Letters, Jun. 10, 1940

Lindbergh’s Foreign Policy

Sirs:

Colonel Lindbergh’s reported disapproval of the fact that Americans “have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe” is again proof that his desire for personal isolation is transferred to his desire for national isolation. . . .

The U. S. has followed a path similar to the Colonel. It raised itself from obscurity by its energy, ability and strength. It became, with the close of the last century, a dominant figure in the world. Many unpleasant things came at the same time—lack of isolation being the greatest.

Yet, when Colonel Lindbergh uses the prestige of his fame to speak for national isolation, he is doing as an individual exactly what he is condemning the country for doing as a nation. America is using its prestige, its strength, and its potential force to condemn international gangsterism. Colonel Lindbergh objects. He says our duty is solely in our own back yard. If the Colonel were logical, he would sit quietly in his own back yard. If he feels his duties as a citizen force him to protest—then he should see that America’s duty as a citizen in the community of the world forces her to protest.

As an American, I am ashamed that our national house was in such order as to allow an unsocial brute to violate Colonel Lindbergh’s home. And as a human I am ashamed that our international house is in such order as to allow an unsocial brute to violate the homes of the Czechs, the Poles, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Luxembourgeois, the Dutch and the Belgians. . . .

S. HOLT MCALONEY

Darien, Conn.

Sirs:

. . . Recently we were edified by hearing Mr. Charles Lindbergh urge us to go to sleep, forget all about danger, and pay no attention to “chatter about invasion.”

Few men have ever been honored by any nation as has this man. For years he was almost idolized by the American people. Now he shows his appreciation by doing all in his power to keep this country in its present condition of helplessness. Of late practically all his public utterances have been timed and delivered to give aid and comfort to potential enemies of this country. . . . Whether he realizes it or not, he is serving Nazi interests well in his endeavors to prevent preparedness and to lull an awakening America to sleep.

President Roosevelt gave a carefully prepared message to the American people concerning real dangers and the necessity of preparing against them. Mr. Lindbergh sees fit to deride this as “chatter.” At this very time defenseless cities are being bombed; women, children, and non-combatants are being murdered; freedom, representative government and every human decency are being attacked with the utmost savagery by the people . . . to whom he is giving the utmost encouragement in America.

MILTON F. HILL

Pastor

First Methodist Church

Pecos, Tex.

Sirs:

Having just listened to the speech of Charles A. Lindbergh on national defense, several questions arise in my mind.

1) When Mr. Lindbergh needed safety for himself and his family, why did he go to England, since his sympathies seem to be wholly with Germany?

2) Why did Mr. Lindbergh accept a Nazi decoration when Dr. Wilbur*refused such a doubtful honor?

3) Is Mr. Lindbergh so callous and thick-skinned that the tales of horror, rapine, murder and ruthlessness coming from all the ravished countries of Europe mean nothing to him?

4) Is a man apparently so blandly ignorant of the scope and intensity of the subversive Nazi activities in this country, worth listening to on the subject of national defense? . . .

ELIZABETH BRADSHAW

San Diego, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . Since Charles A. Lindbergh’s masterful radio speech on Sunday night, it must occur to thousands of people that here is the man for our next President. No one else has given public utterance to such sane and authoritative conclusions about our relation to the European conflict. . . .

VERNA L. SCHWANKE

Oak Park, Ill.

Sirs :

Since when does “getting the breaks” and having the good luck to fly alone across the Atlantic Ocean the first time qualify anyone as a statesman, military expert, high and mighty critic of everything and anybody ? . . .

A. A. COFFIN

Atlanta, Ga.

Sirs:

. . . Lindbergh’s speech of last evening clinches, in our estimation, his position as the leading American thinker on the primary issues of American policy today. . . .

ARTHUR RARIG

Seattle, Wash.

Sirs:

Every time Lindbergh makes a speech, it makes me mad! . . . Because he formed daring and courageous feats in aviation, does this make him an authority on world policies? . . .

MARY LYNN ARMISTEAD

Altadena, Calif.

Scott v. Baruch

Sirs:

IT WAS FRANK A. SCOTT OF CLEVELAND NOT B. M. BARUCH OF NEW YORK WHO AS INDUSTRIAL CHIEF OF STAFF MOBILIZED U. S. INDUSTRY DURING THE WORLD WAR [TIME, May 27], WHEN THE COUNCIL OF NATIONAL DEFENSE WAS REORGANIZED AND THE WAR INDUSTRIES BOARD ESTABLISHED, PRESIDENT WILSON SELECTED FRANK A. SCOTT TO BE ITS CHAIRMAN. MR. BARUCH AND FIVE OTHERS WERE STAFF MEMBERS. COLONEL SCOTT WAS AWARDED THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MEDAL FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE GENERAL MUNITIONS BOARD, AND THE WAR INDUSTRIES BOARD. SECRETARY OF WAR BAKER HAD A DEEP AFFECTION FOR COLONEL SCOTT AND WAS EVER MINDFUL OF THE HIGHLY IMPORTANT WORK WHICH HE PERFORMED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

WALTER J. MUNRO

Cleveland, Ohio

>Reader Munro exaggerates. Though Colonel Scott is credited with the important job of pioneering the War Industries Board, ill health forced him out after three months. But the big job, on the reorganized Board, was done by Bernard Baruch.—ED.

Playing Germany

Sirs:

Upon being reprimanded for dragging a smaller playmate by the heels and generally abusing him, my young nephew Tony Hornthai and playmate replied, “Oh, we didn’t hurt him—we were just playing Germany. We were Germans, so we knocked Earl down and jumped on him.” . . .

War lords at 3½! Trend of the times ?

LOUISE LANE Tarboro, N. C.

Honest Discharge

Sirs:

Has TIME disclosed a national sensation or is the Federal Government engaging in municipal practices?

In this week’s issue (TIME, May 20) under caption of “Sweetwater Swatter,” p. 44, you state, “Private Jenkins bought himself out of the Army, went back to Dallas to pick up more fights.”

Rumor has it that such practices were a Civil War scandal when the sons of idle rich were allowed to buy substitutes for enlistment and that the Russian Army in Tsar days of corruption allowed wealthy soldiers to “buy themselves out of the Army.”

Since when does the United States Army allow dollars and cents to influence an oath of enlistment and violation of regulations, etc., plus cost of training men, by payment as substitute for term of enlistment. If so, who receives the payment when a man is allowed to buy himself out? . . .

ALBERT G. BERGMAN

Los Angeles, Calif.

— After one year’s service an enlisted man may buy his way out of the U. S. Army in peacetime for $120 to $160, depending on where stationed. The sum is calculated to make a man think twice, also to repay partial cost of training, transportation, salary > etc.—ED.

Clean-Shaven

Sirs:

CORRECTION P. 21 ISSUE MAY 20 FLORIDA’S LEADING GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, WEARS NO MUSTACHE, DUDE, SQUIRREL-TAIL OR HANDLEBARS. HE IS CLEAN-SHAVEN AND CLEAN IN HIS POLITICS. I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR YEARS AND AS STATE SENATOR HE HAS BEEN STANCH SUPPORTER OUR FISH AND GAME CONSERVATION MEASURES. . . .

DAVE NEWELL

Leesburg, Fla.

> TIME’S correspondent saw a mustache mirage. Herewith a true, clean-shaven likeness of Florida’s handsome, iron-grey, 48-year-old State Senator Spessard Lindsey Holland.—ED.

Persona Non Grata

Sirs:

Since you published the facts about the life of Edda [TIME, July 24] you are very decidedly persona non grata in Italy and TIME only enters Italy through “bootleg methods.”

It may interest you to know that the only TIME magazine we could find in three weeks of intensive touring in Italy, and looking for TIME magazine, was comfortably padlocked to the reading desk of the American Express Company in Genoa. There was a waiting list of five people the day we were privileged to see it and the Express Company said it was the first copy they had received in two months.

DR. & MRS. NELSON D. BRAYTON

Aboard President Adams

Genoa, Italy

Furniture Fame

Sirs:

I am probably just one of many who are writing concerning the careless statement in regard to Grand Rapids furniture in the May 20 issue under Art. [“Grand Rapids is famed in the U. S. for its cheap, machine-made furniture.”]

I am the third generation here in our neighborhood store, and we have been proud of the fact that our floor has almost nothing but Grand Rapids furniture on it. If I had the opportunity of talking with, and showing, your Art editor a glimpse of the extent and quality of our famous lines, I know he would certainly regret his offhand statement belittling generations of skilled craftsmen who have personally been responsible for Grand Rapids’ justly famous reputation.

I have spent much enjoyable time going through our factories, and have seen the details of construction and finish worked out, and four times a year at our markets see the style leaders of the country first displayed here. It is perhaps true that Grand Rapids has lost in volume of merchandise shipped, but it is the undisputed leader in workmanship arid styling. It is not cheap, in price or construction, and when I sell it to my friends I can feel proud to know they have the best.

This letter may be poorly expressed, but my grandfather, a Dutchman, was a wood-finisher in his younger days before opening our store, and he and my father have instilled in me a love and a pride in our city’s products that even my regard for TIME cannot quench.

EDWARD LAMBERTS JR.

Grand Rapids, Mich.

— Reader Lamberts is quite right. Grand Rapids’ craftsmen include the best, its production consists mainly of medium to high-priced period furniture. It is not fair to speak of it as the home of cheap machine-made furniture, but that is its unearned reputation nonetheless.—ED,

Indian Bible

Sirs:

Are you quite sure that John Eliot, Indians’ Apostle (Religion, May 20), translated the whole bible? Wasn’t he the man who, being a true Puritan, only translated the Old Testament? He felt that all the Indians needed to become good Christians was a knowledge of the history of the Jews and their God Jehovah and so didn’t translate the New Testament for them: which is merely a history of Christ and his teachings.

I have always heard this example cited of how far off the track Puritans had gotten. . . .

SARAH DRAPER

Englewood, N. J.

— On the contrary, John Eliot translated the New Testament first; his translation of the Old Testament appeared two years later (1663).—ED.

Inertia?

Sirs:

I wonder where does the youth of this country stand on the question of the fifth column. After all we, who have never known anything but freedom, have the most to lose. Yet I suspect that most of us still regard the threat of totalitarianism as something remote from our personal lives, and I am afraid that the ignorance of what it might mean to us individually, as well as collectively, has even made a few of us, who are dissatisfied with present conditions for one reason or another, members or sympathizers of the fifth column. And yet, if someone were telling us what to eat, how much clothing to buy, if we were afraid to talk lest our neighbor be a Government agent, if we couldn’t criticize whomsoever or whatsoever we wanted, if we couldn’t occasionally see a Joe Louis, Hank Greenberg, Jack Benny or Marian Anderson perform because of accident of birth or ancestry, if we couldn’t do a million and one more things merely because we felt like it, and not because the powers that be permitted or prescribed it, I believe some of these sympathizers would be among the first to grumble (if allowed). I personally cannot envision enjoying such an existence or the prospect of raising my children in such an America. But yet we sit back seemingly apathetic as a group and the only voice of youth heard is a small cringing cry of “Peace, Peace,” wrapped in ribbon with a slight tinge of red. Is it really indifference or inertia or is it merely the lack of any organization ? There must be millions of Americans under 30 who would gladly take time out from their absorption in their personal worries and cares to protest against and actively combat these “fifth column tapeworms.” We should have fifty columns fighting the fifth column. . . .

EDWARD DURCHSLAG

Chicago, Ill.

Fine, Clean Youth

Sirs:

This is no quibble. Nor is it a nibble for publicity for Queenie and Sally, whom you ruthlessly describe as “a pair of old Los Angeles elephants” (TIME, May 13, in its review of One Million B.C.).

Queenie and Sally are not Los Angeles elephants. They are Indian elephants. They are not old. Contrarily, they are quite young, 25 and 28.

It is important that these canards be quickly nailed, else these baby dumplings will be classed as “native character actors” rather than “exotic ingenues” by Hollywood casting directors.

That is bad. For it will considerably lower their salary. It will also affect my income to buy their hay. That is worse.

As your Elephant Editor should know, the life expectancy of an elephant is somewhat longer than that of a man, principally because of the cleaner, finer life the former lead. . : .

FRANK WHITBECK

Culver City, Calif.

> To two demure young elephants, TIME’S apologies. — ED.

Stanford University’s Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur did not refuse a Nazi decoration—he was never offered one.—ED.