Man of the Year

Sirs:

When an army or navy wins a great victory, the general or admiral commanding is the man of the event. When an army of researchers makes the discovery unequaled in all history, and reduces it to practice, why does not that qualify the director of that army for the man of all time?

I nominate Dr. Vannevar Bush as Man of the Year for that reason.

FRANK S. WOOD

Winthrop, Me.

Sirs:

. . . G.I. Joe, who brought us victory on all fronts in 1945. . . .

(CPL.) ROBERT MEIERS

c/o Postmaster

New York City

Sirs:

I wish you would publish the basis upon which the Man of the Year is selected. . . .

L. L. GOODMAN

Indianapolis

P: He is the man who had the biggest rise in fame during the year, and who, more than anyone else, changed the news for better or worse.--ED.

Sirs:

Controversy over the relative merit or harm of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's actions and policies may use up many future hours of learned discussion, not to mention those already spent.

But one fact stands clear: he was the strongest personality of our times and more sure of himself than any of his associates or critics--past or present. He had the courage of his convictions.

You have only to reread of the sorrow shown by this country--and others--and to recall your own reaction to his passing, to find the people's choice for man of this year and of many a future year.

He has my humble vote.

T. W. KUHLMAN

Detroit

Sirs:

. . . Ike Eisenhower. An officer but a gentleman; a thoroughgoing diplomat (they are born, not appointed), and one who, for all our clowning, is still on our side.

(M/SGT.) CHARLES OVERILL

Eureka, Calif.

Sirs:

Australia's Minister for External Affairs Evatt, who tried to unite the nations of the United Nations Organization instead of divide them for the next war.

(PVT.) E. R. FURBUR

c/o Postmaster New York City

Sirs:

. . . Douglas MacArthur doesn't even come close to having a competitor.

MYRL E. BECK

Beaumont, Calif.

P: Nominations for Man of the Year are now closed. The leaders to date: 1)G.I. Joe; 2)the atomic bomb and the scientists who made it; 3)Franklin Delano Roosevelt; 4) Admiral Nimitz; 5) General Eisenhower; 6)President Truman.--ED.

Vulnerable Abstraction

Sirs:

. . . Your editors are properly disturbed by the reduction of our armed might; for until some really intelligent provisions are made for international security, power is the world's only hope. But you can't blame the Congressmen, nor can you blame the G.I.s whom you have been accusing recently of making a sorry impression in Germany.

I have been a morale technician during most of my Army career so I speak with some knowledge when I say that the vast majority of our men hate the Army with a hate that is more bitter by far than any they ever felt for our enemies. The Army sowed this wind. . . .

The fault lies not with the top military command. The Chief of Staff conceived a sound program for giving the best soldier in the world the treatment demanded to preserve the American qualities that make him the best soldier. Its essence was to treat the soldier with respect as an individual.

The fault lies in the Army system, which allows any small mind anywhere in the chain of command to destroy such a program. An abstraction like the dignity of man was particularly vulnerable and abhorrent to the small minds. The result was that the majority of American soldiers throughout their Army careers have been insulted by the mutilation of every principle of personal integrity for which most of them knew in their hearts they were fighting. Is it any wonder they apply political pressure to get out?...

[ARMY SERGEANT'S NAME WITHHELD]

c/o Postmaster San Francisco

The Pay-Off

Sirs:

Recent issues of TIME have carried articles describing the reaction of "liberated" civilian populations to American occupation troops. As it was accurately reported, the reaction belies the much vaunted democratic attributes of the U.S. Army.

In substance, the Army's shortsighted orientation program has come home to roost. Five years of inviolate, incompetent officer rule spreading its vile propaganda of chauvinism and prejudice; five years of "controlled" forums and news services where all political topics were taboo . . . five years of pompously proclaiming to the world that our Armies were fighting for Four Freedoms, or Democracy, or Liberty, while the truth of the matter was that our men, given no better incentive, went into battle with only one thought in their minds: self-preservation and living long enough to get home again.

All these factors are now paying off in deficit dividends--the actual presence of our Armies completely negating the high-powered advertising that preceded us, a product that didn't live up to its label because someone forgot to put in the right ingredients. . . .

[ARMY SERGEANT'S NAME WITHHELD]

c/o Postmaster

San Francisco

G.I.s In Switzerland

Sirs:

Referring to your article, "No Land of Saints" [TIME, Sept. 24], I wish to tell you that if unfavorable reports about U.S. soldiers come out of Germany, Belgium, etc., you have every reason to be proud of your G.I.s visiting Switzerland. These soldiers, who arrive in Switzerland at the rate of about a thousand a day, are the very prototype of gentlemanlike, tactful tourists. Every Swiss will agree that they behave admirably, and for this reason are liked better than any foreigner who has ever visited this country. . . .

JOHN SCHMID

Suhr, Switzerland

Wolfing the Sheep

Sirs:

After Attlee's glowing comments re Churchill. Churchill is certainly wolfing the sheep by his nonetheless apt description [that Attlee is "a sheep in sheep's clothing"; TIME, Nov. 19]

In 1939, however, M.P. Harold Nicolson told me, along with a group of American students in England at the time, an even more Churchillian statement which the then rising man had made about his then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. Said Winston Churchill: "He would make a good mayor in a small town in a lean year."

Is it professional jealousy, or is it irrepressible dispirits?

RHODA D. K. EDWARDS

Mariemont, Ohio

P: It's Churchill.--ED.

Wicked Propaganda?

Sirs:

I have been quite surprised by TIME'S article [Nov. 19] in the Latin American section about President Trujillo.

The Dominican Republic is currently setting an example of devotion to work and progress, and that devotion has come about thanks to the truly patriotic spirit of President Trujillo. You would be contributing to promote cordial understanding among the peoples of the Americas if you chose to disclose the actual political reality of the Dominican Republic in terms of true, specific facts rather than by lending an ear to misleading information launched by the gratuitous enemies of my Government. . . .

You may rest assured that President Trujillo is supported by an overwhelming majority of the Dominican people and that, with the exception of certain discredited politicians and a few forged servants of democracy, he is admired and loved by the totality of the Dominican people. While I cannot afford to fall into commenting on the impudent slanders which appear in your article, I deem it my duty to state the following:

First, that President Trujillo's Government enjoys a tremendous popularity and that therefore it cannot be disturbed by the wicked propaganda gathered by certain organs of the yellow press.

Second, that I have been particularly surprised by your correspondent's assertion that Mr. Braden, the Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr. Briggs, chief of the Office of American Republic Affairs of the State Department, are enemies of President Trujillo. . . .

EMILIO GARCIA GODOY

Ambassador of the Dominican Republic

Washington

Who's Moral Now?

Sirs:

The Oct. 24 Indonesian request for U.S. mediation fell on apparently deaf government ears. The New York Post headline on Nov. 12 was: INDONESIANS ASK RUSSIA FOR HELP. Did this disturb other Americans as it did me? Once peoples struggling for autonomy and for democracy looked to us for moral support and got it.

ELEANOR PATRICIA BECK

New York City

Who's Homely?

Sirs:

Re your article, "The General and Rosalinda" [TIME, Nov. 19], why, oh why, the necessity of calling "homely" the face of this most pathetic little war victim of eleven tender years? . . . Damn it, I don't even think the poor little waif is homely! And, may I ask, are the editors and staff of TIME all so overwhelmingly handsome?

SCHUYLER FISHER

New York City

P: No. Just average homely.--ED.

For Friendship

Sirs:

Couldn't we have a program throughout the U.S. to become friends of Russia? I mean to present Russian plays, put on Russian exhibitions, teach Russian history, and promote Russian speakers in this country so that we will grow together in friendship instead of this constant talk about growing enmity and future war.

We used to be deluged with speakers from England, and I for one always enjoyed them. I would enjoy Russian speakers as well. I am not a Communist and do not believe in the state having supreme control, but I believe in friendship with the people of Russia.

LOUISE MORTENSEN

Des Moines

Sell at the Top

Sirs:

Every businessman knows that the time to sell a commodity is when the market is high. Our atomic techniques are at the point of their highest value now. The U.S. could get pretty much what she asks for them. I think she might be able to get the asking price: peace.

But the atomic techniques must first be put on the market. If not, imitations or even improvements will soon appear, and the originals will lose their value. Such an offer made now would catch both the atomic and the peace markets at their peak. And it would, in addition, make emphatic America's desire for peace as expressed in a willingness to sacrifice its own greatest single possession to that end.

What an example to a suspicious and nationalistic world! What a moral shot in the arm! What a bargain!

ROBERT P. FELKER

Major, U.S.M.C.R.

Quantico, Va.

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