LETTERS

"Only Pleasant Features"

Sirs:

The women of the world owe a debt of gratitude to Publisher George Putnam and to TIME for the reproduction of the photograph "Living Death," TIME, March 21. The picture of a well-groomed British officer in his uniform, close cut hair, firm lower jaw, straight gazing brave eye--and NO FACE between; caption quoted from army dictum: ''only the pleasant features of war."

It is an insult to the courage of Gold Star Mothers to insinuate that they whose Sons rest in "lovely cemeteries" would be willing to hold back any measure that may help to inculcate the grim actuality of war.

It must be remembered that there are also innumerable women who for long years have been feeding, dressing, guarding an army of derelicts, armless, legless, blind, faceless, gas-etched trunks, and shellshocked, insane minds. You may not often see one. They are kept close, cherished from indecent display, but they exist and THEY are the army of martyrs.

This is the physical side. There is besides the mental horror of remorse of the murderer who killed without hate, "by order."

The statement, "pleasant features of war," is an insult to the minds and hearts of all civilized human beings.

MRS. ANNA KINGHAN

Erwinna, Pa.

Sirs:

TIME'S characteristically veracious report of Mr. Putnam's efforts to obtain sanction from the War Department for the use of pictures from its files illustrating the horrors of war is excellent in its frankness. That General Carrs refusal to acquiesce to the scheme should be based on the preservation of Gold Star Mothers' memories seems, however, a trifle lame as an alibi. Granted that the patriotic side of wars should be preserved, it is still unnecessary, foolish, harmful to prevent the public assimilation of truth. May the book, however grisly, impress citizens who pay millions in taxes for wholesale slaughters past and present, with the necessity for peace and the frightfulness of the combats that their taxes support.

RODERICK McKENZIE

Princeton, N. J.

Sirs:

The War Department also has a "moral obligation" to the Gold Star Mothers of future wars, and I am sure that the mothers whose sons were killed or--worse--maimed, in the World War, would be the first to say: "Publish Mr. Putnam's book, or any other book that will help to outlaw wars."

There have been too many war movies, showing handsome heroes with a decorative bandage on head or hand, attended by beautiful nurses in starched uniforms, and not enough publicity of the kind of picture shown in your last issue (TIME, March 21).

Nothing can impress the horrors of the last war on the next generation like a book of that kind. These kids didn't live through the horror, and only know the glory rightly due the heroes, who suffered and are suffering still.

MRS. MARK A. COOPER

Rome, Ga.

Sirs:

Your issue March 21, 1932, Army & Navy-- ". . . only atrocity pictures are excluded." How do you differentiate atrocity pictures from the kind you mention? In other words, what are atrocity pictures?

W. C. WlLKES

Atlanta, Ga.

"Atrocity" pictures are those which, real and faked, were circulated for War-time propaganda--pictures of wanton violence done to noncombatants: bayonetted babes, women with breasts hacked off, desecrated churches.--ED.

Sirs:

. . . Last Armistice Day was splendidly cele brated in this town. A nearby hilly and wooded meadow was chosen to enact a sham attack on an imaginary position. Real machine guns swept No-Man's-Land with continuous fire and cunningly placed bombs exploded at the right time. The attacking forces to a man won their objective and the thousands of spectators were thrilled by their exploit until some youngsters broke from the crowd and proceeded to imitate them, while the unavailing efforts of a private in khaki to send them back produced roars of laughter from the onlookers. If more realism had been injected into the performance, and the ground so success fully won had "fallen" men laid over it, per forming contortions of the wounded, with the members of the medical corps coming along with stretchers, etc., the real aftermath of the attack would have been truthfully visualized by the spectators. Those adventurous youngsters might have had a different reaction to the scene which would not have ended in laughter.

Give the Gold Star Mothers the truth and they will start a campaign against war that will win its objective. . . .

SYDNEY W. STRICKLAND

South Manchester, Conn.

Sirs:

The War Department is absolutely right in its refusal to release the gruesome Signal Corps official photographs of mutilations, putrified dead and other war horrors to amuse the morbidly curious. It seems unbelievable that the people whom these men died so horribly to defend would want to gloat over these pictures and ridicule these heroic dead, or that a publisher would exploit them.

These are pictures of my comrades and they should be protected now as they braved the horrors of war and died to protect their people.

That "War is a mad and barbarous business" is true. No one knows that better than we who were on those battlefields and in those hospitals and saw these horror pictures in grim reality for days. We know these things from actually living them. We, who know what war really is, are not pacifists. We don't want another. We feel that these pictures are desired only by publishers for personal gain or by the morbid who derive a fiendish delight from pictures of war-torn wounded, hideous contortions of agonizing death, bloated, discolored, decomposing bodies of young manhood. The publication of such photographs will not prevent war. We know that helplessness invites it (witness China). We feel that pacifists like Carrie Chapman Catt, who weakened the defences of the country so that the last war could not be avoided, made these horror pictures possible and that they are responsible for the hundreds of rotting, stinking corpses that I saw in 1918 and for the horribly maimed that I knew at Base 26 Evacuation No. 9 and A.R.C.M.H. No. 1.

I feel no resentment toward a brave machine-gunner who shot me down on the morning of October 16. I was shooting at him! But I do feel bitter toward those pacifists who made that war necessary and are doing all in their power to bring on the next. I can't help but feel that people like Carrie Chapman Catt, Jane Addams. Dr. Fosdick and Rabbi Wise were the murderers of a brave squad that was cut down before a machinegun nest at Chevieres.

ALLEN PENNELL WESCOTT

Chicago, Ill.

Sousa

Sirs:

I have heard various people say that the name Sousa means Symphony Orchestra United States America.

Is there any truth in this?

DON GEISLER

Easton, Pa.

No. "Sousa" in Portugal is as common as "Smith" in the U. S. The late Bandmaster Sousa's forbears were driven from Portugal in the Revolution of 1822.--ED.

Wild Asses & Progeny

Sirs:

It seems TiMEworthy that attention should be called to the fact that Senator Moses of New Hampshire has, for a year or more, been the recipient of some notoriety on account of allegedly coining a new phrase, namely: "The sons of wild jackasses."

The late Thos. B. Reed, ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, many years ago referred to Tom Watson of Georgia, and other Populist Congressmen as "The wild ass's colts."

So Senator Moses was not, as is generally believed, original in his phrase.

C. E. HARRIS

East St. Louis, Ill.

The butt of Speaker Reed's observation was not Georgia's Watson but the late Congressman John Alfred Pickler of South Dakota. Not in the House but privately outside, Speaker Reed, habitually polite of speech, said: "I have read and heard much of the Wild Ass's Colt of the Desert, but I never had any clear conception of what manner of animal it really was till I saw Pickler in action."--ED.

Seventh Year of Showa

Sirs:

May I call your attention to an error of omission rather than commission in your answer to the letter on p. 6 of your issue of Jan. 25?

Your statement that time in Japan is reckoned from the date of enthronement of Jimmu Tenno is correct, in that classical writings and historians refer to that date. But in their everyday life, the Japanese reckon time from the date of the enthronement of the Emperor who is on the throne at the time. Thus the World War began in the Third Year of Taisho (the present Emperor's father: 1912-26), and this letter would be dated 7-2-19, as being written in the seventh year of Showa (Righteousness, the title chosen by Emperor Hirohito for his reign), on the 19th day of the second month.

JOE R. SHERR

Tokyo, Japan

"Petty Treason" (Cont'd)

Sirs:

. . . That the Lindberghs are guilty of "petty treason" . . . may be a little strongly put. It does seem rather a poor commentary on the "land of the free," however, when its most representative citizen scorns the arm of the law and resorts to the help of gangsters and racketeers in getting back his child. On the other hand I wonder if August W. would mind letting us know whether or not he is a father.

A. DAVID BOUTERSE

Roanoke, Va.

Sirs:

Evidently Mr. Wagner of Nebraska is not or never was a father. If so, his heart must be made of stone, for his statement accusing the Lindberghs of "petty treason'' is the most absurd accusation I have ever heard or ever hope to hear,

When the life of an innocent babe is at stake, there is no sacrifice too great to offer for its return. If there is anyone accused of "petty treason," it is a Nation or State which allows such a condition of lawlessness to exist.

''If that be treason, make the most of it."

ARNOLD M. KLINE

Cumberland. Md.

Sirs:

Let us suppose that Mr. August Wagner has sufficient wealth to make it worth while kidnapping him. Let us suppose further that he i; kidnapped successfully by people who know their business, and that upon threat of mutilation or death he is persuaded to write his banker or other responsible person to produce a required sum from his estate and deliver to the kidnappers. Let us presume also that the kidnappers-threaten with the full intention of carrying it out, that Mr. Wagner be mutilated or killed if this sum is not provided in the manner demanded. Under those circumstances would Mr. Wagner argue that complying with the demands of the kidnappers would be treason, petty or otherwise? . . .

There are two major tragedies possible in this Lindbergh kidnapping--one likely, the other almost certain. The first is that it appears quite possible the baby will be permanently lost to the parents. The second and more certain tragedy is that the country is likely to profit little by the experience. The rank sentimental sensationalism of the press apparently leads only toward more drastic penal legislation. The forces of the law apparently cannot catch and convict under present laws. Of what benefit, therefore, would more drastic laws be? If the press would like to crusade on the problem why not attack some fundamentals. . . .

HARVY PINNEY

Cambridge, Mass.

Sirs:

No, Mr. Wagner--"petty treason" is too harsh a term. But you raise an interesting question, the old conflict between heart & head--and who has ever been able to decide between them? True, Col. Lindbergh had the opportunity o; showing a front as grim as any stern old Roman, to whom the life of a son counted as nothing against the fair fame of his State. Such a man might say: "A child is only a child--one may have many children--but bright Justice shall not be prostituted to the dark gods of the under-world!"

Magnificent--ethically. But humanly, and in this day & age--could any of us do it?

Perhaps we are less admirable than the grand old pagans. Or perhaps, because we are tenderer, more so. It may be that in this that has been called "The Age of the Child" we rank the child too highly. That is a matter of opinion.

But it doesn't seem quite fair to condemn the Lindberghs for belonging, as they do, to this softer age instead of to a starker day.

CHRISTINE HAMILTON

Philadelphia, Pa.

(Continued on p. 62)

(Continued from p. 8)

Sirs:

... It is much worse to think of a baby suffering than it would be to go through with it ourselves. In other words, just because the Lindberghs are well known and admired why make tiiem suner for the rest of us?

VERDA JACKSON

Sioux City, Iowa

Sirs:

This isn't a country of child sacrifice. . . .

EVAN W. OST

Kenosha, Wis.

Sirs:

. . . "Treason" is too harsh a word for Col. Lindbergh.

Might it not be possible that the motive, in this instance, was not for money, but to strike a blow against organized society by taking the child of a national idol? Presidents have been shot and bombs have been set off for similar motives.

MILTON RONSHEIM

Cadiz, Ohio

Sirs:

Who considers Col. & Mrs. Lindbergh guilty of petty treason? No-one but Mr. Wagner. Who would consider him guilty of murder if. he refused to pay a ransom? Everyone but Mr. Wagner. The murder not only of Charles Augustus Jr. but possibly the murder of his wife and unborn child. . .

Every citizen of the U. S. is responsible for this crime. We all knew what conditions were, but were too lazy and indifferent to do anything to remedy them. Now most of us are ashamed and feel as a delivery boy expressed it: "As soon as the kid is back safe we gotta do somethin'." But as far as I have heard, no one but Mr. Wagner has had the impudence to suggest the Lindberghs sacrifice their child to do the job for us. . . .

MRS. CLARENCE A. TRYON

Niagara Falls, N. Y.

Sirs:

Col. & Mrs. Lindbergh's emotionally aroused irrational behavior should not be condoned by these United States. When these two legitimately hysterical parents unfortunately reverted to their primitive, elemental desires and relegated civilization's sociological structure to the trash heap as unusable lumber and connived, catered, kowtowed, begged, pleaded, and promised anything & everything within and beyond their means to the so-called underworld, if the cowardly machine-gun order returned their child, they trampled respect for law & order into the dust; exposed other citizens' children to the possibility of kidnapping and ridiculed American police protection in the eyes of the world. In the greatest crisis of their lives they failed.

If Col. & Mrs. Lindbergh refused to pay ransom; if they backed the State police, Federal agents, private detectives; if they stood behind the powerful press, if they resolved to prosecute the criminals, they would wield such a mighty club that kidnapping would become a rare crime.

Public opinion is changing. Even if the Lindberghs believe in the power of the so-called underworld, the majority of people do not. The law should see to it that the instigators of this crime are harshly and promptly dealt with and that no ransom is paid. The law should not be dictated to by a half-crazed father who is guilty of ''petty treason."

G. HOLBROOK HAWES

Whippany, N. J.

Sirs:

"Petty Treason" Why petty? Such conspicuous payment of ransom would cause hundreds of additional kidnappings, and always a large percentage of loss of life for those kidnapped. Such encouragement of crime is in itself a gross, not a petty, affair. "Egregious crime" would seem more completely descriptive than "petty treason." . . .

But, should the Lindberghs be condemned so early? One's wrord of honor to a kidnapper concerning immunity from prosecution should be as devoid of meaning as would be such a criminal's word of honor. Lindy and the Morrows have shown great wisdom in the past. I hope we may see if faith in them is not justified.

C. C. WILSON, M.D.

Pampa, Texas

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.