Willie McGee:
Thank you for a clear and honest May 14 report on the Willie McGee case.
It would have been very easy for TIME to twist the facts in such a way as to make the story even more sensational than the case itself. This was not done, and because of the manner in which your reporting is done, TIME is a household word in the homes of the South as well as all over the world.
DAVID W. DORRIS Bassfield, Miss.
Sir:
Your article . . . shows that you . . . are not very realistic. If you were, then you wouldn't go around calling innocent people Communists because they try to fight for civil rights . . .
ALEXANDER AYERS Suitland, Md.
P:TIME called no innocent people Communists, did point out the facts--that Communists took over the McGee defense and used the case to increase racial tension.--ED.
SIR:
APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL HANDLING OF THE MCGEE CASE. YOU DID THE NATION AND JUSTICE A SERVICE IN REVEALING THE TRUE FACTS IN A CASE IN WHICH SO MANY MISSTATEMENTS WERE CIRCULATED BY COMMUNIST-INSPIRED
GROUPS. FIELDING L. WRIGHT
GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON, MISS.
MacArthur v. Truman
Sir:
Your careful analysis ... of the . . . controversy manifests that the MacArthurites would "carry a big stick," while the Administration has been content to "speak softly" [TiME, April 30]. The Communists have long ago proven they respect the "big stick" more than any torrent of words or attempt at conciliation across the conference table . . .
EDWARD GINES Portland, Ore.
Sir:
In the hubbub going on about Truman v. MacArthur, no one seems properly to have emphasized the part the U.N. plays in deciding conduct of the Korean war. The talk is all of whether Truman is right in restricting the war, or MacArthur is right in extending it ...
After all, the conflict in Korea is one of the U.N. against Communist aggressors, no matter how large a part tRe U.S. plays in the actual fighting. Unless and until the General Assembly can be persuaded to sanction the military measures advocated by MacArthur, any attempt on our part to carry them out takes the chance of converting the war into one of the U.S. against North Korea and China ... It is by no means established that Russia would be as cautious in opposing the U.S. as she has been in opposing the U.N. in Korea . . .
A. B. MASON New York City
Sir:
The insinuations made by President Truman thus far point to this line of defense: "MacArthur persuaded everyone that China wouldn't attack. She attacked. Now he professes to be more realistic than we about the war that couldn't exist. And what is more, he is trying to persuade us that Russia won't attack."
It is clear that MacArthur's prediction was based in part on an assessment of the military situation that would exist if China did intervene, and it is not likely that, in making this assessment, he foresaw these binding "inhibitions on our sea and air arm" which he has accused of causing the stalemate . . .
H. A. DYE
Pasadena, Calif.
Sir:
TIME [May 14] says, "Douglas MacArthur, a man of enormous certainty . . .", "wise and tired old George Marshall."
Objections: i) If Marshall is "old," so is MacArthur. 2) If Marshall is "tired," he has every right and reason to be. He has not been getting up at 9 and 10 a.m. for the past five years, as his opponent has, and I never heard of his having a regular afternoon nap, like the man of destiny . . .
DR. PETER FLESCH
Philadelphia
Sir:
I may be late with a comment on the Truman-MacArthur controversy, but somebody's got to say the last word, and so far as I'm concerned, an oldtime cattleman neighbor of mine made a bid for it.
On his bi-monthly trip to town, an ardent and excitable feminine supporter of the five-star general asked the oldtimer his opinion of the fracas:
"Lord, ma'am, I'm sixty-five years old," he said. "Mac ain't the first man I've known to lose his job. It don't worry me a mite."
WELDON F. HEALD Portal, Ariz.
Sir:
. . . Suppose you were the chief executive of a nation engaged in a death struggle, and one of your leading military men gave as his studied military judgment that in one region of conflict your nation had a strong defense line, but a line which was strategically poor for offensive action. What would be your reaction to another general who advocated conducting strong offensive action in that same region, and was writing letters to the opposition party leaders encouraging such an offensive action?
Naturally, you would think the second general crazy and remove .him from command if he became too obnoxious. You have, of course, recognized the second general--MacArthur. If you had followed developments closely you would have recognized the first general. He also is MacArthur. The man who discussed the natural defense line of the U.S. in the Far East and concluded his discussion by observing that "it envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations . . ."
CHARLES JAMIESON Buffalo, N.Y.
Be Human Week
Sir:
More respect should be shown to Mr. Truman, says J. A. Reid [in a letter to TIME, May 7]. It is up to our President to uphold the dignity of his high office. A man should stand erect, not be kept erect . . .
PERICLES PAPPAS New Orleans
Sir:
... As a Republican ... I would like to go on record in favor of a "Be Human to Truman Week."
STUART C. HALL San Jose, Calif.
Have a Chaw?
Sir:
Re your May 7 story "The Vanishing Chaw": We manufacture . . . chewing tobaccos, and our business is very good . . . We enjoy a nice business from consumers who are employed in plants where smoking is not allowed . . . There are quite a few executives in offices who chew tobacco.
We suggest that the fellow who wrote your story take a survey some day when he is not too busy and he will find out that there a>>e plenty of men in all walks of life who still enjoy a good chew of tobacco.
After all, chewing tobacco is our bread and butter.
R. P. KENEFICK The Pinkerton Tobacco Co. Toledo
Mr. Incongruous?
Sir:
During the debate on the Atlantic pact, Senator Taft argued that it might be interpreted by the Russians as an "aggressive move," i.e., we should not offend the Russians. This of a purely defensive pact designed to bolster the most important strategic area in the world in any war against Russia.
Now he says that we must conduct "a more aggressive war against China ... we must not be stopped by any hesitation about the possibility that the Russians may come into the war" [TIME, May 7]. This of an area of far less strategic importance than Europe. During the same week he insisted that the armed forces should be cut by 500,-ooo men and the mobilization budget reduced by $20 billion . . .
JOHN J. MCDONALD Fort Kent, Me.
Sir:
. . . Why not make Taft Ambassador to Russia? There his constant changes of mind would keep the Kremlin in such a state of confusion it wouldn't find time to pursue its course of world domination.
(MRS.) WM. M. SALMON Chippewa Falls, Wis.
Sir:
The more I hear and read of Bob Taft the more I am convinced that the change of the pseudonym "Mr. Republican" to "Mr. Incongruous" would be most proper.
HAROLD PLOTNICK, M.D. Cincinnati
Pandit's Mind (Cont'd)
Sir:
The Nehru [May 7] cover story should be must reading for every honest but woolly-headed liberal in the world.
Our if-and-but diplomacy must give the Stalinists a great laugh. That Pandit Nehru, a man of vision, should persist in adding to the confusion seems to defy explanation . . . Many of us feel it is time Western liberals take a positive stand in the struggle now shaping up. We who do not share either MacArthur's views or his political methods must offer a positive alternative . . . Liberal daydreaming today is as outmoded as the above-the-knee skirt.
ED BANTEY Montreal
Sir:
Your tendentious smear campaign against Pandit Nehru is disgusting.
K. Eisemann Cambridge, Mass.
Sir:
It is quite a shock to learn that with all of his experience, the leader of India's millions is so much a counterpart of the common U.S. college, labor union and small church variety of confused liberal . . .
HENRY MAYERS
Los Angeles
Sir:
TIME describes Prime Minister Nehru of India as a moralist. Wrong. Mr. Nehru is an opportunist who tries to hide his opportunism under the cloak of a peace advocate. His actions speak so loud it is difficult to hear his moralizing . . .
[He] piously praises the virtues of democracy, yet sides with Stalin and Mao Tse-tung on all international questions not affecting India ... In short, the fence-sitting Mr. Nehru seeks to gain all the advantages for India by playing both ends against the middle . . .
HENRY C. DEYOUNG Colorado Springs, Colo.
The Only Human Sound Left
Sir:
Hurrah for Upton Sinclair! I am delighted that someone of importance has spoken out against that abominable habit of radio speakers' er-er-ering all through their discourse [TIME Letters, May 7].
The continual repetition of that syllable makes me want to scream. But I slam the radio off instead . . .
LILLIS HAMILTON Vancouver, Wash.
Sir:
... I think Mr. Sinclair errs in condemning the "er." It is the only human sound left in otherwise inhumanly machine-perfect performances. Especially in a program like Invitation to Learning, the "er" is a refreshing reminder of the times when people used to translate their thoughts into words . . .
HEDWIG D. RAPPOLT Fairfield, Conn.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.