Letters, Jul. 19, 1954

  • Share
  • Read Later

Reappraisal

Sir:

I want to not only agree with you, but cheer you for your stand on U.S. foreign policy as expressed in the July 5 issue. You have made the basic agonizing reappraisal that needs to be made . . .

TED DOLAN

Chicago

Sir:

Re your story "Alone":

Only 48 hours before his departure to the U.S., this Anthony Eden takes a special opportunity to villify us in every way before the House of Commons and simultaneously to coddle and caress Russia. If the Russians are so dear to his heart, why didn't he and Churchill go there and have their talks? Why? Because the "pickings" there are no good . . .

A. B. BUTT

Greensboro,N.C.

Sir:

British Socialist Woodrow Wyatt, speaking in praise of Anthony Eden's House of Commons speech, says, "Britain has a decisive role to play . . . That role is to civilize the power of America. Today Britain is the respected free nation in Southeast Asia, and I am afraid America is the discredited nation." Do they, the British, actually feel so smug? Wait until, God forbid, Hong Kong and Singapore go ...

MARY M. BOLOTIN Los Angeles

Sir:

. . . Any understanding of our present situation requires an analysis of the intent of Russia and Communist China. We have only one means of gaining that understanding: a review of past events . . . Communist goals are expansionistic . . . and each new conquest ... is detrimental to the net balance of power. It follows that there is some point beyond which the balance lies in Communist hands . . . Unless we are willing to lose this balance, there can be no better time to draw the line than now . . .

DAVID CHAFFIN

Rydal, Pa.

Sir:

In your anti-British periodical you repeatedly gibe at British policy during the Munich crisis. Will you please state, clearly and succinctly, what the U.S. government did during that crisis to lessen the danger of war? I suggest that the answer be given, clearly and succinctly, in one word: nothing.

DAVID WILLIAMS

Aberystwyth, Wales

The Great Swede

Sir:

For more than twelve years we have not missed an issue of TIME, and feel that your reporting is consistently good, your scientific articles are intelligently selected and your Religion and Medicine departments always interesting and stimulating, but our church office is flooded with protests against the "caricature" of Emanuel Swedenborg in your June 28 issue. Could you please permit your readers to view a better likeness?

(The Rev.) JOHN L. BOYER

California Association of the New Jerusalem Riverside, Calif.

—I For a more likable likeness, see cut.—ED.

As Otters See Us

Sir:

Re the June 28 story on sea otters: incredible as it may seem, America owes its freedoms today partly to the undoing of the sea otter . . . Theirs were the pelts that lured the Russians to Alaska and California a few centuries ago. The Russians pulled up stakes here only because the vanishing of the sea otter made their stay unprofitable. Who knows what the course of history might have been, if not! . . .

CARL GRAVES JR. Livermore, Calif.

Sir:

  1. Previous Page
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3