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.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

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.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x