unforgettable facts stand out from the testimony given 
before the Senate munitions committee and the researches of inde- 
pendent investigators: 1 

"For without a shadow of a doubt there is at the moment in Europe 
a huge and subversive force that lies behind the arming and counter- 
arming of nations; there are mines, smelters, armament works, holding 

1 From Arms mid the Men, a pamphlet which originally appeared In Fortune 
and was reprinted in the Congress Eon at Record on March 0, LS34 at the request of 
Senator Nye, 


companies and banks, entangled in an international embrace, yet working 
inevitably for the destruction of such little internationalism as the world 
has achieved so far. The control of these myriad companies vests finally, 
in not more than a handful of men whose power, in some ways, reaches 
above the power of the State itself. Thus, French interests not only 
sold arms to Hungary in flat violation of the Treaty of Trianon, but 
when Hungary defaulted on the bill the armorers got the French Govern- 
ment to lend Hungary the money to pay the French armorers. Thus, 
too, the great Chechoslovakian armament company, controlled by French- 
men, promoted the rise of Hitler in Germany and contributed millions 
of marks to Hitler's campaign. These same Frenchmen own newspapers 
that did more than any others to enrage France against Hitler." 

Unquestionably the armaments makers foment wars and pre- 
paredness races. But it would be a mistake to conclude that taking 
the profits out of the munitions business would end war. Arma- 
ment men are like shyster doctors. They prolong and aggravate 
illness because it is profitable. They take advantage of an already 
diseased patient. But the armaments industry will flourish so 
long as imperialist nations have to settle economic rivalries by war. 
The socialising or nationalising of the armaments industry does not 
end the likelihood of war. It may in point of fact expedite the 
war preparations of a nation. Hitler and Mussolini might nation- 
alise the munitions industry in their respective nations, but certainly 
not to prevent war. Nor can the socialisation of the armaments 
industry alone be effective unless such closely associated industries 
as iron, steel, chemicals and aviation are also socialised. These 
together wield sufficient political power under capitalism, they have 
enough representatives in every capitalist government, to render 
any hope for their socialisation under capitalism a naive illusion. 


jJStudent thinking had been profoundly influenced by the growth 
of fascism in the modern world for the triumph of fascism has 
accelerated the approach to wanj Fascism today represents nations 
stripping for action. Just as a boxer approaching the night of his 
main bout turns from all habits and activities that do not help him 


get into fighting trim, so fascist nations slough off all civilized and 
humanistic values which might impair the efficiency of the fighting 
machine. The nation becomes a huge barracks. 

The whole vocabulary of fascism is militaristic. Hitler has de- 
scribed the fascist state as follows: 

"The state is totalitarian when there is no longer any private domain, 
when every person, very administrative officer f every group is a function 
of the state; every activity an official function; every establishment a 
public institution, everything in the service of the state. Total mobilisa- 
tion is the correlative of the totalitarian state. It is the military despot- 
ism of wartime extended over the whole nation and its institutions. There 
are now only soldiers — all nourished by the same rolling field kitchens, 
all receiving approximately the same pay." 1 

| For the student the triumph of fascism has far reaching effects, 
for the university has an honored placed in this "total mobilisation/' 
The traditional objectives of the university™ Lux, Veritas, Scientia, 
etc. are obliterated from university escutcheons and in their place 
substituted such devices as the "Book and Musket" of ItalvVor 
the Body, Character, Mind (in descending order of importance) 
of Hitler. Under fascism the primary objective of the university 
and school is the training of soldiers. The trinity, Body, Character 
and Mind, represent the virtues of a good infantry man — strong, 
loyal and with just enough intelligence to carry out commands, 
That is the aim of education under fascism. 

Health comes first, declares Hitler, and then the inculcation of 
character traits that are useful on the battlefield: 

Ie is only after having built the body that the State will look to the 
formation of character. Loyalty, spirit of sacrifice, discretion are the 
virtues necessary to a great people, and the acquisition of which in schools 
are more important than most of the ancient techniques of education. 
Our young people will have to be stoical. When one neglects to teach 
youth to suffer without complaint, one should not be astonished later, 
during the critical hours of battle, that the combatant is unable to undergo 
the hardships of the front," 

1 These quotations all come from Hitler's My Combat, Houghton Mifmi]. 


Science and all the intellectual disciplines are perverted under 
fascism in order to prepare for war: 

"Even in science, the racial state can only see a method of inculcating 
a fiery nationalism. It is not alone the history of the world, hut the 
whole history of civilization which ought to be taught from this point 
of view. . . . Finally this education from our point of view will attain 
its full fruition in military service." 

Under fascism not only is education corrupted from its true 
purposes, but the number of entrants is severely limited. It is no 
wonder then that the student anti-war movement should condemn 
fascism as a breeder of war and oppose the R.O.T.C. which, as 
shall be shown later, is trying to foist a fascist ideology on the 
school system. > 

A typical scene on April 12, 1935. 


In his budget message of January 7, 1935, President Roosevelt 
asked Congress to provide a total of $870,922,292 for national 
defense in all its phases for 1936. This embodied an increase of 
$48,595,075 for the Army; the R.O.T.C was allowed $3,323,246, 
an increase of $193,652; and the Navy received an increase of 
$186,853,499. On the other hand the appropriation for the Child- 
ren's Bureau was decreased by $7,000 to $337,030, and the Office 
of Education was given $8,648,1 10 a decrease of almost $3,000,000 
from the previous year, 1 With schools shut down, with relief 
woefully inadequate, the Roosevelt Administration turns over 
almost one billion dollars to destructive purposes! 

What possible justification does this almost billion dollar war 
budget have? Preparedness is the guarantee of peace, declare the 
patrioteers. Is it? From I90O to 1913 the Triple Alliance ex- 
pended 1,383.3 in millions of pounds sterling for armaments. The 
Entente spent 2,360.2 in millions of pounds sterling. Armaments 
proved no guarantee of peace then. Nor will they prove so today. 
Indeed America stands in no danger of invasion. No country 
could build a war apparatus large enough to carry an aggressive 
war to American shores. The inescapable conclusion is that we 
are building a huge army and navy because we expect to make 
wan The question that the students of America ask of the Roose- 
velt Administration is not why do we need such a large military 
establishment, but against whom is the Administration preparing 
to make war? 


There is one hypothesis which makes the Roosevelt war pre- 
parations intelligible. It is that the present Administration is con- 
vinced that we must fight Japan because of the latter's drive for 
complete hegemony in Asia. America is a highly developed indus- 
trial nation. Under its capitalist organization of distribution, it 

1 America in the Depression by Hiirry W, Liiirtlcr, L. I. D. putuplilct. 


produces huge surpluses which it must export. The Far East 
today represents the only market, one of huge possibilities, which 
has not been definitely allocated among imperialist nations. The 
United States has a foothold in that market, in the form of con- 
cessions, spheres of interest, investments. Japan considers monopo- 
listic control of the Far East vital to her welfare. She has seised 
Manchukuo (a fact which we have officially refused to recognise) 
and has already begun closing it to other nations as a field for 
investment and financial exploitation. She intends to do the same 
with China, and has already declared her right to exercise a veto 
over the acts of other powers in relation to China. 

American capitalism cannot renounce its interests in the Far 
East. The Roosevelt Administration realises this. Therefore, it 
is preparing for war with Japan. The question still remains, 
however, Must We Fight in Asia? The answer is no. The 
establishment of socialism in America would end the problem of 
surplus production and capital which begets imperialism, and 
therefore end the threat of our being drawn into a war with Japan, 
Socialism would end the grim paradox of starvation amidst plenty 
by immediately increasing the purchasing power of the great masses 
of people. Socialism would aim at maximum production, not 
in order to glut world markets, but in order to increase living 
standards at home. President Roosevelt is not going to introduce 
socialism. Quite logically, therefore, he is preparing for war. 1 


The Student Anti-War Movement 

This then is the climate of ideas and events which is nurturing 
the student anti-war movement. Modern developments in the 
instruments of war make the opening shot of another war the 
crack of doom for civilization. Yet not since 1914 has the world 
been so close to war- Is it any wonder then that students strike 
against imperialist war and fascism, crying, "Our Lives Are at 

But the anti-war movement within the schools has a history 
and development of its own arising out of the situation that con- 
fronts the student as a student, which we must now examine. 


Military instruction in the colleges was established under the 
Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862 in the section which read: 

That the proceeds of the land-grant sales were to be ''devoted to the 
endowment, support and maintenance of at least one college where the 
leading object shall be r without excluding other scientific and classical 
studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning 
as are related to agriculture and mechanical arta in such manner as 
the legislatures of the states may respectively prescribe in order to pro- 
mole the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the 
several pursuits and professions of life." 

It was during the World War, however, that military training 
received its real impetus in the schools. In 1916 and 1920 two 
enactments of Congress provided the military departments in the 
colleges with additional personnel and better and more complete 
equipment and made them integral parts of the plans for national 
defense. The following figures compiled for 1932-1933 show the 
present extent of militarism in American education.' 

1 For an excellent presentation of these alternatives see Nathaniel Peffer's 
Must We Fight In Amii Harper & Brothers*, 1935, 


1 These statistics were obtained from the Committee on Militarism in Eduea- 
tiun, 2fl2ti Broadway, N. Y, C, an organization devoted to the abolition of the 
R.O.T.C, which has much useful information on this subject. 


jTke War Department through Federal subsidy aids or conducts military 
training or rifle practice in schools and colleges under three different 
plans as provided for in Sections 40, S5c and 113 of the National Defense 
Act. Under Section 40 instructors, courses of study, uniforms and equip- 
ment are provided; under Section 55c the same are provided excepting the 
uniforms, though the instructors may or may not be; under Section 113 
the equipment alone is provided, sometimes in connection with military 
drill, sometimes in connection with simple rifle practice. Following are 
the latest complete figures for each Section:— 

Under Section 40, or the R.O.T.C., During 1932-1933 
91 Colleges and universities enrolled in compulsory military units ...66,243 

35 Colleges and universities enrolled in elective military units 10,194 

23 Civil secondary schools enrolled in compulsory military units 10,802 

37 Civil secondary schools enrolled in elective military units 24,409 

37 Military secondary schools enrolled in compulsory military units.. 5,365 

228 Institutions during 1932-1933 enrolled in the R. O. T, C, 117,013 

Under Section 55c During 1932-1933 

45 Secondary schools enrolled in elective military units 11,230 

8 Colleges and universities enrolled in elective military units 1,151 

53 Institutions during 1932-1933 enrolled in 55c units.,., 72,381 

Under Section 113 During 193.2-1933 

3 Colleges and universities enrolled for military training 216 

21 Secondary schools, many military, enrolled for military training 1,637 

23 Colleges and universities enrolled in rifle clubs 1,50a 

114 Secondary schools, mostly civilian public, enrolled in rifle clubs . 15,244 

161 Institutions during 1932-1933 enrolled under Section 113 18,605 

Recapitulation for 1932-1933 

160 Colleges and universities enrolled in courses fur military 

training and/or rifle practice , .,„. 79 312 

232 Secondary schools enrolled In courses for military training 

and/or rifle practice 6S (,%>? 

4+2 minus 43' means 399 institutions during 1932-1933 enrolled 147,999 

1 The 4S has reference to the rifle clubs In irt schools and colleges having R.O.T.C 
units and those in 27 others having SSC units. Enrollment figures, however, do 
not overlap. 


The Costs; The total cost of these activities is not obtainable. Each year 
Congress appropriates about four million dollars for the R. O. T. C. and 
55c units and amounts varying from fifty thousand to a quarter of a 
million dollars to the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice — 
which administers the fund for the Section 113 activities. These appro- 
priations, however, do not include the figures for the pay and allowances 
for War Department personnel assigned to these various activities 
(1 ? 658 War Department officers and enlisted men were on R, O. T. C. 
and 55c duty as of October 1, 1933) , nor do they include the costs of 
materials and equipment issued out of regular War Department stocks. 
(During 1925 it was computed that the total cost of the R. O. T* C. alone 
for that one year was $10,696,504.) As of October 1, 1933, there were 
2,054 horses and 6 mules on duty with various R. Q, T. C. units. 


(The R,0,T,C. lias been the bete noire of the student opposed to 
war and militarism, since it presented to him in a concrete, per- 
sonal manner the preparations for war going on in the world. 
Although as early as 1923 the University of Wisconsin changed its 
policy with regard to the compulsory feature of military drill, and 
on a ruling of the Department of Interior lost no Federal support 
because of this action, few university administrations followed suit. 
Opposition to military drill has come chiefly from peace-minded 

Sporadic revolts of undergraduates were crystallised in 1925, 
when on Armistice Day the Editor of tile City College newspaper, 
Felix S. Cohen, published a book review of the manual used in the 
military course. The review consisted mostly of quotations con- 
cerning the approved methods of gouging out eyes and cultivating 
the "inherent" desire to kill. However, its publication led highly 
patriotic Congressmen, the Ku KIux Klan, the American Legion, 
and the other peripheral organizations of the War Department to 
launch hitter attacks against the City College editor and the student 
body. This campaign against military drill, however, was con- 
ducted by the students with shrewdness and ingenuity and was 
soon receiving nation-wide publicity. When the President of the 



college forbade the student paper to mention the military course 
in its columns, the paper came out with blank columns where the 
stories of the R<0,T,C. campaign had formerly appeared. Heywood 
Broun turned over his column in the old New York World to the 
Editor. The final coup was administered to the administration 
by the students, when the President of the college sent a letter 
to the student paper explaining why he had imposed the censor- 
ship. The editors replied they could not publish this communication 
since it contained the forbidden words, R.O.T.C. 

Following the auspicious example of the City College of New 
York,- opponents of the R.O.T.C. focused their attack upon the 
hypocrisy of a course which in one breath spoke about honor and 
good citizenship and in the next, taught the approved method 
of gouging out opponents 5 eyes. The War Department there- 
upon eliminated bayonet drill, admitting that the practical value 
of R.O.T.C. as an item in national preparedness was slight. 
It advanced other justifications for the course. 

It asserted that the course was invaluable as citizenship-training. 

But what is a good citizen in the eyes of the War Department? 
Evidently one who neither believes in democracy, nor interna- 
tionalism, nor pacifism. This may be inferred from the definitions 
of these ideals in the Department's Official Manual on Citizenship 
Training (T.M. No. 2000-25) : 

Democracy declared the Manual^ is "a government of the masses ; 
authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of 
'direct' expression ; results in mobocracy ; attitude toward property 
is communistic — negating property rights; results in demagogism, 
license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." 

Pacifism is "baneful in its influence. It promotes distrust of 
country; debases the spirit of nationalism; is destructive of patrio- 
tism; undermines the policy of national defense; co-operates with 
destructive forces for the overthrow of national ideals and insti- 



Discipline and health have been advanced as other justifications 
of the course. No one has seriously argued, however, that physical 
training free from military features could not accomplish the 
health purposes of the R.O.T.C. equally as well if not better. 
Indeed there is much medical evidence to demonstrate that R.O.T.C. 
drill is injurious to a rounded physical development. As for the 
disciplinary virtues of the course — it all depends ort what you 
consider a good citizen. Were the citizens of Athens superior 
to those of Sparta? Despite the advent of fascism the answer 
still remains, yes. Military discipline teaches slavish obedience to 
superiors, which at the present time means obedience to the capi- 
talist rulers of society, who of course would like nothing better 
than unquestioning obedience. That is why they have such an 
affection for fascism. 

\ Because the R.O.T.C. taught doctrines which in the twenties 
were associated in the student mind with Prussiamsm, and today 
with fascism, because it tried to invest war with the aura of adven- 
ture and romance, by recruiting girl colonels, natty uniforms and 
prancing polo horses, it has become identified with those forces that 
were bringing the world into another war. Today there is scarcely a 
college in America which has not been the scene at one time or 
another of struggle over this issue. The roll call of students 
expelled because of their opposition to military drill extends from 
the University of Maryland to the University of California. It 
includes students of all denominations and political creedsj 


Albert Hamilton, son of a Methodist minister, a leader of 
Methodist youth and chairman of the Student League for Indus- 
trial Democracy, refused to take military drill and was suspended 
from U.C.LA. He appealed his suspension to California courts 
and finally to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

With a unanimity that has become rare in recent years in matters 
involving important social questions and the civil liberties of 


minority groups, the United States Supreme Court on December 
3rd, 1934, upheld the right of the Regents of the University of 
California at Los Angeles to make courses in military training com- 
pulsory, and to suspend Al Hamilton and Alonzo Reynolds, for 
refusal to take such courses. It held that the state had the right 
to determine what conditions should be imposed upon students 
entering the university, and that it had infringed no "immunities" 
or 'liberties" guaranteed by the Constitution, "Speaking through 
Justice Butler, the Court said, 

"Government federal and state, each in its own sphere owes a duty 
to the people within its jurisdiction to preserve itself in adequate strength 
to maintain peace and order to assure the just enforcement of the law. 
And every citizen owes the reciprocal duty, according to his capacity, to 
support and defend his government against all enemies." 

Plainly this was and was intended to be, an unequivocal and 
clear answer to the agitation that has been growing in the colleges 
and universities against the R,O.T.C. Perhaps in terms of legal 
precedents and judicial logic the decision may seem plausible, 
Nevertheless, objectively, the Supreme Court has placed itself 
beside those who, both within and outside educational institutions, 
regard it as imperative to preserve such instruments of the war 
machine as are necessary to perpetuate the attitudes and habits of 
militarism, despite the obvious fact that these have no proper place 
in institutions dedicated to education and study. 

This is nothing new in the history of the Supreme Court. The 
Constitution is a flexible document, and its content and meaning 
is inspired by judges who interpret it largely in the light of the 
experience and the values of the social groups from which they 
come. It is a very human institution, one that is constantly chang- 
ing, but one that nevertheless reflects prevailing ideas extraor- 
dinarily faithfully. At a time when the peace of the world seems *.. 
to rest on very precarious foundations, and when there are demands 
everywhere for increased naval and military preparations, it is not 
surprising to find the Supreme Court asserting the right of the 
government to demand of every citizen that he observe his "duty, 


according to his capacity, to support and defend government against 

all enemies." 

This proposition was hardly warranted by the question with 

which the Court was presented. The decision went far beyond 

the precise issue involved in this case. The phrase above quoted 

states clearly a theory of the relation of individuals to the state 

that is not very far from that held by Hitler in Germany and 

Mussolini in Italy, nor from that which is on the lips of fascists 

everywhere, including the United States. Capitalism demands 

obedience, and if It cannot be to the masters of industry and 

finance, as it was in earlier days, then it must be to the "nation," 

"national honor/* the "government," those institutions around 

which patriotism sheds a holy aura. And the significance of this 

is apparent in the concurring opinion of Justice Cardoso, Brandeis 

and Stone. They disagreed, not with the result, nor the judgment, 

but with the scope of the decision. As Justice Cardozo declared : 

"There is no occasion at this time to mark the limits of governmental 
power in the exaction of military service when the nation is at peace," 

Be that as it may, the implications of the decision are extremely 
important. It should blast once and for all the hopes and illusions 
of those who expect to combat the war makers by resort to the 
courts and the constitution. This case closes the door to conscien- 
tious objection to war and military training. These were never 
very sure foundations upon which to build a vital anti-war move- 
ment, depending too much upon the strength of will of individuals, 
as such. 

The decision of the Court could well have been predicted from 
£jfTgua&$ decisions in the Schwimmer, Macintosh and Maryland 
cases. Moreover, it clarifies a much muddled situation among 
pacifists. It demonstrates conclusively the fundamental correctness 
Sf those who believe that the only way to fight militarism and the 
R.O.T.C. is by organization directed to compelling a change in 
existing conditions. 




The struggle against the R.O.T.C. has demonstrated to thou- 
sands of students the class conflict that is basic in our society. The 
student who fights military training finds himself opposed not only 
by the War Department, but by such distinguished and eminently 
respectable groups as the Daughters of the American Revolution, 
the American Legion, the college Boards of Trustees, the National 
Security League- These form an Interlocking Directorate, a 
ring which not only embraces military and so-called patriotic socie- 
ties but the Boards of Directors of the steel -trust, the munitions 
industry and the House of Morgan. It is an Interlocking Direc- 
torate which never holds board meetings, but maintains a surpris- 
ing unanimity of opinion and action. One can find it at Washington 
lobbying against the munitions investigation, introducing sedition 
bills and fighting all liberal legislation. This Interlocking Direc- 
torate is the ruling class. 

There is no college administration but feels its pressure. As 
President Robinson of City College, among other college officials, 
has told his students; when you demonstrate against the R.O.T.C, 
you imperil the college's source of funds. Pressure from this 
directorate persuaded the faculty of Ohio State in 1931 to reverse 
its vote of 83 to 79 for optional drill, and vote 5 days later 144 
to 9 against optional drill, and stand tamely by when Herbert A. 
Miller, distinguished professor of sociology was dismissed! Stu- 
dents have learned in the course of their fight against militarism 
in education that it is a system that they are opposing, not merely 
the malevolence and stupidity of a few men in the War Department. 

In the recent fight in the Congress over Mr, Roosevelt's war 
budget the attempts by Senator Fraaier arid Congressman Marc- 
antonio to defeat the appropriation for compulsory R.O.T.C. units 
were snowed under by an avalanche of Administration votes. 

Instead an increase comparable to that received by the other 
branches of the service was voted. Can there be any question among 


students whether or not the R.O.T.C. is part of the war prepara- 
tions of the Administration? 


The student anti-war movement has expressed itself by support- 
ing the now famous Oxford pledge. In its original form, the 
pledge is a resolve "not to support King or Country in the event 
of war.*' Here the formula is: "This House will not support the 
government in any war it may undertake," 

This pledge first circulated in 1933, has won student support 
for many reasons. Some vote non-support to the government because 
they believe that passage in this extreme form will shock the war 
mongers into reasonableness. Others vote for it because they will 
have no traffic with war under any condition; because a war for 
democracy installed dictators all over Europe; because a war to 
liberate colonial peoples merely changed their rulers; because 
France fought a 'defensive* war against Germany, and Germany 
a 'defensive 1 war against France; because another war would be 
sheer suicide. 

With the absolute pacifist, many revolutionary students are in 
disagreement. Nevertheless, they support the pledge, because it 
is carefully worded to state that the student will not support the 
"government," which is taken by them to mean the imperialistic, 
capitalist government. Many revolutionary students, convinced 
that the struggle for world markets will continue so long as pro- 
duction for profit creates surpluses, and so long as the working 
people do not gain control of the government, are unwilling in 
this era of fascism to repudiate the right of the working class to 
take \rj5 arms in defence of its rights, 

TheVirculation of the Oxford pledge has raised the question of 
ofrensive^nd defensive wars. Whereas only one student in about 
five would serve in an American expeditionary force, four students 
out of five will fight for the Government if the United States is 
invaded. The Student League for Industrial Democracy rejects this 
distinction between offensive and defensive warfare. It docs so for 


many reasons. In the first place the slogan "we arc defending the 
fatherland" is used as a cloak: to cover aggressive designs. Every 
nation in the World War claimed it was fighting a war of defense. 
Japan seized Manchuria and said it was a war of defense. Musso- 
lini today is making similar pretensions as he prepares to subdue 
Abyssinia. A nation which is determined to go to war can always 
find some incident which can make it appear that another nation 
is provoking the war, Such incidents occurred weekly between 
the Soviet Union and Japan and it was only the Soviets' will for 
peace that prevented any of them from becoming the pretext for a 
war. Defensive war is a dodge whereby imperialist nations induce 
their populations to wage war. Our only safeguard against being 
taken in by such a dodge is to resolve now not to fight in any war 
our Government may undertake. On the eve of war we will not 
have the facts whereby to determine who is the aggressor. 

Secondly where imperialist war is concerned there is no one 
aggressor. It is the convergence of mutually antagonistic imperial- 
ist policies that produces war, and this is inevitable under capitalism. 
No single capitalist nation can be blamed for a war. It is capital- 
ism that produces war, and we must resolve not to fight under 

The third consideration must be a realistic analysis of how the 
United States might be drawn into a war. The only country 
thought of in this connection is Japan, Will a war with Japan arise 
because Japan wants to annex California? Not even the most rabid 
Navy man would advance such a hypothesis. Japan is having enough 
difficulty subduing Korea, nor is It to Iter economic interest to annex 
any part of our native land. No, a war with Japan would be to pre- 
vent Japanese domination in China, which would imperil our finan- 
cial interests there. Are we prepared to go to war for that reason ? 
Presented in this light, most of us are ready to say no. Yet that 
is the war that is in the offing. We must resolve now not to support 
such a war even if some of our marines and nationals are killed 
in Shanghai; even if Japan seized the Philippines, for it Is such 


acts that our Government will use to make the war appear one 
of defense and vindicating national honor. 


The wide circulation of the Oxford pledge revealed an amazing 
growth in a basic understanding among American students of the 
causes of war. This educational work was broadened and intensi- 
fied by the conference technique. 

The revolt against the R.O.T.C. and the circulation of the 
Oxford pledge have shaken the student body of many a college 
into reflection. The traditional mood of undergraduate apathy dis- 
appeared in the calling of two national student anti-war congresses : 
the first in November, 1933, the United Youth Conference against 
War, In New York; and the second, the following month, the 
Student Congress against War, in Chicago. Fifteen hundred 
delegates from all over the nation came to these meetings. They 
returned to their campuses resolved to publicise the findings and 
declarations of these national convocations, by summoning together 
local campus anti-war conferences. 

Student anti-war conferences have recently been held all over 
the nation. The Columbia Conference against War was typical. 
The call was issued by the Columbia Student Board which Is the 
governing body of the college. Students were eligible to come as 
delegates if they obtained the signatures of ten classmates. The 
Columbia Spectator gave the conference its support, and many 
f raternAf and independent blocs which usually shy away from these 
affairs, w^re represented, 

The first evening was taken up with a discussion of the causes 
of war and of the role that Columbia University played in 1918. 
Undergraduates recalled the fact that Fresident Butler, supported 
by the Columbia Spectator, had expelled Professors Dana and 
Cartel! for refusing to support our entrance into the war; and 
that the University's facilities had been turned over — -lock, stock 
and barrel — to the War Department. The second evening was 


devoted to a discussion of the stand to be taken by the conference 
and the adoption of plans for continuation work. In all these dis- 
cussions, faculty members took part, as well as students from the 
law and medical schools and from the graduate science faculties. 
Prom queen, football star, bookworm — all were heard. 

The Conference set up departmental committees whose job it was 
to enlist the support of the whole membership of the department. 
These departmental anti-war committees were urged to discover and 
broadcast what their departments were doing to bring about war, 
whether the chemistry department was inventing new poison 
gases, the history faculty corrupting textbooks in the interests of 
a false patriotism, or the law school was counselling the govern- 
ment on how it could circumvent the Bill of Rights. The con- 
ference program emphasized the need for alliance with the work- 
ing men and women of the country in an effort to build an effective 
anti-war movement. 

Conferences such as these have usually obtained the co-operation 
of the faculty. Sometimes, as at Townsend Harris Hall High 
School, the administration attends, capturing the meeting for the 
school's conservatives* At Hunter College, the President, a poli- 
tical appointee, would not allow the girls to hold a final session for 
the purpose of adopting resolutions. Generally, however, the 
student body has had, if not the support, at least the toleration 
of the administration. 

In most places these conferences were initiated and carefully 
nurtured by members of either the Student League for Industrial 
Democracy or the National Student League. These two organiza- 
tions, the former Socialist in sympathies, and the latter Communist, 
are the mainsprings of the student anti-war movement Together 
they have some one hundred and eighty chapters in the colleges 
which, as in the case of the anti-war fight, undertake co-operative 
activities, working together in a united front. These organizations 
have been strengthened by virtue of the expression and leadership 
they have given to student opposition to war. 


The First Student Strike Against War 

To crystallize student opposition to war, the student strike of 
April 13, 1934 was jointly organized by the Student League for 
Industrial Democracy and the National Student League. 1 Every- 
where the students desired and were demanding peace, yet the 
world was plunging straight into war. Everywhere schools were 
shutting down, teachers were unpaid, yet millions were being spent 
on armaments. This threat of war and these war policies produced 
the strike of 1934. Although it was neither well organized nor pub- 
licised, some 25,000 students participated, the bulk of them students 
in the New York Colleges. Although no attempt was made to enlist 
the support of high school students, principal after principal (on 
the morning of the strike) had to lock doors and marshal men 
teachers and detectives to prevent their charges from literally 
breaking out of the building in order to take part. 


The attitude of the faculty and administration toward this 
strike was instructive. At Brooklyn College, the Association of 
Instructors, Tutors and Fellows, a strong faculty union, declared 
open sympathy with the strike. At Seth Low, the Dean told his 
students to strike if they considered it "a practicable means of 
obtaining support of the anti-war movement." The Acting-Dean 
of Columbia University took a neutral stand on the walkout. But 
in general, the question addressed by the N, Y. U. Bulletin — "we 
would like to know why our administration and other college ad- 
ministrations chose to ignore so vital a cause as this" — remained 

1 As a point of historical record and because of the many Inquiries, it is 
necessary to state Unit ttic original proposal for a student strike ngainst war 
came from the Student League for industrial Democracy. The propositi was 
made in the office of Donald Henderson, then Secretary of the American League 
against War and Fascism. At that time the Student L.I.D, was affiliated with 
the American League, After it withdrew, it together with the N.S.L. organised 
the Hirst strike. 


unanswered except by the students themselves, who pointed to 
reactionary Boards of Trustees and to the lack of organization 
among faculty members. Some Deans and Provosts forbade the 
strike with threats of expulsion. The Dean of the City College 
called in the police to break up the strike meeting. Only a handful 
answered the appeal of the Columbia Spectator made on the eve 
of the strike: 

"You members of the Faculty must see that you can avoid another 
1917 only by participating directly in organized mass movements such 
as this nation-wide strike. We see no alternatives to these weapons of 
open and effective manifestations of our strength, 

"We have long appreciated your words. This \% however, a cam- 
paign of immediate,, relentless action. 

Cf By joining this strike, by leaving your classrooms with your own 
students, by participating in the strike program, you will show your 
determination to unite with us in this struggle. You will demonstrate 
that in this struggle we carry on side by side." 

"Guardians of the Peace" at CC.N.Y. in 1934. 


A remarkable demonstration occurred at the City College of New 
York, which has always been a source and center of anti-war agita- 
tion. Here undergraduates have been more aggressive than elswhere, 
because, coming from workers' families, they are more sensitive to 
the objective world situation that is making for world war. In 
the spring of 1933, when the college administration set aside one 
day for a parade and review of the military corps, the student body 
labeled the occasion "Jingo Day," and called a counter-demon- 
stration. "Jingo Day" turned out to be rainy, but both the review 
and demonstration were held. The latter was taking place on a 
corner opposite Lewisohn Stadium^ when the President of the 
College, Frederick B. Robinson, came walking up the street, flanked 
by a General, to attend the review. Seeing the demonstration, he 
became extremely angry and walked over toward the students. 
Exasperated, President Robinson started lashing out with his 
umbrella, thwacking his students over the head* The students 
seized the umbrella and wrenched it away. Then the police 
charged and escorted President Robinson out of the throng. Sub- 
sequently, twenty-one students were expelled and several were 
suspended. The charters of the three liberal clubs in the college 
were revoked. For days afterwards the sound of police sirens and 
riot wagons were common in the neighborhood of the college. 
Student after student stood up at mass meetings to denounce the 
administration, although doing so meant expulsion. 

Remembering these expulsions, few persons believed that a strike 
would be successful at the City College that semester. Yet, when 
the eleven o'clock gong sounded, 2,000 students crowded around 
the flagpole on the campus. Although the Dean of the school 
ordered the strikers to disperse and took down names* students 
climbed on the shoulders of classmates — since police occupied the 
base of the flagpole — and delivered anti-war speeches. The attempt 
of the police to disrupt the meeting was unsuccessful. The students 
linked arms and chanted, "Police off the campus." 


Fifteen thousand students went on strike in New York City. But 
the movement was nation-wide, At Syracuse, three hundred under- 
graduates took part. At Vassar, the demonstration was signifi- 
cant because the students marched, not behind placards piously 
exclaiming for peace, but behind the militant pennant of "Fight 
against Imperialist War." At Springfield College the demon- 
strations were ingenious. During the night before the strike, 
white crosses were planted all over the campus lawn in memory of 
the Great Betrayal of 1917. The hour of anti-war demonstrations 
was solemnly ushered in by two students blowing trumpets from 
the ramparts of the college. At Wellesley, the girls wore anti-war 
placards to classes all during the day. 

If you look closely you can ace some hands raised in Nazi salute, Scene in Harvard Yard, 1934. 



Small students groups attempted to discredit the strike by tom- 
foolery and rowdyism. Both at Johns Hopkins and Amherst, 
R.O.T.C. men threw firecrackers and rotten vegetables into the 
ranks of the demonstrators. At the former university, the 
R.O.T.C. turned the water hose on speakers, faculty as well as 

The most challenging of these skirmishes took place at Harvard 
University, where members of the Student LJ.D. and the N.S.L. 
with boldness, had called a strike. A group of Harvard Crimson 
cub candidates was organized by that newspaper into the Michael 
Mullins Chowder Club, which was to run a counter meeting in 
favor of war in an effort to discredit the whole strike. The Fresh- 
man Dining Halls at Cambridge would supply the pro-war ex- 
ponents with eggs and tomatoes. 

At eleven o'clock some 2,000 students appeared in front of the 
Widener Library. The Chowder Club came out in regalia, one 
clad in towels holding a "Down with Peace" sign, another in black 
robes with a bomb, another in boy scout togs tooting a bugle and 
leading cheers for "We Want War," and the prize of the lot clad 
as a Nazi Storm Trooper. 

When the Chowder Club failed to break up the strike meeting, 
it went to the opposite ledge flanking Widener and staged a mock 
meeting. In between was massed the throng of 2,000. On one side 
heads inclined faithfully in the direction of the pacifists,. On the 
other side several hundred hands were raised in a fascist salute. 
Today this is only fascist tomfoolery. Tomorrow it will be fascism 
in earnest. 

Like their colleagues in Germany all their canons of chivalry were 
abandoned when dealing with pacifists and radicals. An instructor's 
wife climbed on the ledge to speak for the strikers. The Chowder 
Club forced her to turn her face so that her profile could be snapped, 
and generally manhandled her, yelling "We Want Love." 


Yet in the end spectators were impressed with the courage and 
sincerity of the strikers, and were revolted by the placards and 
antics of the war proponents. The last speaker for the strikers 
was warmly applauded when he pointed out that the other side was 
using the fascist tactics that had triumphed in Germany, but that 
the strikers were here to see that those tactics did not win in 
America, and that the strike was a dress rehearsal for what students 
would do should war come. 

The first student strike against war was significant because it 
focused public attention on tile student anti-war movement, but 
it had an even greater significance in proving to the students 
themselves that they were a powerful factor in the alignment of 
social forces. We sensed our strength as a student movement. 
The strike had a cohesive force weaving a bond of solidarity from 
campus to campus. When news was received at Columbia Univer- 
sity that police were attempting to disrupt the strike at the City 
College, Columbia wanted to march up to St. Nicholas Heights. 

4000 take part in 1935 strike at the University of California, Berkeley. 


The Great Student Strike 

If war was imminent in 1934, in 1935 hostilities seemed about 
to commence. The call for the student strike issued in February 
brought a nationwide response. 175,000 students went out on 
strike on April 12th for one hour. There may have been more, for 
in many places student bodies went on strike almost spontaneously, 
no local unit of any of the national organizations endorsing the 
strike being present on the campus. This is especially true of the 
south. The strike was genuinely national in scope with Philadel- 
phia, Boston, Chicago, Washington, D. C, Los Angeles each con- 
tributing more then 10,000 participants. In New York City 
some 30,000 went on strike. Little colleges in small towns played 
their part as did Negro schools, high schools, and professional 
schools. It was a tremendous demonstration organized in the 
face of often bitter and sometimes subtle sabotage. It was an 
orderly, serious and intelligent demonstration, En which the few 
cases of rowdyism undisputably were inspired by reactionary ad- 
ministrations and irresponsible students. It was a demonstration 
of which America and all men of good will could well be proud. 


Why did the national organizations who were sponsors of the 
strike call it that rather than a one hour holiday or demonstra- 
tion? In the first place everyone recognizes a strike as the most 
intensive form of protest and it gets that much more attention. 
On Armistice Days we have held assemblies, demonstrations and 
anti-war conferences all over the nation, yet few of them received 
adequate notice in the newspapers or came to the attention of 
many students. On the other hand our student strike in 1934 
made page 1 column 1, of the New York Times, started discussion 
on hundreds of campuses and threw consternation into the ranks 
of the R.O.T.C. which immediately called an emergency con- 
ference in Washington. Just because the word strike is provocative 


it helped in the newspaper build-up for the strike and started 
hundreds of discussions among undergraduates. It was not seek- 
ing publicity for its own self that animated the Strike Committee,, 
but a realization that student and public opinion could be reached 
and influenced only through wide publicity* 

Students were asked to strike and come outdoors from 11 to 
12 because such an action made them conscious of the solidarity 
of the student anti-war movement and of its powers. Many under- 
graduate editors said that to protest against war was important 
but what could students accomplish by any sort of a demonstration 
in the present mad race into war? The 175,000 students who 
came out of their classes on April 12th answered these doubters, 
for the strike became a dress rehearsal of what students intend to do 
should war be declared. A few conscientious objectors in 1917 hin- 
dered the war machine; thousands of student strikers would aid in 
crippling it, i 


The calling of a strike placed the administrations of universities 
and schools in a quandary. Many of them were opposed to war, 
yet felt that to sanction the strike would be to imperil the university's 
relation with state legislatures and wealthy endowers. Con- 
sequently some of them merely kept quiet about the strike. Others 
came out in open opposition. Some university administrations did 
not like the clear-cut militant point of view of the student strikers. 
All seemed to fear the concerted student action, spontaneously 
entered into by the students themselves, which the strike implied. 
It might put too many ideas in student heads as to who rules the 
university. The reaction of the administration took many forms 
and we will cite some typical examples. 

At Las Angeles Junior College,- prior to the day of the strike, the 
administration tolerated all sorts of intimidation on the part of 
reactionary students. And on April 12th it outdid even California 
precedents for university reaction. 1 . . . "at Los Angeles Junior 

1 Time Magazine, April 22, i!>&5 



College, 25 peace demonstrators mounted the library stcps s started 
to harangue a few hundred followers. College officers first tried 
to drawn them out by roaring into microphones of the campus 
public address system. Next Director Roscoe C. Ingalls stationed 
himself in front of the speakers, blew a tin whistle until he was 
red in the face. Unavailing, he advanced on the library with a 
burly "Red squad" of policemen. When the students swarmed 
around them, the flustered policemen swung nightsticks, knocked 
out two girl students. Finally Director Ingalls turned on the 
sprinkler system, cleared the campus in two minutes." 

(More frequently the administration attempted to browbeat and 
dissuade students from striking by argumentation and threat, 
rather than physical force. Dr. X W. McQuarrie, President of 
San Jose State Teachers' College, declared in his usual philistine 

"Don't make any mistake about it. I'm not in favor of war myself, 
and I don't know of any one who is. It's a silly disturbing, wasteful and 
unsatisfactory method of settling disputes, I'm thoroughly in sympathy 
with any more that will avert wars, and I gladly pledge myself to use 
any influence I have to that end. However, I'm not going to take the 
program of a disloyal group of vicious and partly demented people and 
state beforehand that I will not support my country if war should be 
declared." { 

It is no wonder then that the strike meeting at San Jose broke up 
in a splutter of eggs, vegetables and water. This may be the acknowl- 
edged technique of answering arguments which is encouraged under 

In most places administrations realized they could not stop the 
April 12th action and adopted a different tactic. Since the spon- 
sors of the strike were anxious to bring in all students who were 
against war, the administration brought pressure to bear upon 
the strike committee through the conservative students in order to 
blunt the militant character of the demonstration. Proffering their 
co-operation university presidents offered the use of auditoriums 
and speakers providing the demonstration was not called a strike, 


and that It was after school hours. For instance at the University 
of Minnesota, the strike committee was asked to hold its demon- 
stration at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and the University offered 
Newton D. Baker as main speaker! The Ex-Secretary of Wat- 
seems to be a great favorite with university presidents for at West- 
ern Reserve University he was again offered this time as chairman 
by the administration. Western Reserve is a good case in point 
of how the administration attempted to capture the strike. Fol- 
lowing the first meeting of a strike committee which enlisted the 
support of many campus groups, the administration made it known 
that it too was against war and would support the April 12th action 
under the following conditions: that it be not called a strike and that 
it be held indoors in Severance HalL In return it would dismiss 
classes and pay the expenses of any speakers the committee desired 
to bring to Cleveland. This seemed a fair compromise In the 
eyes of the students. However, two weeks before the strike. Dean 
Trautman put in an appearance. First he began to make pleasant 
little speeches about the necessity for dignity. These speeches 
ended with the suggestion that the committee not go through with 
its plan for a parade on the day of the strike, for a parade repre- 
sented an emotionalism not worthy of college students. Dean 
Trautman was in favor of a new psychological state of mind, "a 
dynamic silence." When he discovered the committee was not very 
sympathetic to his suggestions, he suddenly became imperious and 
stated as administrative orders that the April 12th meeting could 
pass no resolutions without the approval of the administration ; 
that Newton D. Baker had to be present in some capacity; that the 
meeting could only be against war as a method of settling inter- 
national disputes and En no way more specific* When some of the 
conservatives on the committee showed themselves amenable to 
the Dean's demands, the representatives of the Law School, the 
Student L.I.D. and the N.S.L. withdrew and went ahead with 
their plans for a strike. The student body at Western Reserve, 
which has been extremely conservative, was aroused by the Dean's 
interference. Even the Cleveland papers criticised the adminis 


tration's attempt to color and take over what was supposed to be 
a student demonstration against war. Two days before April 12th 
the administration withdrew from the field and turned the demon- 
stration back to the students. 

At Vassar, President McCracken supported the strike. This 
was true in a few other colleges where the administration dismissed 
classes, although refusing to recognize the action on April 12th 
as a strike. At City College the situation was the reverse of 1934 
when striking students had to clear the police off the campus. Since 
that demonstration 21 more students had been expelled during a 
protest against a visit of Italian students for propaganda purposes. 
A cleavage had developed in the faculty between the reactionaries 
led by President Robinson who want membership in the Student 
L.I.D* and the N.S.L. to be made a criminal offense, and the 
liberals led by Dean Gottschall who believe the suppression is not 
the way to answer the arguments of Socialists and Communists. 
Preparations for the strike were made at City College while Presi- 
dent Robinson was in California resting. The strike was endorsed 
by the Student Council and the college paper, and the Anti-Fascist 
Association which represents Instructors, tutors and fellows at the 
College. It was the attitude of the administration (minus Robin- 
son), however, that was interesting. Every effort was made by 
Dean Gottschall to co-operate with the Student Council committee 
preparing for the strike. His statement: "A demonstration simul- 
taneously participated in by students throughout the United States 
and even in other countries is a worthwhile gesture; and the spirit 
of solidarity developed by such demonstration may in the long 
run be of some effect in influencing public opinion," contrasts 
very favorably with that of Nicholas Murray Butler who opposed 
the strike declaring : "To organize a strike against war is to show 
a strange lack of sense of humor, for the strike itself is a form of 
war." Although in the end faculty support of the strike at City 
College was not achieved, because the students rightly insisted 
that the demand for the ousting of Robinson had to be made at a 
strike against war and fascism, nevertheless the meeting in the Great 


Hall (provided by the faculty) drew out the majority of the 
students and demonstrated that previous disorder at the College 
was caused by Robinson's reactionary inclinations. 


The National Student Strike Committee this year made a serious 
effort to enlist high school students in the fight against war. The 
Committee, in the case of high school students, was primarily 
interested in getting them to consider and to grapple with the 
problems of war and peace. If there had been intimidation on the 
part of college authorities, it was trebled by high school principals 
and superintendents. We do not have space to list the Honor 
Roll of students suspended and expelled all over the nation because 
of their sincere devotion to peace. But high school authorities 
resorted to even more drastic measures. The following is an affi- 
davit from a student in Crane Technical High School, Chicago: 

Lester Schlossberg, who lives at 1358 South Springfield, Crawford 
3S41, says that he is not a member of the National Student League. He 
says that he was in the Drum and Bugle Class, taught by Miss Muriel 
Smith, in Room 111, On the fourth of April at about 1:35 P.M. a boy 
came in and handed Miss Smith a note* She told Schloasberg he was 
wanted in the office. Schlossberg went to the office of Mr, Grant, the 
Assistant Principal. Mr. Grant and Mr. Hagen the Principal, were 
there. Hagen shook him and shoved him into a chair; asked him where he 
got the pamphlets. Schlossberg told him that he got them from two boys 
named Rosenthal and Siegel, who had been suspended from school that 
morning. Mr. Quick, the Dean came in. Mr. Hagen went out and 
Mr. Myers, the Athletic Director, came in. All of these men talked 
to Schlossberg about the Student Strike. Mr, Quick took him into the 
next room, which is the office of the Student Government. There were 
about six boys there. Mr. Quick said, "Who wants to take his arm off, 
boys?" One of the boys said, "I will." Three or four of the boys took 
him down into the basement. Quick called down the stairs, "don't forget, 
boys, I want at least eight more names out of him/' They gave him a 
pencil and paper and told him to write. They pummelled him, striking 
him with their fists. They made him sit backward in a chair and pulled 
him backward out of the chair by his hair onto the floor. Four more boys 
came in, One of the boys stood him under a shelf and caused the shelf 



to fall on his head, They kept asking him for iiiinu-i, id that 

Quick wanted them. They made a pretense of hanging him, by putting 
a rope around his neck. They made a lash of a piece of rope and Hi ruck 
him across the back with it making marks on his back. Schlossberg wept and 
cried out during the whole proceeding. They put out the light!) again 
and pounded him in the dark, Mr. Quick came down, sent the boys 
upstairs, and gave Schlossberg a talk on allegiance to the flag. Quick 
took him back up to the Student Government Office. The boys were 
there and told him to write down what he told them before about his 
father giving him money for the pamphlets. Schollberg denied having 
told them such a thing, Mr. Grant came in and told them to let him go. 
Grant instructed Schlossberg to go to the Meeting of April 4th, which was 
advertised in the pamphlet and to come back next day and tell him what 
Crane boys were there. It was then about five minutes to three and 
Schlossberg's last class was in progress, Schlossberg left the building. 

Schlossberg visited Supt. Bogen on Saturday April 6th and was 
instructed to return to school. On Tuesday, April 9th he was again 
beaten by a crowd of boys somewhere near the school grounds. 

On the day of the strike in New York City, police and plain- 
clothes men lined up outside of school buildings. Police patrolled 
the corridors. Men teachers stood guard at all the exits. Even 
though many students were intimidated from going out on strike, 
no work went on in the classrooms from 11 to 12. At James 
Monroe High School the principal set up loud speakers in all the 
halls which blared forth from 11 to 12 on why the students 
should not strike. What sort of an impression must have been 
made upon students by these tactics on the part of school authorities ! 
The Board of Superintendents declared that a student strike against 
war would break down respect for authority in the high schools. 
What sort of respect can students have for principals who pledge 
not to take punitive measures against those organizing the student 
strike, but after it has taken place, suspend them? High school 
principals have always talked piously about student self-government, 
but at De Witt Clinton, for example, Henry Quinto, a senior, 
was deposed as president of the General Organization by the faculty 
adviser for is part in the strike. Other students had their honorary 
Arista pins snatched from their lapels. Although the public school 


system has always lent itself to the campaigns of "patriotic" societies, 
the Board of Superintendents refused to consider the proposal of the 
National Student Strike Committee that the meetings take place in 
school yards and be addressed by speakers recruited from the 
student body and faculty. 

But for the student anti-war movement the high schools present 
a serious problem. Undoubtedly, the antagonism of the school 
authorities placed thousands of high school students in opposition to 
our strike — not because they were opposed to the objectives of the 
strike or even to the tactics, but because encouraged by the school 
authorities they just didn't think about these things at all^ and 
came out in a spirit of fun to disrupt our meetings. We get nowhere 
even if we preserve the purity of our principles if we thus align 
the majority of the students against us. . . . Our task for the next 
year in the high schools is to get these students to listen to us and 
to consider our point of view with seriousness. We cannot make a 
gift of these hundreds of thousands to the fascists, 


The step that was largely responsible for the increase in the num- 
ber of striking students as compared with 1934 was unquestionably 
the adhesion on an invitation from the Student L.LD* of the 
National Council of Methodist Youth representing a million and 
a half Methodist young people to the movement. The National 
Student Strike Committee which was sponsor of the 1935 strike was 
composed of one representative of: Student League for Industrial 
Democracy, National Council of Methodist Youth, Youth Section 
of the American League against War and Fascism, Inter Seminary 
Movement (Middle Atlantic Division), American Youth Congress, 
and the National Student League. In addition unofficial repre- 
sentatives of the Student Christian Movement and the National 
Student Federation of America sat in at meetings of the Strike 
Committee and co-operated throughout. Two divisions of the 
N.S.F.A., the Middle Atlantic and the New England, officially 


endorsed the strike on April 11th. The total cost of the strike 
was $200; so there can be no question of Moscow gold. Since 
all decisions had to be taken unanimously, every organization on 
the Strike Committee had veto power over the proceedings, and 
so there can be no question of Moscow domination. The Committee 
functioned efficiently and harmoniously throughout, and the success 
of the strike on April 12th showed the necessity and value of joint 
action among student organizations. 

The most serious lack of unity manifested during the strike was 
the divergence of point of view among the students who participated, 
and the failure of some of the local units of national organizations 
to support the strike locally. Intensive educational work is neces- 
sary in order to achieve homogeneity among the students who are 
against war, The genuine co-operation between the Student LJ.D, 
and the N.S.L. during strike preparations did much to cement 
good will between these organizations. To all practical intents 
and purposes these two organizations worked as one unit In build- 
ing the strike, a hopeful sign in a movement so torn by dissension. 


LThe Student Strike Against War was endorsed last July at the 
Liege Congress of the International Socialist Student Federation. 
Again at the Brussels Student Congress against War and Fascism 
which took place during Christmas week, 1934, the strike was en- 
dorsed by 27 participating countries.^ Unfortunately, April 12th 
was an inopportune time for an international demonstration. In 
Porto Rico alone, acting upon a letter from the Student League for 
Industrial Democracy, the Socialist students there brought out 
18,000 university and high school students. Their telegram to the 
Student L.LD, read, "Universities and High Schools Arose at 
Eleven Against War" The National Student Strike Committee 
is now making plans for the holding of a Pan-American Student 
Anti-War and Anti-Imperialist Conference. The holding of such 
a conference was first urged at the Socialist Student Congress in 


Liege, Its need was again emphasized at the Brussels Congress. 
Since one of the basic causes of the conflict in the Gran Chaco at 
present is American imperialism, it is fitting that the American 
Student Anti-War Movement should take the leadership in calling 
such a Congress. 

The 1935 Student Anti-War Strike enlisted much public support. 
Not only did ministers and newspapers endorse the move, but even 
several United States Senators, Senator Nye declared: "I think the 
strike is far from futile and I hope it will be engaged in to the fullest 
extent in an orderly manner by the students in Washington. The 
time has come when those who profess an aversion to war must 
openly endorse drastic action to prevent it." ' Many trade unions, 
as well as the Socialist Party, endorsed the action. The Student 
L.I.D, believes that it is necessary to emphasize the need for co- 
operation between students and workers if war is to be prevented. 
This is necessary on two scores. A declaration of war will not be 
made ineffective by a strike of students alone. The achieve this 
it is essential that the workers who supply the military forces with 
food, clothing and transportation, strike with us. Secondly, the 
threat of war can only be eliminated by the establishment of a 
socialist society. It is the exploited section of the population, the 
workers and farmers, to whose interest it is to establish a socialist 
society. Therefore, the student who is against war must align 
himself with workers and farmers. The Student L.I.D. hopes 
in the future to enlist the support of all sections of the community 
in a strike against war. That would be a really significant demon- 


j 175,000 students and teachers came out on strike on April 12t_h| 
WTmust not consider that action as an end in Itself, or as the climax 

i senator Poue (Dem , Idaho) : 'I think that the demonstration against war 
to te made in an S fashion is a dramatic method of calling the attention 
of ^e world to the fact that students are thinking about war and opposing it. 
I see no objection to the strike." 

t T n effect it is only a beginning. 
rf the Student Anti-War Movent tf ^ % rf 

ft has indicated to »*!£££ there is a tremend-s ,bb of 
with a lot of internal <**««<£■ The Student League or 

education and orgamzauon *££* ..^ m the 

Industry Democracy ^ ^nced ^ ^ q 

Permanent Struggle Agains War Committee to 

!i L represented on the National » ^ lance comm ittee 

supP ort the formation of a P r— - ^ ^ other gr0 ups 

against war and fascism. I »«■* g rf Amer ; ca and the 

S uch as the National Student Jede ^ „ h 

Y.M.C.A.andtheY.W.CA -t t^ d;nated ^ .„ ^ fight 

vigilance commutes, unity ^ on a 6 ; gn ific a nt scale, 

against w« -d fascism can be erne ^ ^ ^ 

But the Student L.l.D. ^^ prevention only. What 
against war and fascsm canno : be on P^ ^ chromc 

iuld we think of a doc tor whose oJV^ ^^ 
condition of boils was to treat eac ^ ing the bo] ls 

SCI ibing for the internal «^^ varlous fascist measures are 
The Nunan bills, the R.O/lX ^ der in our economrc 

all Uke boils produced by ^^ agalnst wa r and fascism 
and social system. An mt lj -t te ^ ^ F 

must be a nght against cap tal sm. ^ ^ must haV e a 

Capitalism, imply «« "^J. and teach er the Student L.I-D 
socU system. Tothe stu^n^t ^^ , ON 




THE STUDENT OUTLOOK is the Official Periodical 

oi the 

Student League for Industrial Democracy 

Undergra dua,e 5 receive . ^'^g^ » * 
with the following pamphlets by becoming 

The Campus Strike- Against Wat. by Joseph P. Lash 
Ame rf c a I. the Depress by Harry W- Laidler 

The Commnnisi Manifest with an essay on bat Marx. 

Socialism's New Beginning, by Miles > h triumpll o( Hitler and 

stives J-'o^W- - — * ^ ^ W - LOidleI 

Poor Old Competition, by Stuart Chase 

„ aodbook of .he Student U.D.. a Yemeni of o.r pro.rara 

An a still other parcels - t hey are pubbshed durina th e year 

i. *. - 10 ■* — j S5KSK 5S W5£ " fot 

TheStudent League for Industrial Democracy^ ^ 

112 East 19th Stfeet 




U2 East 19th Street, New York ^ 

i u< f<n cents oi this fee goes to six issues or 
D Enclosed find $1-00 for membership. (50 cents 

The Student Outlook.) 
□ Enclosed find $.25 for auxiliary membership. 
D Enclosed find $.10 for high schoo! membershtp. 

Name ■•■— " 

Address .....,» - '"" 

Year - 

School ■ 

School Address.. - ■ 




Only tin the untied forces of labor,, farmers, and professional workers can a new 
society be build With these, we of the Student League for Industrial Democracy must 
work for the social ownership of our natural resources, of the means of production, 
and the elimination of the all-pervasive profit motive as the ruling principle of our 
social system. 

Wc are irreconcilably opposed to international war, as necessarily destructive of the 
interests of the workers. We must wage an unrelenting campaign against war prepa- 
rations and propaganda. On the campuses we must work for the complete elimination 
of the R.O.T.C. 

We must see to It that the rights of academic freedom, and of liberty of speech, 
press, organization and assembly are maintained. The campus must be a place of 
free and open discussion. We must insist on the broadening of educational influence, 
and combat retrenchment and other destructive policies. 

We know no barriers of creed, color, or nationality. All these are divisive and 

must be fought as undermining our very purpose. 

The Student League for Industrial Democracy pledges itself to a program of educa- 
tion for a new social order based upon production for use, and not for profit. 


Albert W. 



National Executive Committee 

George C. Edwards, Jr. 

Southern Methodist U. 'S3 
Lyonel Floraat 

Fred Graham 

U. of Missouri 
Henry Haskell 

Vernon Holloway 

Yale Divinity School 

I' in 1 -Chairman 

ttul.1i Oxinan 

Hunter 'Sh 

Seen lixry 
Joseph P. Lash 

rS'.N.W '31 

I iihiuM P. Donahue 
a. "/ Idaho, So. Branch 

Georg Mann 

U. of Ghicof/o 
Morris Milgrum 

C.C.N.Y, 'Sh 
Robert G. Spivack 

V. of Cincinnati 
Monroe M. Swcetlawl 

Wittenberg 'SO 
Jean Symes 

U. of California 

Officers of the League for Industrial Democracy 

Hobo] i Mmi . , i .ovett 

i ■ . pi i %idi „> i 

foh n Dawoy 

■Iiilili IIjiyni'H Holmes 

Vfini , KfirupotoJT 

i ■■ 1 1. Mtturor 

\ii ■.iinh'i MalklQjolin 
■ \ ii ■, K, Sun ford 
v IiIji [), St'iiddur 
i lolari IMiolpH Stokes 

Stuart Chase 

Executive Directors 
Norman Thomas 
Harry W. Laidler 

Executive Secretary 
Mary Fox 

Membership Secretary 
Anna Caples 

S<jcy. Lecture Circuits 
Mary W. Hillyer 

Actinff-Secy., Chicago Office 

Ethel Watson 

Student Department 

George C. Edwards, Jr. 
Joseph P. Lash 
Monroe M. Sweetlnnd 




Introduction by VISCOUNT CECIL 

Foreward to the American Edition by VERA BRITTAIN 

A symposium against war, by some of 
the most distinguished minds of our day 

Containing : 

STORM JAMESON: The Twilight of Reason 

G. E. G. CATLIN: The Roots of War 

VERA BRITTAIN: Peace and the Public Mind 

PHILIP NOEL BAKER: Peace and the OHiciaJ Mind 

GUY CHAPMAN: The Advocates or War 

WINIFRED HOLTBY: Apology for ArmovireLs 

IVOR BROWN: War's New Ally, Fascism 

GERALD HEARD: And suppose we fail? After the next war 

VERNON BARTLETT: Security or Rearmament: Peace or War 

PHILIP NOEL BAKER: The International Air Police Force 

PHILIP NOEL BAKER: A National Air Force no defence 

REBECCA WEST: The Necessity and Grandeur of the Inlernatior, 

MARY AGNES HAMILTON: No Peace apart from 

Internationa] Security: An Answer to extreme Pacifists 
GERALD BARRY: The Mirage of Isolation 
JULIAN HUXLEY: Peace Through Science 
J. B. PRIESTLEY: The Public and the Idea of Peace 

Peace with Honour Falsehood in War-1 



The most courageous and de- 
vastating attack on War ever 
made — by one of the most 
popular and beloved authors 
of our day — A. A. Milne writ- 
ing as he has never written 

HERE is rigid logic, and 
brilliant irony, an indomitable 
defense of the position that all 
war is wrong, disastrous, use- 
less, fraudulent and must be 
completely renounced. 


An amazing collect! 
carefully documented li 
culated in Great Bri 
France, Germany, Ital 
America during the 

First published in 1928, this 1 
mains a classic exposition of the a] 
"When war is declared, Truth is 

The author, now Lord Ponsonby, 
a long 1 career of Parliamentary ar 
matic service, which enabled him 
down, at first hand, the pedigree 
most famous and illustrative lies 
the great nations in the World 


These books published by E. P. BUTTON & CO., INC., 300 Fourth Ave., N«