(4 of 5)
Your article leads off with the premise that ability to pilot an airplane, and a log full of solo hours is, ipso facto, a prime qualification to think in terms of air strategy. On the other hand, it would be assumed from your article that nothing less than a few thousand hours with a stick in hand can give a Naval officer the ability to direct the grand strategy that involves the use of aircraft units of the Fleet.
The premise is not axiomatic, and if it were, the obvious choice of Generalissimo of the U.S. would be Charles A. Lindbergh, a choice which I think you will agree could be improved upon. . . .
While air power has been a powerful weapon in the war to date, it has yet to be demonstrated, and may never be, that air power, shorn of the coordination of other units, can win or hold any post. Even the Japanese, in their conquest of Wake Island, found it necessary to employ many ships, and lose several, to overcome a garrison of a few hundred men with a very small air complement.
Your article implies that Admiral King and the other Naval officers now at the top cannot be the Navy's best choices because of their lack of flying background from early commissioning. You evidently overlook the fact that the conduct of the Navy in the war is not solely a matter of flying Navy bombers against Japanese garrisons in the Pacific. There are also the minor matters of convoys to England and Russia, convoys along our Atlantic frontiers, the anti-submarine campaign along the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts and the submarines of our own that are taking a toll of Japanese shipping in their own back yard. If & when a second front is established, a Navy which can think in terms of ships as well as aircraft will be a vital component of the many forces that will have to be employed.
It would seem, then, that the highest posts in the Navy should be held by men who have demonstrated that they can think in terms of all the branches of the service. The Navy is proud that it is not a "one-man show." There could be several choices for the top billet. Admiral King happens to be the Navy's idea of the best. Can you nominate any other who would far surpass his overall abilities?
This is written on the stationery of Admiral King's headquarters, merely because, as an enlisted man, I happen to be assigned duty in that large office. I don't know the Admiral—only see him occasionally from a distance. But like hundreds of thousands of my fellows, I have untold faith in him to lead us to victory in this struggle.
THEODORE HOFELLER Yeoman, First Class, U.S.N. Navy Department Washington
> That U.S. naval aviation has much to be proud of, TIME well knows. That it is at least doubtful whether air power has had its share of attention in the Navy is also true. TIME trusts that all such doubts will speedily be removed. For Admirals King and McCain, all Americans wish only the fullest success in all their efforts.—ED.
Straightener
Sirs:
... In TIME, Sept. 21, you state: "The U.S. could have gotten along without most of this fiber, could really use the peanuts, soybeans, and hogs which might have been grown instead." Please let us put you straight on this.