Letters, May 13, 1940

Too Good to be True

Sirs:

TIME’S breezy and authentic sounding pages under the captions World War and Foreign News in the April 22 issue at first quite swept me off my feet. Gradually, however, I was asking myself “What’s wrong with all these stories?”

They sounded too good to be true. Would it not be more convincing if TIME along with almost all other U. S. publications painted the Allied prospects and aims a little less brightly and Germany’s a little less darkly?

R. FRANCIS Suffern, N. Y.

> TIME calls the shots as it sees them—and TIME looks hard. The U. S. press as a whole does likewise. In any contest, including war, it is the job of an honest press to present the facts fairly on both sides. But it is not the job of an honest press to make every contest look like a draw as to aims and probable outcome—not if available facts indicate that it isn’t a draw.

Newsmen who sit at the end of the cables spot and discount plenty of propaganda that comes in. They are also partly protected by their jobs from that special form of propaganda which says that all news received from abroad is propaganda. They know for example:

> That although Allies and Germans tend to slur over their defeats, the communiqués issued by the actual military and naval commands of both sides are generally reliable and generally in the long run confirm each other. (Exception: accounts of air raids. Aviators of both sides swooping in at 300 m.p.h. through a barrage, dropping their bombs and getting out in a hurry are likely to overestimate damage done.)

>That U. S. correspondents on the scene in Germany thoroughly-distrust the news releases of the official press bureau (Dr. Goebbels); that all such correspondents, when they get out, give much more unfavorable accounts of economic and social conditions in Germany than the cables generally carry. — That U. S. correspondents in France have been able to learn virtually nothing.

> That U. S. correspondents on the scene in England generally credit any military information which the Government gives out with reservations about what may not be revealed; that the British press often jumps hopefully to unwarranted conclusions from spare official announcements. (Example: that Narvik had been occupied because British ships had sunk all the German destroyers there.)

>That reports from Sweden are subject to such errors as are inevitable because of rumor and distance from the scene of battle but that if they are repeated long enough they generally prove to have substance; that in Sweden, as elsewhere, the worst published misstatements have resulted from laymen leaping to false conclusions about military situations. (Example: that a major naval battle took place in the Skagerrak because heavy explosions—probably depth charges, air bombings etc.—were heard on the shore.)

Knowing these things, the U. S. press has an opportunity to present news that is not merely authentic sounding but generally authentic. But if Reader Francis thinks TIME indicated that the Allies were having a walkover he misread its pages.—ED.

Dissociated from Adam

Sirs:

I have just received a letter from my friend Jacob Epstein which seems to me to deserve publicity. I quote the following: “I am writing to you and some other friends in America to let you know that the manner of showing my statue Adam owes nothing to me. The statue does not belong to me and is shown in America entirely ‘commercially.’ . . . The company that now owns Adam has no other aim than to advertise the statue and my name along with it. … For sculpture, for art, they care nothing. I am in no way responsible for their actions, their advertisements, their vulgarities.

“I write this so that if your attention is called to this exposition of my sculpture you should know that I dissociate myself from its exhibition in America.”

JOHN DEWEY

New York City

>Disappointing is Sculptor Epstein’s neglect to explain to his good friend Philosopher John Dewey why he lately changed his mind about Adam. He was reported as saying of the second English exhibit: “My first reaction was rage. . . . But on second thought I have changed my mind. After all, art is for everybody or it is nothing. . . .” —ED.

Republican Trend

Sirs:

TIME, April 15: “Dr. George Gallup’s pollsters by last week had piled up evidence . . . of a steady decline in the Democratic fortunes . . . every prospect of a clear Republican victory in November.”

TIME, April 22: “Last week even political experts woke up to a fact as plain as the nose on Uncle Sam’s face: that the U. S. was going Republican as fast, as it decently could.”

Dr. George Gallup, April 21: “The Democrats are out in front . . . and if the election were today the indications are that the Democratic party would lead in 31 of the 48 States.”

Every unbiased political observer knows that although the Democratic Party has lost much ground since 1936, ever since the European war started last fall the trend has been toward the Democratic Party and away from the Republicans. This is borne out by the Gallup Polls.

Apparently TIME, not the U. S., is going Republican as fast as it decently can.

RUSSELL W. CHEW

Wilkinsburg, Pa.

Sirs:

It would be interesting to know on what basis you seem to belittle the chances of a Democratic victory in November—your recent issues are a little at variance with a recent Gallup Poll in which a Democratic trend was shown in New York, Pennsylvania and Indiana. In your issue of April 22, pp. 14 and 15, you certainly give comfort to the Republican optimists—perhaps they need it!!

A. D. DRAUGHAN

Miami, Fla.

Sirs:

While there is probably some trend away from Democrats—I can see no basis for such extravagant language in view of latest Gallup Poll. . . .

Do you admit you’re in error? or how come?

J. MARSHALL

Cleveland, Ohio

Sirs:

Your comment on the election in TIME of April 15 saying that the Gallup Poll points to a Republican victory in November is on a par with the Literary Digest forecast in 1936. . . .

JOS. BUKY

Idaho Falls, Idaho

Sirs:

. . . Are TIME readers to understand that TIME has forehand knowledge of what the final political box score will show?

NORMAN O. TIETJENS

Washington, D. C.

> TIME is not going Republican (or Democratic), is not predicting the outcome of the election. It has tried to underscore visible and significant facts. Dr. Gallup and others reported the Democrats still ahead in recent polls. But the election is next fall, not last month. So trend is of paramount importance. Since 1936 when the Democrats polled 62½% of the major party vote, 8½% of the voters, according to Dr. Gallup’s figures, have shifted to the G. O. P. More important, in local elections this year the shift has averaged 5½% outside the South, 7½% in the nation at large. This trend may be reversed but trends often have a way of keeping going. If the trend goes 3% further in New York, Indiana, Minnesota, Idaho, Wyoming, the G. O. P. would have an electoral majority by Gallup’s figures. Regardless of the final outcome, TIME believes the trend is big news now.—ED.

Going Army

Sirs:

I have the self-appointed mission of pointing out gross inaccuracies in press pieces about the U. S. Army. Professional officers are gagged. I am not.

In your article “New Army” in the April 8 issue, the statement is made that the Chief of Staff of the United States Army could put on a mythical firing line five infantry divisions, two cavalry divisions and supplementary troops, and one regular army corps. This force would be a mob, since there is no corps, army, or G. H. Q. staff organization, and none in the United States. This force would be a mob because it has never operated as a combat team, and would require from six months’ to a year’s training to function properly.

I cannot speak for the condition of the five motorized infantry divisions, but I can state flatly that the U. S. Army does NOT have two cavalry divisions. It has one division, horse, sadly in need of tactical training, and with an inefficient skeletonized divisional staff that has never functioned properly, even in maneuvers. In addition, there is one cavalry brigade, mechanized, whose tactical functioning in the Plattsburg maneuvers this summer was lamentable, to say the least. This brigade, to which could be added two corps reconnaissance regiments recently organized, and which have never functioned with other units, does not in any sense of the word, constitute a cavalry division.

In view of our experience in the last war, the release of optimistic and laudatory statements about our inadequate and inefficient defense forces seems to me to be contrary to public interest.

LEONARD H. NASON

New York City

> Like Fictionist-Scenarist Leonard Hastings (“Steamer”) Nason, World War I hero, Cavalry Reserves major, Mutual Broadcasting’s “Military Analyst,” TIME well knows that the Regular Army is not complete as to personnel or equipment. But the over-all truth of TIME’S story stands: the Regular Army for the first time is a going, not a skeleton, army.—ED.

Historic Phrase

Sirs:

You were among the first ones to use the expression “fifth column.” What is the origin of the saying and what are the other four?

DR. MARCUS SCHRAMM

New York City

> Inventor of the historic phrase was Franco’s General Emilio Mola. Said he, in a broadcast after the fall of Toledo: “We have four columns advancing upon Madrid. The fifth column [sympathizers within the city] will rise at the proper time.” Loyalist response: wholesale executions in Madrid.—ED.

Credit Rockefeller

Sirs:

Your article on Negro health (TIME, April 8) is a brilliant and informing review. I am amazed that so much significant material could be so graphically portrayed in such a brief space.

Just one suggestion. While you pay a tribute to the Julius Rosenwald Fund, which we appreciate, the fact is that the Rockefeller Boards have contributed the really substantial sums to Negro medical education and health. In fact, in the whole field of Negro and southern welfare the Rockefeller Foundation and General Education Board have put in ten times as much as the Rosenwald Fund. Since we have not large funds, we accomplish a great part of our results by consultation and stimulation; our officers are constantly in the field close to the firing lines. Thus we sometimes get more credit for results than we deserve.

EDWIN R. EMBREE

President

Julius Rosenwald Fund Chicago, Ill.

Larder

Sirs:

TIME, April 22, under World War: “Denmark produces one-half of the entire world supply of bacon, one-quarter of the butter, one-quarter of the eggs. . . . Denmark grows most of the fodder needed to feed its 564,000 horses, 2,845,000 pigs, 3,183,000 cattle, 27,600,000 cocks and hens.”

The Dept. of Agriculture furnishes the following figures as of Jan. 1939, for the U. S. alone:

Swine Cattle Chickens

49,011,000 66,821,800 412,647,000

Considerable inaccuracy would appear to mark your statement. Just what statistical information was intended?

SARAH LOUISE TYLER

San Antonio, Texas

Sirs:

In your issue of TIME, April 22, p. 24, at the bottom of the second column, you say: Denmark “is almost self-sufficient. Denmark grows most of the fodder needed to feed its [horses, pigs, cattle, cocks and hens].”

It has frequently been stated by other writers, by radio commentators, and by the Foreign Policy Association that Denmark is far from self-sufficient and the impression given is that Germany will gain temporarily by raiding the Danish larder, but that the present output of dairy products can only be maintained by devising some means of getting fodder to Denmark from the east of Europe since Germany has no surplus herself. Economists whom I have asked about this matter tell me that statistics support the latter view.

Will you be so kind as to give me the source of your information upon which your statement is based? I have made several public statements recently which will have to be modified extensively if your statement is correct, and my figures are in error, and I am therefore very much interested in the matter.

CHARLES B. REALEY Professor of History University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.

> TIME’S figures were correct but badly stated—Denmark produced one-half of the bacon, one-quarter of the butter, eggs in international trade. As to self-sufficiency: in 1936, a typical year, only about 13% of Danish grain and fodder was imported—which is not to minimize Germany’s future troubles in supplying that quantity. Authorities: Statesman’s Year-Book, League of Nations Statistical Year-Book 1938-39, The Northern Countries in World Economy and Denmark 1937 (both official publications).—ED.

Air Strength

Sirs:

I sent your comments [TIME, Mar. 18] on the alleged great numerical superiority of the German Air strength over the Allies to the editor of one of our most important newspapers. Here is his reply: “Dear Mr. Horler:

Thank you for your letter and enclosure. The figures are not accepted as accurate by our Air Ministry.

The general impression seems to be that the enemy air strength is numerically slightly greater than that of France and Britain, but that the situation will change soon in our favour.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Robert J. Prew

Acting Editor

The Daily Mail

London”

SYDNEY HORLER Newquay, Cornwall, England

— As Reader Horler, author of 70 thrillers, knows, any statement about such a high military secret as the air strength of a nation at war is naturally an estimate and subject to dispute. TIME purposely avoided any figures from belligerent sources. Its figures (showing the German Air Force with 22,550 ships to 23,025 for France and Britain combined) were obtained from the best U. S. sources available and so labeled.—ED.

To Lady Diana Duff Cooper

Sirs;

I, too, am a “typical” young American who has visited the English people, the German, and the French, and my opinion of the European situation is that of the “typical” American Lady Cooper mentioned in her letter (April 22). The idea that, should Germany rule Europe and the seas, her next step would be in our direction is preposterous! As if she wouldn’t have enough on her hands keeping down all her subdued countries—even for the short duration they probably will remain under her control.

England is at war with Germany because she feels her domineering role threatened. The attitude of the majority of her people toward the United States—unless they have visited us—has always been one of contempt and derision—until our need is felt as in the last World War. Then it changes and we are told, “Look what is happening to your English-speaking countrymen. Unless you lend a hand this may easily happen to you.” And I say it won’t! . . .

Our greatest problem today is to prevent the mass hysteria that may possibly envelop us if certain of our leaders continue to keep pushing us seemingly ever closer to conflict.

A young—and red-blooded—American

WILLIAM CROMER

Bridgeport, Conn.

Sirs:

Most things pass over my skin with a laugh, but not that sticking-out-all-over-with-propaganda letter of Lady Whosis. If TIME is misled by such politico-effusions, TIME’S better informed reader is not. . . .

E. DICKINSON

Los Angeles, Calif.

Sirs:

Thank you for printing the letter from Lady Diana Duff Cooper in your issue of April 22. It is the most deeply moving piece of reporting I have read concerning the war.

ALLEN VINCENT

Keen Camp, Calif.

Sirs:

The letter from Lady Diana Duff Cooper which you published in part was highly entertaining, both for her comments and the engaging way she presents them.

One thing puzzled her, viz., a young American, she relates, berated England though at the same time disclaiming any sympathy whatever for Nazidom. If I may make so bold I think I know the answer.

From conversations with young university students with definite leftish leanings (not to be wondered at considering how many teachers and professors have their spiritual home in Moscow—though annoyed if one calls them anything but liberals), I have frequently been struck with this similarity in their views: England is the outstanding object of their hate, as standing for the worst in Imperialism, perhaps because she appears in their minds as the source of capitalism. Germany also used to be anathema, but was not reviled as England was. India, South Africa and other “conquests” were often cited; the fact that these occurred from one to several generations ago counted little. Yet Norway’s, Poland’s, Czecho-Slovakia’s, Austria’s woes are current. Why worry about the 17th and 18th Centuries? . . .

J. P. DERINGER

New York City