Letters: Pearl Harbor Report

Sirs: Why shouldn’t all of us admit our respective parts in the Pearl Harbor disaster? It was common knowledge that “we can knock out the Jap Navy in two weeks,” and that complacent attitude, plus that of the must-not-offenders, plus those who fought even inadequate preparedness, gave the Japs their opportunity.

It seems to me that the whole combined report [TIME, Sept. 10] could be replaced by a simple statement that, like the rest of the U.S., the Hawaiian commands and personnel were on weekends and binges and the Japs simply picked the ideal time for their dirty work.

Such being the case, who among us “shall cast the first stone?” E. CHAT. SHANKS

Baltimore

“Don’t Make Us Do Both”

Sirs:

. . . We, the so-called veterans of the Pacific war, are watching with keen interest the efforts of Congress to call an immediate halt to the drafting of men, and to prevent any further movement of troops to the Pacific area for the dirty job of policing Japan. Frankly, we don’t like it. We can see easily the side of the story presented by the “Stateside” soldiers. We can understand why men and their families wish the draft to be halted. We can see it because we have been through it. But what about us?

There are many hundreds of thousands of us who have been here for anywhere from twelve to 30 months. Here in the Pacific are the men who fought back in the Philippines, myself and my own buddies who lived the nightmare of Iwo Jima, the survivors of Okinawa and Tarawa, and Saipan. What about us? …

What we ask is that the President be backed in his request to continue the draft of younger men in order that we may get the same consideration that our Congress is so willing to give to those who have not yet seen service, or have not yet seen action. Policing is a nasty job, but so was Iwo Jima. Don’t make us do both. . . .

(MARINE CORPS OFFICER’S NAME WITHHELD) c/o Fleet Post Office San Francisco

Hostilities v. Emergency

Sirs:

In TIME [Aug. 20] it is stated that “the draft will not be ended until President Truman or Congress proclaims ‘termination of hostilities.’ ” Is it true that we of the armed forces are enlisted or inducted for the period of the duration of hostilities plus six months or for the duration of the emergency plus six months? Which is correct? . . .

THOMAS P. JOHNSTON Ft. Meade, Md.

¶I The emergency plus six months. And the emergency will last until Congress or the President says that it is over.—ED.

Tourists in Tokyo?

Sirs:

In your article on the Japanese surrender in the Sept. 3 issue of TIME, you say that the Japs were treating their invaders “as equals.” I submit that they are treating them as “tourists,” guests of the Emperor and of the empire. It is the same old propaganda line of prewar, days. . . .

We must remember that the surrender of the Japanese served their purpose, and may in the long run prove to be only a truce. While submitting to occupation, the Japanese are keeping their sovereignty; we licked their Navy but not their Government nor their people. They meant business at Pearl Harbor and they still mean business. They saved face by a change of face; they intend to wait a while longer. . . . It will be an uneasy peace. We are dealing with a warped, suicidal and unforgiving race.

Now the Japanese will go back to their old game of imitating democracy—democracy in so far, they will make it plain, as it does not interfere with their fanatical Emperor worship. . . . The Emperor will remain a son of the Sun, instead of what our fighting men have long called him. And underneath it all the spirit of bushido will remain unbroken.

S. M. BRADLEY Morehead, Ky.

Memo to Hollywood

Sirs:

No matter how hard I find it to digest parts of your magazine, I confess to getting the biggest kick out of your pickle-pussed Cinema editor. He, or she, can sure fling a wicked but clever review. The review of Uncle Harry [TIME, Aug. 27] is typical. I find myself going to the movies more often just to see if they are as bad as TIME says they are. They are.

WILLIAM L. HART Austin, Tex.

¶It’s he.—ED.

Arms & the Men

Sirs:

Myriads of thanks to TIME [Aug. 27] for its clean-cut expose of what us amputees have to contend with. Having an artificial arm that fits like a ten-gallon hat on a cherubic head, I appreciate the truth as revealed by your magazine. . . .

(SERVICEMAN’S NAME WITHHELD) New York City

Sirs:

. . . The Committee on Prosthetic Devices of the National Research Council was organized as the result of a conference called in Chicago by the National Research Council at the request of the Surgeon General of the Army . . . to consider the problem of standardizing artificial limbs and to advise the Surgeon General. It became quickly apparent in the course of the conference that although much ingenuity had gone into the mechanisms of artificial limbs, the whole problem had never had the benefit of sound engineering or systematic research and development. . . .

Although the Committee has had only five months of existence it has already made a systematic survey of the problems to be solved. . . . Projects are being developed and contracts negotiated with highly qualified organizations to do the necessary research and development.

It must be remembered that even the best conceivable artificial arm or leg can be but an inadequate substitute for the member it replaces. . . .

In the matter of new inventions the Committee is overlooking no bets. . . . The Committee has visited several of the amputation centers of the services, and it may be fairly said that its members have full knowledge and appreciation of the problems. They know how intensely the amputees hope and wish for something much better than is now available. Cooperation with Army and Navy hospitals and the limb manufacturers is assured, but research and development in a field which, like this one, has challenged the ingenuity of inventors for many decades, cannot promise sensational or startling advances in the art. . . .

PAUL E. KLOPSTEG Chairman

Committee on Prosthetic Devices of the National Research Council Evanston, Ill.

Sirs:

. . . Disapproval of governmental operation of artificial limb manufacture is widespread in our industry. We believe the mass production of artificial limbs by the Army and Navy should now be abandoned as a policy, and particularly the present system of fitting limbs with insufficiently trained enlisted personnel. The Veterans Administration should adopt a more realistic and equitable policy in purchasing artificial limbs so that a veteran may actually be enabled to select the best limb available for his case. The American public wants him to have this choice, but present Veterans Administration policy prevents him from making it.

A. P. GRUMAN

President

Winkley Artificial Limb Co. Minneapolis

Radio Ratings

Sirs:

We wish to correct an error in fact in your article about Norman Corwin [TIME, Aug. 27]. It states that in his recently concluded summer sustaining series “Corwin’s Hooper rating dropped to the lowest of all bigtime evening shows.” Actually the series built steadily to a 6.2 Hooper rating as of the period Aug. 1-7 (the last report currently available). Instead of a drop, this represents an audience increase of 106% in six weeks. The average Hooper rating for all evening programs on all networks in this latest period was 5.7; Corwin’s was therefore 9% higher than average. Moreover, Corwin’s rating surpassed that of nearly two-thirds of all nighttime commercial broadcasts. . . .

DOUGLAS COULTER Vice President in Charge of Programs Columbia Broadcasting System Inc. New York City

¶There are “ratings” galore in the radio business. TIME’S Radio editor and researcher, who should have known better, used the wrong set of Hooper ratings.—ED.

Indignant Citizen

Sirs:

. . . Remember that false U.P. flash on Japan’s surrender? An I.N.S. man here told me it was obvious that that flash was a phony. For example, the flash bore a number, and flashes never bear numbers. And worst of all, the phrasing of the flash was all wrong. The message was a complete sentence. . . . That is not flash language at all.

My I.N.S. friend says that anybody who was both honest and experienced would immediately have smelled a rat. . . . He can’t understand why the hell the radio people run for their microphones without first thinking a little. Neither can I.

I think there is one hell of a lot of dishonesty in radio’s handling of news, and I think a public service will be performed by the publication which points it out. . . .

I honestly think that the most decent job on the networks is done by that old kitten-ball player, Lowell Thomas. He at least keeps calm. His stuff seems to have been carefully edited. He helps his audiences by saying, “This is significant,” or “Here is an item which I have my doubts about.”

The little stations all over the country, with their news broadcasts sponsored by the local advertisers, perform almost criminally.

This is a howl from an indignant citizen. W. F. ALLISON Lieutenant, U.S.N.R. Washington

Now It’s “Celery Week”

Sirs:

Your Science section [TIME, Sept. 3] records as “other inventions announced last week” the invention by one Nick Engel of Wisconsin, of “pre-salted celery” produced by treating soil with 1,000 lbs. of salt per acre before planting.

For your information, Utah’s “self-salted” celery was announced by wire services on Oct. 16, 1942. It is grown without artificial salting, in the valley where the recession of prehistoric Lake Bonneville to what is now known as the Great Salt Lake deposited natural salts in the land, leaving .4 of i% of salts, more than is permissible for many crops. Nick’s experiment simulated Utah soil, but he failed to import Utah climate, which provides for the growth of Utah’s huge stalks of crisp, white, stringless sweetheart celery.

Utah, during Celery Week, Nov. 11 to 17, will ship 500 carloads of Utah celery and a score of thousands of gift boxes to at least 45 of the 48 states of the union, of which one will be to the editor of TIME for comparison with Wisconsin’s synthetic product.

STEPHEN J. MOLONEY Salt Lake City, Utah

¶ TIME’S editor likes Colorado celery, too.—ED.

What an Acknowledgment!

Sirs: What an acknowledgment of error: “a grey prison-made suit with $10 of the State’s money” after twelve years’ imprisonment on false testimony obtained under duress. While nothing could make full retribution to the individual in a case such as this, surely a State should feel financial liability to the extent of assistance until suitable permanent employment could be found—if greater financial compensation is impossible under existing laws. Thanks to TIME [Aug. 27] and the Chicago Daily Times for publishing the story of Joe Majczek and his mother.

ANN CORCORAN Pullman, Wash.