Your “Special: Women in Their Time” feature in the September/October issue not only promises more than it delivers but misconstrues the meaning of the contemporary women’s movement. While it is true that Georgia O’Keeffe is a remarkable genius and that the Peabody sisters did good works and that hitching electricity to housework is a phenomenon, all any of the articles devoted to them do is confine women to what is traditionally and stereotypically either women’s work or inspirational and creative works. In doing so, you omit the great social revolution that the current women’s movement has accomplished. You ignore everything from suffrage and changes in credit law to changes in job descriptions, income levels, family structure, child care, clothing, language, the demeanor of men, the physical and psychological changes in women, and the enormous shift in politics.…
Women don’t need tribute. Reality will do.
Sey Chassler
Vice-President, Child Care Action Campaign
Former editor, Redbook
New York, N.Y
The Women Issue
If I wanted mostly women articles, I could subscribe to Cosmopolitan.
Ronald L. Zoerb
Colorado Springs, Colo.
The Women Issue
That was a very important article about Elizabeth, Mary, and Sophia Peabody—beautifully presented—and I am learning so much from reading it.
Helen Gurley Brown
Editor, Cosmopolitan
New York, N. Y.
The Women Issue
The special section “Women in Their Time” was well done and certainly inspirational.
Barbara Bass
Chairman, I. Magnin
San Francisco, Calif.
Whose Radar?
In the course of an admirably passionate piece of work about “the Indomitable Churchill” (February/March), William Manchester gives a misleading impression of Frederick A. Lindemann’s role in the development of radar. The struggle between Lindemann and his rival scientist Sir Henry Tizard should be a settled controversy, and Mr. Manchester’s remarks seem to revive it.
Manchester notes that Lindemann had been keeping his eye on the problem from the beginning, and that RDF (Radio Direction Finder, the initial British name for radar) became “Lindemann’s great mission in the 1930s; it will save England in 1940.…” This gives the impression that Lindemann’s contribution was central to the development and deployment of the defenses that won the Battle of Britain. Alas, the converse is nearer the truth.
After joining Tizard’s Aeronautical Research Committee, Lindemann was in fact more critic than champion of radar; he was prescient in pointing out the possibility of jamming, for example. In the main, though, his activities were less than helpful. He was opposed to the stress on radar, pinning his hopes in part on short wire barrages and particularly on the use of aerial mines, an obsession that he passed on to others and which squandered a lot of time and money. He had great hopes for infrared detectors, none of which panned out in time to use against the Axis powers, and he had had a number of fixed and mistaken beliefs about the fragility of aircraft.
In prematurely assuming that the problems of daytime detection and interception had been solved, Lindemann sought to divert scarce resources to the problems of nighttime detection (infrared again). Had his views prevail^, he would most probably have delayed the deployment of the RDF chain and the development of the doctrine and tactics radar made possible. Ronald W. Clark’s scrupulous biography of Tizard puts the issue with admirable succinctness: Had Lindemann prevailed, Britain would have faced the summer of 1940 with a much better-equipped Bomber Command and a fatally weakened Fighter Command. In brief, she would have had an even better chance of losing the war.
Fredric Paul Smoler
Columbia University History Department
New York, N. Y.
Slovik Court-martial
As a member and affiliate of the 28th Division for more than sixty years, I’ve read with interest “The Example of Private Slovik” (September/October).
The author accents the inexperience of members of the general court-martial who tried Private Slovik for desertion. Certainly the author is the best judge of his own qualifications for that duty. However, since all U.S. military officers are deemed competent to serve on courts-martial, and since that court had been serving for some months, a 1987 judgment on others who served in 1944 seems questionable, to say the least.
The article mentions the apparent youth and legal inexperience of Capt. Edward P. Woods, appointed defense counsel to the 28th Infantry Division court-martial by Norman D. Cota, the commanding general of the division, in August 1944. Captain Woods and most members of the court continued to serve through a score or more of cases. Obviously they met the high standards of General Cota, a leader of competence and great gallantry. Captain Woods served under my command as a lieutenant in the newly formed 28th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop throughout most of 1942. His performance in a variety of duties exceeded all the standards of excellence demanded from members of that elite organization. I’m certain that he did not discard these military qualities when he was appointed defense counsel.
Robert M. Gay nor, AUS (Ret.)
Brigadier General, Pennsylvania Guard
Arlington, Va.
Slovik Court-martial
I feel very much for the fate of Private Slovik, but also for Edward Woods’s role as an inexperienced defense counsel because I very nearly had the same terrible experience to live with for the rest of my life.
In Normandy, sometime in July 1944, I was appointed assistant defense counsel for a special court. My only qualification was a two- or three-hour credit course in business law at Oregon State College in 1939, which I nearly flunked. Defense counsel didn’t show, so it was left to me to do the Perry Mason bit and harass and confuse an inexperienced court to the degree that although we didn’t get an acquittal, the sentence was referred to the company commander. Company punishment was close enough to an acquittal that my “client” was no end happy.
My Philadelphia lawyer reputation must have spread, because corps HQ appointed me assistant defense counsel at a general court-martial for two GIs accused of murder and rape. Within minutes of receiving the order, I was writing a letter pointing out my complete inadequacy to defend men who were facing possible death sentences.
I never got an answer, because 3d Army requested us to rejoin it near Metz, and we left immediately. (No one thought it wise to have General Patton wait.)
I’ve often wondered what happened in the trial I was fortunate to have missed and whether or not the accused men had adequate representation.
The Manual of Courts Martial may have been fair in theory, but its application in the field was woefully inadequate in almost every respect.
CarlPeterson
Madras, Ore.
Political Courtesy
A sidelight on the shooting of Theodore Roosevelt during the presidential campaign of 1912 that was described in “The Time Machine” (September/October): The Democratic candidate, Governor Wilson, announced that his campaign would remain on hold until Roosevelt was back in action. As far as I know, American politics has offered nothing like that since.
Julian S. Herz
Indianapolis, Ind.
Healthy Elms
In Howard Mansfield’s article “Elm Street Blues” (October/November 1986), he describes the devastation caused by the Dutch elm disease and the resultant demise of the American elm tree as an urban focal point. He also mentions various communities across the country known for either their past or their present elm tree grandeur. Noticeably absent, however, was any reference to an intact stand of Ulmus americana, almost two hundred in number, that stretches for seven uninterrupted blocks along Luzerne Street in Westmont Borough, a suburb of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. According to senior residents of the area, the trees constitute the longest continuous row of American elms east of the Mississippi.
With the centennial of the Johnstown flood less than two years away, the city is now engaged in a community-wide effort to refurbish and expand its Flood Museum, local Coal Heritage Center, and downtown Historical Triangle in time for an expected influx of tourists. Admittedly these man-made monuments and memorials certainly warrant the visitor’s close inspection, but in my opinion, they can never compare with the special majesty of those wonderful elm trees, arched over the street like a giant cathedral roof, standing one after another, almost as far as the eye can see.
Andrew Davis Gleason
Johnstown, Pa.
A Royal Correction
This letter is written in reference to your article “How I Became a Royal White Elephant, Third Class” by Richard Eberhart in the February/March issue. First, let me introduce myself, Mom [Princess] Rajawong Pairoh Kridakara. I am Steeg’s eldest sister; another sister is Mom Rajawong Pleonchitra Kridakara. We made Mr. Eberhart’s acquaintance when he became Prince Chirasakdi’s and Steeg’s tutor in 1931. In writing this letter to you, my sister and brother asked me to represent them as well.
A few weeks ago my cousin Princess Patara Svasti kindly passed on to me a copy of the above-mentioned article. At first I found it amusing, but gradually 1 became somewhat resentful, as quite a few of the circumstances and statements were inaccurate and exaggerated. When I came to the paragraph concerning my father, Minister Prince Amoradat Kridakara, I was shocked and very upset. It read: “Steeg’s father betrayed King Prajadhipok and left Siam, taking his son with him. Despite his high rank as prime minister, he gave up his birthright and defected to the Japanese, who took good care of him. He died of natural causes about twenty years later. 1 have never been able to find out what happened to Steeg. He might still be alive.”
This whole paragraph is completely untrue. My father never betrayed H.M. The King. My father never defected to the Japanese. He remained The King’s faithful servant to the end of his days, and he retained his princely rank and honor to the day he died.
Here I must give a brief outline of my father’s life in his later years. Soon after The King and the Royal Party returned to Thailand after The King’s successful eye operation, my father was appointed to serve Thailand as the minister to France. He remained at this post for two years. Steeg was left in the United States, studying at Exeter Academy. For reasons of economy he later continued his studies in Tokyo, Japan. In 1932–33 there was a change of government from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, and all officials of princely ranks had to leave the government service. My father returned home and went into retirement. He lived out his life peacefully and died in Thailand at the age of sixty-five. Steeg, you may be interested to know, is still very much alive and well. He now owns and runs one of Thailand’s famous fishing resorts and seaside condominiums.
Mom Rajawong Pairoh Kridakara
Bangkok, Thailand
A Royal Correction
Richard Eberhart replies: I am glad to hear from Princess Kridakara and to be reminded of those wonderful days over half a century ago, and of Amoradat, whom I always admired and respected, as I did all of the Siamese people I met during my almost-year as tutor to Chirasakdi and Bongsamara.
I regret any mistakes of fact in this article and am glad to apologize for them. In talking of things half a century and more ago, one has to go on memory. If I made a mistake about Amoradat’s going to Japan, I am sorry. It must have been a general notion in the air at the time. I did not make it up or imagine it; I thought it was fact as were the other facts remembered. I am glad to have this explanation of that part of history, and again regret a mistake and wish everyone well. I remember Amoradat and the whole staff with the greatest admiration and affection and thank fate again now for giving me one of the best experiences of my early life in my post with these splendid people.
Down with George III…
I am proud that most of my ancestors came from the British Isles, but 1 am even prouder of being an American. And as an American who has four Revolutionary War ancestors, I bitterly resent (and I’m not DAR, though I’m eligible) the fact that the British Embassy in Washington has hung a picture of George III on our soil (“The British View,” May/June).
My God! England! How insensitive can you get!
Margaret R. Croft
Reed City, Mich.
Editor’s note: Actually, by diplomatic custom, the ground on which the British Embassy in Washington stands is considered British soil.
…Long Live the King
What a magnificent article that was by Sir Oliver Wright, “The British View,” that you ran in your Constitution issue. As the author wrote, “Who can fail to be moved by [the Constitution’s] language, poised as it is halfway in time between Shakespeare and Churchill and with the cadences natural to both?” Who can read this and not be moved not only by the writing but by the spirit and understanding it conveys?
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I like to think that the British have a marvelous sense of humor. George III presiding over the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.! I will never see it, but I cherish the picture.
Florence N. Jury
Berkeley, Calif.
Presidential Follies
Is there something in the nature of the American Presidency that leads itself to the type of behavior described in “The Presidential Follies” in the September/October issue? Or is there something in landslide political victories that leads presidential staffs into the extreme arrogance shown by those you describe. Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan—all won landslide victories. And you can add to this list the efforts to pack the Supreme Court during Roosevelt’s second term and Johnson’s rapid escalation of the Vietnam War after his overwhelming victory.
The feeling perhaps is that the country liked you, or liked your candidate, overwhelmingly over the “other guy,” so it will tolerate anything. Hubris is right, an arrogant and prideful belief in being the elect rather than just the elected.
Bruce Brager
Arlington, Va.
Presidential Follies
Your article by Irwin F. Fredman entitled “The Presidential Follies” was most interesting, but in connection with incidents of which I have specific knowledge, it was inaccurate at the least but clearly defamatory in its conclusions as they relate to Maurice Stans, former Secretary of Commerce, and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Nixon campaign during the period involved.
The objectionable and inaccurate language specifically referred to says, speaking of Watergate, “Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans, who collected the money that made it all go, was fined five thousand dollars.”
Also, throughout the balance of the article, you lumped Stans together with those who were convicted of clear-cut Watergate offenses, for example, as one of “twenty-four directly linked to the White House.”
The only assumption that can be made from all this directly and forcefully suggests that Stans was a defendant and guilty of offenses in the Watergate matter itself. The facts established by the record are that he had no involvement in Watergate in any way, and any suggestion that he was a defendant or guilty of Watergate illegalities is totally erroneous (as any research of the record would disclose).
Stans resigned his Commerce post early in 1972 to become the Chairman of the Nixon Finance Committee. The offenses for which he was fined five thousand dollars were in that capacity and were based on technicalities which the court described as non-willful; they were totally unrelated to Watergate.
Robert H. Finch
Mr. Finch is counsel for Mr. Stans, and was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Nixon.
