What is the peace for which we fight?

              WHAT IS THE PEACE FOR WHICH WE  FIGHT?
A Discussion Leaflet From the Office of War Information
An Outline For Teachers, Discussion Leaders and Speakers
Discussion Guide No. 9
The Office of War Information has recently pub-
lished two collections of speeches, Toward New Hori-
zons, No. 2 and No. 3, which are by no means a com-
plete record of United Nations aims, but which are
important for the light they throw on thinking about
the world that lies beyond the war. This discussion
guide can be used most effectively in connection with
these two publications as background material.
Excerpts of these speeches have been made and ar-
ranged here to facilitate study and discussion.
WHY DISCUSS THE PEACE NOW?
All the persons whose speeches are included in
Toward New Horizons: "Proposals for a Free
World," and "The Peace for Which We Fight," be-
lieve that thought and exchange of thought during
the war on the nature of the world after the war are
essential if our victory is to have any harvest. For
example:
"The winning of this war must come first. It must
be uppermost in our minds and thoughts and deeds.
. . . But pray God, we begin now to definitely think,
and plan, and criticize, and propose, and amend, and
devise, and follow through, to initiate the means of
winning this peace, an enduring peoples' peace ..."—
Harold Stassen.
"We cannot oppose to the onward surge of the
Nazis and the Japanese a mere negative attitude, the
vindication of the Nine Power Pact, the defense of
the status quo of the British Empire, or the territorial
integrity of the Soviet Union and the United States.
We must give to our young men who are called on to
sacrifice a flaming mission of a new world order and
begin to make that mission come true now."—T. V.
Soong.
"We are . . . punching holes in our reservoir of
goodwill every day by failing to define clearly our
war aims. Besides giving our allies in Asia and East-
ern Europe something to fight with, we have got to
For discussion:
Do you agree with the reasons given above for planning and discussing the peace now?
Do you agree with Wendell Willkie, Sumner Welles, and T. V. Soong that by defining our war aims we
would be helping to win the war?
How do you think the United Nations can try to remove "all semblance of disunity or of suspicious riv-
alry," as Sumner Welles advises?
When Jan Smuts says that in 1918 our ideas were too ambitious and Raymond Gram Swing says they
were not expansive and inclusive enough, are they disagreeing with each other?
Henry Wallace sets "bitter arguments" against "orderly discussion" and "fictitious questions" against
the "facts." What responsibilities do persons assume who set themselves to consider the kind of a world we
should have after the war?
give them assurance of what we are fighting for.
. . . They know what they are fighting for. They
are not so sure of us."—Wendell Willkie.
". . . the first essential is the continuous and rapid
perfecting of a relationship between the United
Nations, so that this military relationship may be
further strengthened by the removal of all semblance
of disunity or of suspicious rivalry and by the clari-
fication of the Free World goals for which we are
fighting . . ."—Sumner Welles.
". . . what is the sort of world which we envisage
as our objective after the war? What sort of social
and international order are we aiming at? These
are very important questions, deserving of our most
careful attention, if we mean not only to win the war
but also the peace. Our ideas on these matters 22
years ago were much too vague and crude, and at the
same time much too ambitious, with the result that
when they came to be tested by hard experience they
proved wanting, and their failure helped to contribute
to the present conflict."—Jan Smuts.
". . . without dreams, in the years of terrible trag-
edy, the impulse from that tragedy fails to work
through to constructive ends. . . . The dreams dur-
ing the last war were not expansive enough and in-
clusive enough. And the failure after that war was
the counterpart of the inadequacy of the dreams.
And what should mark the difference between the
last war and this is in measure of our dreams."—
Raymond Gram Swing.
"The war will have been fought in vain if we in the
United States, for example, are plunged into bitter
arguments over our part in the peace, or over such
fictitious questions as Government versus business.
Such bitterness would only confuse us and cloud our
path. How much more sensible it would be if our
people could be supplied with the facts and then,
through orderly discussion, could arrive at a common
understanding of what needs to be done."—Henry
Wallace.
16—34432-1