Postscript to Collier’s World War III

Postscript to Collier’s World War III

Postscript to Collier’s World War III

 Walter P. Reuther points out the shortcomings of Collier’s World War III.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Comments By the Contributors

I wrote the article for the Collier’s issue, "Preview of the War We Do Not Want," after a conversation with the editor in charge of the project and after having read a precis of the editorial setting forth the purposes of the issue and the attitude of the editors I did not read any of the other contributions except Stuart Chase’s article until the magazine was published.

I was reluctant at first to do the article and raised specific questions as to the tone and effect of the whole issue. These questions were answered satisfactorily, both by the precis of the editorial and by the editor to whom I talked. I still believe that the aims and approach states in the editorial are sound ones, particularly its emphasis on the point that war is not inevitable and its firm opposition to a preventative war.

However, I must say in all honestly that the issue did not do what I expected it to, and I am forced to agree with many of the criticisms brought against it, including most of the points raised by Dr. Fleming in The Nation. The failure of Collier’s to achieve what I believe would have been a worthy purpose was due in part to the tone and content of some of the articles and in great measure to the terrifying and horrible scenes depicted in the art work accompanying the articles.

I hope that such criticisms of this issue of the magazine as those voiced by Dr. Fleming may stimulate enough discussion and clarification that some good may yet come from the project.

I believe the editors of Colliers had the best of intentions, and certainly it was my intention to contribute to the cause of world peace by participating in this special issue. I believe, however, that the issue fails of that objective and I sincerely regret that it does.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x