Letters, Jan. 27, 1941

Man of the Year

Sirs:

I think your selection of Winston Churchill as Man of the Year . . . should meet with universal approval. He is, in my humble opinion, the greatest man in the world today. . . .

S. M. CASEY Batesville, Ark.

Sirs:

I did not send my nomination for Man of the Year because I felt Winnie’s was in the bag. . . . I would have captioned his picture “Number 1 of 46,000,000 Churchills.”

May he repeat next year, and may bay leaves crown his brow.

FRED A. HALL New York City

Sirs:

Your Jan. 6 cover is the most striking ever published by you.

On this grave face is written the sorrow of an empire but also the grim determination and courage to fight through to final victory. . . .

CHARLOTTE BELL RANGER Attica, N. Y.

Sirs:

Good old TIME ! You never let me down. . . .

That face on the cover—”the most unforgettable” face I’ve ever seen! And those words beneath it! Unforgettable words !*

Yes, I knew you would.

MARY A. EWALT West Alexandria, Ohio

Sirs:

By your appeal for Britain, disguised as a news report on Man of the Year, have you shown yourself in your true colors, pro-English. . . .

C. SAMPSON The Bronx, N. Y.

Sirs:

TIME presents a good case for Man-of-the-Year Churchill but could give a better one for hateful Hitler. . . .

W. J. NUGENT JR. San Francisco, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . If 1940 is to be associated in history with the accomplishments of Mr. Churchill, I’m a one-legged Eskimo.

Never in world history has one man so dominated, so terrorized, so galvanized into action, or inaction, the people of the entire world. The lives and minds of men in faraway Patagonia, in Bengal, in Senegal and in Saskatchewan have been agitated by the moves of Adolf Hitler. His name hung like a pall over the U. S. political and economic scene of the year just closed and yet you say it was Churchill’s year. . . .

LYLE R. FLETCHER Washington, D. C.

Out of Step

Sirs:

In TIME, Jan. 6, you show a picture of “Germany’s Army, Air Force, Navy” [see cut]. I notice one very unmilitary action in connection with this picture. That is the fact that . . . Field Marshal von Brauchitsch is out of step with the other two. Maybe this is symbolical of what is happening in Germany.

E. G. BENNETT Escanaba, Mich.

> Von Brauchitsch should be in step, as Raeder is, with Göring, the ranking officer.—ED.

Light on Hitler

Sirs:

The world does not understand Hitler. He really does not hate other people, as it is most generally believed. It is true, of course, that he honestly is of the opinion that the Germans are an advanced type of people with a superior culture. . . .

So, believing this, he is convinced more can be done for mankind as a whole if the German race has the authority to put into effect, on a worldwide basis, his efficient and effective methods. . . .

If England wins . . . the world will have lost the opportunity to be governed by the smartest master since the days of Moses.

OTTO G. SCHNEDECKER JR. St. Louis, Mo.

Tariff Repeal?

Sirs:

AS AID TO BRITISH PURCHASING POWER IN THIS COUNTRY I SUGGEST THAT TARIFF DUTIES ON BRITISH GOODS AT AMERICAN PORTS BE REPEALED FOR DURATION OF WAR.

WILLIAM FEATHER Cleveland, Ohio

Trapeze Act

Sirs:

A thousand cheers and more for that perfect piece on “The Revolt of the Intellectuals” (TIME, Jan. 6) wherein, referring to the fellow travelers who boarded the “Red Express” . . . you apostrophize: “How should they know that Lenin was the first fascist and that they were cooperating with the party from which the Nazis had borrowed all their important methods and ideas?” . . .

MAURICE WINOGRAD New York City

Sirs:

To start off the New Year your book editor did a reckless little trapeze act subtitled “The Revolt of the Intellectuals.” Along about the fourth or fifth paragraph I nearly lost my grip and just managed to swing from comma to comma, until I located solid ground in the last sentence. My primary mental hazard was that word “intellectual.”

Now what in heaven’s name is an “intellectual?” … At times I have worried about this word because frankly I don’t comprehend its meaning. Or maybe you don’t understand it either, and are just flaunting it like a deb with a Dache hat. . . .

WILLIAM W. WRIGHT Marcy, N. Y.

— An “intellectual” is a person whom other intellectuals call an intellectual. —Bo.

Exempt Criminals Sirs:

YOUR COMMENT MY LETTER DEC. 30 ISSUE MISLEADING. SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT MAKES ALL DRAFTEES LIABLE EXCEPT MINISTERS AND THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS. GIVES WAR DEPARTMENT DISCRETION WHAT PERSONS IT WILL ACCEPT. SECTION 16 EXPRESSLY REPEALS ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. HENCE ACT OF 1877 NO LONGER BINDING. . . .

JOHN B. WAITE Ann Arbor, Mich.

— Professor Waite, longtime teacher of criminal law at the University of Michigan, protested the fact that criminals would not be accepted for Selective Service training, argues above that the act of 1877 prohibiting the recruitment of felons is no longer binding. The Selective Service System’s legal chief agrees that he is technically right—i.e., the War Department could accept felons if it wanted to. But the new act provides that men “physically, mentally or morally deficient or defective” may be deferred, and as a matter of policy, known felons are deferred in Class 4-F, practical equivalent of exemption. Meanwhile the War Department is having a tough time defining a felony. In many States the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors is vague, in some it has been specifically abolished by law.—ED.

Sirs:

No eccentric patriot, I’m just an average American who is not too anxious to leave a good job for a year in the Army.

I agree, however, that it is necessary for us to be prepared. … I will be happy to go when called.

Because I am not too anxious for what I know will be a tough, luxury-less year I believe I am in a good position to comment on the letter of John B. Waite of the University of Michigan.

I think there is one, and only one, answer to his views: “It’s a real privilege to be able to serve one’s country in time of need—a privilege that should be reserved for those who have lived by its laws. Criminals apparently don’t cherish their liberty—this battle is for the preservation of the freedom and liberty we all love so well.”

ROBERT COLE Cleveland, Ohio

Inexhaustible Volleys

Sirs:

. . . Many thanks to TIME for winding up a year of interesting cover photos with the most attractive of all (Dec. 30 issue)—the lovely Lady [Lily Pons] of the world’s Regiment of songbirds, ready to open attack on the world’s gloom and pessimism, with her inexhaustible volleys of golden trills and dazzling staccati. . . .

MARTIN LEE San Francisco, Calif.

Self Help

Sirs:

The statement in your report on President Roosevelt’s speech, that Sweden is aiding Germany in her war effort, does not sound very pleasant to Swedish ears. The same is of course true of Mr. Roosevelt’s naming of Sweden in the same group as Russia as far as her German relations are concerned.

It must be borne in mind that, since the beginning of the war, 491 Swedish sailors have lost their lives through enemy action while carrying on trade with Britain. From this point of view one could say that Sweden has been aiding the British war effort.

The truth is that Sweden is supplying her wants as best she can, and not trying to aid anyone else than herself. The trade with Germany is on a strictly cash basis and has for the last ten years worked out so that Swedish imports from Germany exceed the exports. The excess value has been used to pay off German loans that were placed in the Swedish markets during the ’20s.

There can, however, be no doubt about which side in the combat the Swedish people want to win. Only a few months ago the Swedish Workers’ Union started a silent boycott of German goods. The boycott was not a success because Germany has acquired a complete monopoly on many everyday necessities through the blockade, but actions of that kind clearly show the hopes of the people. The Swedish Government has the difficult task to balance between public opinion and the German interests . . . and so far this balancing act has been rather successful. . . .

CARL OLOF GABRIELSON Princeton, N. J.

Priestley and BBC

Sirs:

I have . . . been sent a cutting from your issue of Nov. 4, in which . . . there are several paragraphs about me under the heading “Exit Priestley.” . . .

It is untrue that I was “feverishly insistent” about publicity. Thus, my postscripts were never listed in the official BBC programme or in the Press. And I did not allow excerpts from my American talks to be printed in the Press. This does not suggest even a mild insistence, let alone a “feverish” one, upon publicity. I complained—but did not “raise hell”—about the Times business because I suspected a political angle.

It is equally untrue that I rudely complained about sharing a programme with Leslie Howard. On the contrary it was I who suggested that Howard should be asked to speak on the overseas programme, and afterwards I asked other well-known actors to speak too. . . .

It is equally untrue … to state that I sulked if “program directors,” etc., did not sit around with me. There was a routine with this late-night broadcasting that was followed with me as it was with other broadcasters, and I never demanded any special attention.

J. B. PRIESTLEY Leominster, Herts., England

> TIME is glad to know that Mr. Priestley complained instead of raising hell, is also grateful for his other corrections. Informed Britishers in London who complimented TIME’S reporter on the accuracy of TIME’S account must have been mistaken.—ED.

* “Blood, toil, tears, sweat—and untold courage.”—ED.