Letters, Jul. 29, 1940

Relief of Nazi Victims

Sirs:

Our Chapters are being bombarded with questions from those who are very fearful that some of our supplies may get in the hands of Germany. There is apparently a growing feeling now against even sending supplies to France. In order to give as concrete an answer as is possible and advisable just now, I have issued a press release. . . .

While of course no one wants to help Hitler or lighten his burden, it would be a tragedy for the children of France, who have grown up with the conception of freedom, to be allowed to starve, but there are many hurdles to be gotten over in regard to helping them, aside from any question of fundamental policy.

In spite of all the bad breaks, principally the collapse of France, the Red Cross drive has gone remarkably well. . . .

NORMAN H. DAVIS

Chairman

American Red Cross

Washington, D. C.

Mr. Davis’ statement:

“It is the policy of the American Red Cross to extend relief where it is most urgently needed providing it has the necessary freedom of action and safeguards for carrying out the distribution of its supplies to the actual victims, whether refugees or war-wounded soldiers.

“At present there are three distinct areas where such need exists and where assistance has been requested: first, Great Britain, second, the unoccupied portion of France, and third, those territories under German occupation.

“With regard to the first we have set up an American Red Cross Committee in England and are sending medical, hospital equipment, clothing and other supplies, including food, as rapidly as tonnage is available.

“With regard to the unoccupied portion of France the SS McKeesport, loaded with all sorts of supplies and enjoying safe conduct from the British blockade authorities, is now headed for Marseille where its cargo will be distributed to the millions of refugees and war-wounded in Southern France under the direction of American Red Cross representatives. . . .

“With regard to the third area, namely occupied territory, we have been extending aid in Poland with funds contributed for that specific purpose. This program is under American Red Cross supervision, thus safeguarding control over the ultimate destination of supplies. As for other occupied territories, aid to the sick and wounded and to refugees, particularly children, is being extended only in Paris and vicinity. . . .

“Beyond this limited activity the American Red Cross is not extending any relief in the occupied portions of France. There are certain questions of policy and inherent difficulties, such as blockade, transportation, delivery and control of distribution which, at the present time, are most difficult of solution. The needs for relief which are daily increasing in the areas where we are now operating and in which we may operate in the future will require continuing large outlays.

“In this connection I want to point out that none of the supplies of the Red Cross have been interfered with by any Government or diverted from the needy for whom the supplies were intended. . . .

” Young Men

Sirs:

A letter from an Ethel H. Barrow, p. 3 and 4, in the July 8 issue of TIME prompts me to rise to the defense of the “Young men of today . . .” whom she describes as having “no will to win,” “. . . have a shockingly immoral attitude toward them [women],” “. . . have yet to learn that one cannot take without giving. . . .” She closes her condemnation with the remark that as far as she can see, “the young men of America deserve to be shot” because she believes that war is nature’s way of getting rid of bad people. . . .

The young men, yes, and the young women of today are faced with a future which is clouded with uncertainty and danger. We are not concerned with blaming our elders for some of the conditions which confront us, but we are concerned with and determined to recognize these problems and their causes. . . .

As for our attitude toward war—we don’t want to fight! What sane, rational, American wants to? BUT if and when our American ideals and our American way of life are challenged … we “pampered youths” will answer that challenge. . . .

RALPH H. SPOTTS JR.

Beverly Hills, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . Let Miss Barrow know that: 1) the average American youth will fight to the death if you call him an S— of a B , if you defame his best girl, if you call him a Communist, if Hitler actively threatens our Democracy; 2) he’s in somewhat of a whirl trying to figure out his future livelihood, but has faith in American ideals and is anxious to cooperate in every way if it points to happiness for the majority; 3) he’s an apparently carefree fellow, but beneath the veneer of “Let George Do It” he’ll give a friend the shirt off his back, and will break an arm to mend an immoral wrong; 4) he admires President Roosevelt, but is against a Third Term . . . because he believes that a President is, after all, a mere mortal, and generally uncovers all his miracles in eight years; 5) he feels that lots of young fellows are immoral because lots of young girls prefer them that way—but he’s always on the alert to hearken to wedding bells when the “right girl” comes along; 6) he’s going to night school so that he’ll be prepared when “things open up”; 7)—well, he’s a darned good kid and America need have no fears so long as American parents continue to be American parents. . . .

The above represents findings among some 500 youths, ranging in age from 15 to 25, from unemployed to WPA workers, truck drivers, clerks, salesmen, Big Business, college students. . . .

ABE LEMES

Oakland, Calif.

— Reader Barrow’s blast against U. S. Youth moved some 60 TIME-readers to reply. Almost none agreed with her. —Ed.

Naval Tonnages

Sirs:

TIME rarely errs—yet it made several mistakes in the July 1 issue. … In the main I might say that I entirely agree with your conclusions as to the type of war that could take place . . . between Japan and the U. S.

Until the U. S. has a numerically superior fleet of capital ships, such as the new Iowa class under construction, a naval war with Japan is out of the question because of the distance consideration. Which brings me to your first error, your horrible selection of John Paul Jones and the Bonhomme Richard as an example. Your position is that Jones, without a naval base, brought the war to the British Coast and that therefore the distance viewpoint is not 100% accurate. The plain fact is that John Paul Jones operated out of a French base, Brest. France was then at war with England also. His ship was actually an old French merchant ship, his three consorts (Alliance, Pallas and Vengeance) were commanded by French officers, manned by French seamen. Of Jones’s own crew more than half were non-American. The captured Serapis was given to France. About the only things American about this whole fight were Jones, Richard Dale, and the American flag flying, when the Richard settled to the bottom. . . .

This point is minor to the broad issue raised by your figures of Japanese and American tonnage with map, page 15. In most cases I have been unable even to approximate yours, no matter how liberal I have been on the subject “effective tonnage.” Your main fault has been to overestimate Japanese strength, underestimate U. S. I enclose detailed statements as to my tonnage figures. I might add that to the best of my information and belief, Japanese construction since 1938 has practically stopped. All available metal has gone to the Army, not the Navy, to carry on the war in China. The same situation is true in Germany, for there work stopped on all prewar naval construction save submarines and perhaps some destroyers. So the U. S. steadily enlarges upon the 5:3 ratio with Japan; but it is not yet able to defend Asia, needs only one half its present fleet in the Pacific to prevent a western descent on the U. S. . . . WM. H. DAVIS

Correspondent Jane’s Fighting Ships Jackson Heights, N. Y.

> Reader Davis apparently misunderstood TIME’S reference to the Bonhomme Richard, which was merely one example of how an inferior force can sometimes beat a superior one.

In TIME’S tables of Japanese and U. S. tonnage, account was taken only of ships of each nation actually in the Pacific. Reader Davis adds to TIME’S list four U. S. battleships of the Atlantic fleet, subtracts four Japanese ships which have maneuvered and are ready to fight in the Pacific.

TIME’S information is that neither Japanese nor German construction has ceased. — ED.

Willkie Spearhead

Sirs:

In this week’s TIME we notice that TIME gives credit to Mr. Lloyd Marsh, Passaic County leader, for the support given to Mr. Willkie by the New Jersey delegation.

In no way do I want to disparage the personal support Mr. Marsh gave Mr. Willkie but the situation should be clarified. We greatly appreciate the support Mr. Marsh and the other New Jersey delegates gave Mr. Willkie. The president and organizer of the 168 Willkie-for-President Clubs in New Jersey (which represent more than a quarter of the entire 425 clubs located throughout the country) is Mr. Donald J. Smith of Montclair — a schoolmate and lifelong personal friend of Mr. Willkie’s. The facts of the matter are that due to the intensive drive of the Clubs and their workers, New Jersey became the spearhead of the Willkie-for-President Club movement in the U. S. . . .

From the continuous work carried on by Mr. Smith and myself with the delegates, prior to and during the Convention, we were able to report to the Volunteer Committee in New York City . . . that there would be twelve votes cast for Mr. Willkie on the first ballot, 20 on the second, 25 on the third, with a possible 28 votes as a maximum. The actual vote cast was twelve on the first ballot, 17 on the second, 19 on the third . . . and a unanimous vote of 32 on the sixth ballot.

AGNES JONES GIFFORD

Secretary

Associated Willkie for President Clubs

South Orange, N. J.