Letters, Apr. 23, 1945

(2 of 4)

The sacrifice of men was essential to the winning of the war; the sacrifice of some of our abundant food supply is equally essential in the fullest sense of that much abused word, to the winning of the peace. The choice is clear and inescapable, and future generations will judge us on our decision. Have we the intestinal fortitude to forego a little—how pitifully little !—present comfort for immense future gain? I think, I hope, that most Americans, when they realize fully the situation, will do the wise, the generous, the intelligent thing. Newspapers, periodicals, the radio have a grave public responsibility in educating the public conscience and intelligence in this matter.

EDWARD H. KELLY

New York City

Sirs:

Easter Sunday, in a broadcast from England, Dorothy Thompson said that people in England were writing to their papers asking even further reductions in their rations in order that the food thus saved could be sent to Europe where famine menaces. . . . England, who has suffered so much, asks to help by depriving herself. How can we, who pride ourselves on our generosity, do less?

SARAH F. KUIPER

Cambridge, Mass.

Sirs:

Your article, "Statesmen v. Housewives," should be required reading for every man, woman and child in the U.S. ... If we don't do something quickly, we will come out of this war the most hated nation on earth, and we will have only ourselves to blame. . . . MARGARET C. ROWNTREE Los Angeles

Unemployable Duke?

Sirs:

Your statement (TiME, March 26) that the Duke of Windsor is "technologically unemployable, an obsolete man" shocked many of us in the film industry. We take issue with you on your flip and curt dismissal of a man who is one of the colorful figures of our time. As spokesman for a group of actors, writers and directors, I have today cabled the Duke of Windsor offering to form an independent producing company to star him in a pic-turization of his own life story, or a story of his own choosing, or the post of technical adviser on a film project embodying his own ideas and philosophy. . . . We hold that the Duke of Windsor is a highly employable man and in no sense obsolete.

CHESTER MORRIS

Los Angeles

¶ Hollywood has seen some strange sights. But TIME is willing to bet a small Balkan kingdom against the head of Actor Morris' press agent that Hollywood will never see Britain's ex-King Edward VIII as a cinemactor.—ED.

Great Eccentric

Sirs:

Thanks for your interesting review of Victoria Through the Looking-Glass (TIME, April 2).

When I was a schoolgirl in Boston, over 50 years ago, we wanted to use the name "Jabberwock" for a new school paper. We wrote to the Reverend Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) to ask his permission. He replied that we might use the name, then said that "wock" was an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning "the result of," and we all knew the meaning of "jabber," therefore the paper would be the result of much excited discussion. He also said he would like to subscribe.