Man of the Year

Sirs:

I nominate for Man of the Year Franklin D. Roosevelt. No man has done as much the past year, or caught as much hell doing it.

WILLIAM J. METZ, D.O. Franklin, Pa.

Sirs:

. . . The work of other men in 1942 may prove to be more enduring, but . . . the conqueror of Singapore, Java and Bataan is the man who knocked the pins down in this frame.

I suggest that you publish the picture of General Yamashita as the man of 1942 on the basis of positive accomplishment, with the sincere hopes that he may have the "bad cess" which often comes to the winner of this award.

RICHARD GROSS Ardmore, Pa.

Sirs:

What happened did everybody forget General MacArthur, he is really and truly the man of the year, by his heroic fighting in Bataan, the Japs were hampered and delayed, long enough for us to get reinforcements to Pearl Harbor, Australia, etc. He stopped the Jap horde from grasping all the Pacific, for Pete's sake pick an Army man, and that man is General Douglas MacArthur.

HARRY SHRIBER Pittsburgh

Sirs:

May I recommend the United States seaman who, in the recent battle in the Barents Sea between a Russia-bound convoy and the Germans, having been torpedoed, was riding astride a capsized lifeboat, waving his arms as the other ships in the convoy passed him, and shouting "Hi-Yo Silver."

SAMUEL J. FISHER Asheville, N.C.

Sirs:

Here's a vote plus for the strong man, good old Joe Stalin.

Ninety percent of my TIME reader friends feel you can't fail to agree. . . .

C. H. DOLLISON Dallas

Sirs:

The many suggestions of Draja Mihailovich as TIME's Man of the Year should be treated with great caution. . . .

RUSSELL N. CHASE Cleveland

>TIME has shown (Dec. 14) why Mihailovich, despite his brilliant past exploits, is not Man of the Year.--ED.

Sirs:

Well, I guess it's up to me--to remedy an omission in the nominees for Man of the Year.

At the top of them all is the very great Chiang Kaishek. There may be flashier boys --but none with the Generalissimo's profound serenity and fortitude. . . .

ELEANOR EVANS DEGER Grosse He, Mich.

Sirs:

For Man of the Year: me.

When the Japs sneak-smashed at Pearl Harbor I didn't say, "Kurusu made a sucker out of Hull and the Old Man! Like as usual, Washington was asleep! . . ."

When marines on Wake Island were repulsing Jap attacks I didn't say, "The Japs will never take Wake!" Later, when Wake was captured, I didn't say, "I told you so! We shoulda had 10,000 men on Wake! We shoulda ringed the joint with ships and had a skyful of planes!"

When MacArthur was doing what he could with what he had on Bataan I didn't say, "MacArthur for President!" Later, when MacArthur was forced to disavow any intention of running for the presidency before Washington would give him the go-sign in Australia, I didn't say, "Politics as usual!"

When the U.S. Navy was making ready to take the offensive in the Pacific I didn't say, "Where is the U.S. Navy? At the bottom of the ocean!" Later, when the U.S. Navy kicked the fangs out of the Japs in the Coral Sea, at Midway and at the Solomons, I didn't say, "It was a cinch that as soon as we got going we'd clean up!"

When the rocking-chair strategist, the political hamstringers and the Cal Tinneys were nasaling for a second front in Europe I didn't say, "The Russians will quit if we don't open up a second front in Europe!" Later, when the second front was opened up in North Africa, I didn't say, "I knew all along they was planning a second front in North Africa!"

When the Republicans won 44 seats in the rat pit and nine in the most exclusive club in the world I didn't say, "That's the finish for the New Deal. The people are getting wise!" Later, when Republican leaders indicated a willingness to support New Deal war policies, I didn't say, "Now we're cooking with gas!"

When food rationing was about to go into effect I didn't say, "I will out-maneuver them dopes in Washington by loading up on everything!" And I didn't load up on everything! . . .

I haven't opened my peep . . . and if that doesn't make me Man of the Year--well, maybe it doesn't. . . .

TOM LENNON Los Angeles

Busy 19th Sirs:

I was very much interested in your article regarding the 19th Heavy Bombardment Group (TIME, Dec. 7) because I learned more about the activities of my brother during the past year than I have from any other source. My brother, Sergeant Russell I. Huffman of Highwood, Mont. . . . is the most decorated enlisted man in the 19th.

. . . People who insist on maintaining short hours should read your story about what the men of the 19th have been through and then spend a few minutes in serious thought. I might also mention one letter written by my brother on Aug. 7 (just eight months after Pearl Harbor) in which he stated that during that eight-month period he had had only four days off from combat flying and during those four days he was on duty at the flying field.

ROY E. HUFFMAN Bozeman, Mont.

The Business of Killing (Cont'd) Sirs:

. . . Reverend Arlan Baillie of Boston criticized General McNair's statement in regard to the proper fighting spirit [TIME, Nov. 23: "We must lust for battle; our object in life must be to kill; we must scheme and plan night and day to kill."]. Reverend Baillie stated that such an attitude was not proper for a leader of fighting men, and wrote to President Roosevelt asking for McNair's removal. . . .

We're going to win this war, but believe it or not, we're going to have to kill to achieve our victory. Then, and only then, will we be able to dedicate ourselves to the building of your kind of world, Reverend. Some people aren't even allowed freedom of worship, Reverend. That's one of the reasons why we're fighting and killing, sir . . . to keep our rights.

JULIAN R. ABERMAN U.S. Army Air Forces Grinnell, Iowa.

Sirs:

I endorse most heartily the letter . . . by Arlan Baillie in your Letters Column, TIME, Dec. 7. Had I an 18-year-old boy in service I'd certainly hate to see him in Lieut. General McNair's command. And now, according to the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 4, there's a plan afoot to register the 14-year-olds for military training! Why not ten or twelve-year-olds, or can't they learn to hate that early? . . .

A. W. C. MACDONALD Laguna Beach, Calif.

Sirs:

. . . I saw Pearl Harbor happen and I know what the General meant when he said "There need be no pangs of conscience." . . .

ROY W. Fox Pay Clerk, U.S.N. Rochester, N.Y.

Sirs:

Mr. Philip B. Lorenz (TIME Letters, Dec. 7), in commenting on General McNair's words . . . advances a disturbing philosophy, when he says: "In the biological world we find the first necessity is to develop an unalterable hate for guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals which it is our business to kill." . . .

Never in my rather varied experience in research, nor in eight years of academic training under a number of top-flight biologists, have I heard such nonsense. Our business is not to kill animals. When, in order to increase the store of knowledge which may improve the lot of the animal Homosapiens, it is essential that we do so, any feeling of hate for these relatively defenseless creatures is totally absent from most, and I sincerely hope from all, of us. Rather, as perfectly obvious from shop talk in any group involving as many as two biologists, we entertain rather marked affection and often great respect for the animals it is necessary for us to destroy. . " .

HEBER C. DONOHOE Trenton, NJ.

Sirs:

. . . THE TRUE ATTITUDE OF BIOLOGISTS TOWARD LABORATORY ANIMALS IS EPITOMIZED IN A POSTER WHICH I ONCE SAW IN THE PHYSIOLOGY LABORATORY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI MEDICAL SCHOOL. IT WAS A DRAWING OF A RABBIT BENEATH WHICH WERE THE WORDS: GENTLY, STRANGER; GENTLY, PRAY.

WILLIAM WALTER GREULICH School of Medicine Western Reserve University Cleveland

Woman's Place Is in the Army Sirs:

Answering Staff Sergeant Dan Malmuth, U.S.A.A.F., Egypt, whose letter appears in TIME, Dec. 14 ["Woman's place is in the home . . . Keep 'Em Frying!"], Sergeant Malmuth appears to forget that the WAAC is not a Hollywood pressagent's dream, it's formed by the order of the U.S. Army. If it's good enough for General Marshall, it should be good enough for him.

Besides, Sergeant Malmuth, I don't know how to knit, but I'm a darn good stenographer.

MARJORIE STEWART Chicago

Sirs:

Three cheers and a huzza for Staff Sergeant Dan Malmuth's letter this week. If a few more of our so-called men had got up on their hind legs and said the same thing a long time ago, all this Waacy-business might have ended up where it belongs--on the junk heap.

American women can go all out and still remain women. They always have. The old pioneer wives fought Indians and wild animals right 'longside of their menfolks but it didn't put any goofy ideas in their heads. Just because it's been proved that our intelligence is equal to men's doesn't mean that it lies in the same direction, any more than you'd expect a lawn mower and a sewing machine to do the same work simply because they both happen to be good machines. . . .

DOROTHY E. DICKSON Kewanee, Ill.

Sirs:

. . . Did the Sargeant ever wash dishes three times a day 365 days a year--or make three beds every morning of his life--or feed his son and heir at exactly 6, 10, 2 and 6 each day--or diaper the infant every hour on the hour? I am laughing. . . .

ROBERTA CLEAVER WEIR Penn Wynne, Pa.

British Obligations Sirs:

Mr. Mac F. Cahal's letter on British candor (TIME, Dec. 7) and especially TIME's editorial comment thereon seem to reveal confused thinking on that most frequent source of American confusion, India. Mr. Cahal asks where do Mr. Churchill's characteristically candid words (on the "liquidation" of the British Empire) leave India, and TIME, quoting the so-called "Churchill clause" in the Atlantic Charter, opines "Mr. Churchill evidently considers India 'an existing obligation.' ". . .

Britain has assumed--rightly or wrongly is beside the point--the definite obligation to lead India to honorable adult membership of the family of free and equal nations, either inside or outside the tenuous bonds of the British Commonwealth. The development of Indian self-government has been clearly denned British policy since 1917. In 1929 it was clearly stated by the British Government that Dominion status within the Empire was India's manifest destiny, a free and equal partnership with the other self-government Dominions. India could have had such status for the taking in 1935. She has recently been promised self-determination after the war, either inside the Commonwealth or not as she wishes.

F. G. ALLETSON COOK U.S. Correspondent London Evening Standard New York City

Sirs:

Your reply to Mac F. Cahal . . . is inaccurate and incomplete. Winston Churchill has nowhere at any time excluded India from the Atlantic Charter. His statement, so frequently distorted, was made in the British House of Commons, Sept. 9, 1941 as follows:

". . . The joint declaration does not qualify in any way the various statements of policy which have been made from time to time about development of constitutional government in India. . . . We are pledged by the declaration of August 1940 to help India to obtain free and equal partnership in the British Commonwealth with ourselves. . . .

"At the Atlantic meeting we had in mind primarily restoration of the sovereignty, self-government and national life of states and nations of Europe now under the Nazi yoke.... That is quite a separate problem from the progressive evolution of self-governing institutions in the regions . . . which owe allegiance to the British Crown. We have made declarations on these matters which are complete in themselves, free from ambiguity, and related to the conditions and circumstances of the territories and peoples affected. They will be found to be entirely in harmony with the high conception of freedom and justice which , inspired the joint declaration. . . ."

ERIC UNDERWOOD Washington

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