Wheeler v. Gallup Poll
Sirs:
Rarely in my public life have I written a "letter to the editor." I believe in a free press, even when I personally may have been unfairly attacked or wrongly quoted.
. . . You premise your attack on the Congress for "stalling" in your Aug. 12 issue, as you have in previous issues, on the Gallup Poll, which purported to show that late in July two-thirds of the American people favored conscription. I shall not say that the Gallup Poll is meaningless in its results on most questions, although I have yet to see or hear of any person interviewed by a Gallup Poller, but I do assert that the Gallup Poll on conscription on which you rely is meaningless because it is weighted. You fail to point out that the question asked was: "Do you think every able-bodied man 20 years old should be made to serve in the army, navy or air force for one year?" I submit that this is a vastly different thing from asking the public whether it favors peacetime conscription, even of men from 21 to 31, as the Burke-Wadsworth bill is now worded. . . . TIME'S use of these polls as authority for the status of public sentiment on this question leaves the magazine open to questioning by those of us who sincerely believe that peacetime conscription in America is not only unnecessary (in view of the fact that the General Staff itself has testified that the Army is not impeded in increasing its strength by a lack of voluntary enlistment and that we shall soon have WITHOUT CONSCRIPTION an army of more than 700,000 men for whom we shall not have the necessary equipment for many, many months), but is actually dangerous and violative of every American and constitutional precept and provision.
In conclusion, I cannot refrain from referring to the latest Gallup Poll . . . which purports to show that in my home State of Montana 64% of the people favor peacetime conscription! I believe I know Montanans better than all of Mr. Gallup's Pollers and I can assure you that Dr. Gallup is wrong--woefully wrong--when he indicates that Montana, or any Western or Midwestern State, shows majorities for peacetime conscription. . . .
BURTON K. WHEELER
Washington, D. C.
>The evidence is overwhelming that polls conducted by scientific methods of sampling public opinion are accurate. But TIME does not conduct the Gallup Poll and, although that poll's record has been good, cannot vouch for its complete scientific accuracy. Senator Wheeler might suggest to Dr. Gallup that they jointly conduct a poll in Montana under conditions that will satisfy both of them.
It so happens that the letters TIME receives from readers are in about the Gallup proportion, 2-to-1 in favor of conscription. In talking of an army of 700,000 men without conscription the Senator apparently 1) includes the National Guard; 2) overlooks the fact that the primary object of conscription is not to raise a large standing army but to train 2,000,000 or more men for call in emergency.--ED.
Conscription
Sirs:
What are our people thinking of in opposing the selective draft as a means of an immediate enlargement of our armed forces? . . . To preach "peace" now, to hinder in any way a sensible, reasonable, immediate enlargement of our forces, reveals downright ignorance, selfishness, cowardice or duplicity. . . .
I took my turn in the other war.
As to deploring "taking a year out of a boy's life" as one parent complained, patriotically to serve his country, is plain drivel. If it takes out only a year of five years everyone will be extremely lucky. . . .
JAMES R. HANSON
Fremont, Neb.
Sirs:
You say that the majority (for conscription) appear to be inarticulate. Count this one in:
I arranged for my boy to have boxing lessons, not because I wanted him to be a prize fighter, but so that he would be able to protect himself.
Military training should be given, not to make a professional soldier, but so that the youngsters will be able to take care of themselves, if necessity arises, which God forbid. . . .
C. W. SMITH
San Francisco, Calif.
Sirs:
. . . Your emphasis on a huge conscripted army has, I think, overlooked a simple geographic fact. What America needs for defense is a big navy and a big air force to keep would-be invaders away from our shores--not a great army to shove them back into the sea after they've landed at Bay Head, N. J. . . .
Australians have nets in the water surrounding some of their beaches to keep out the sharks--do you conscriptionists think they'd be smarter to have expert harpoonists on the shore?
DWIGHT LAMALE
Cincinnati, Ohio
> Let Reader Lamale not count his shark nets before they are hatched. The air and sea fleets which the U. S. has ordered are not expected to exist until 1942 and 1944 at earliest.--ED.
New Game
Sirs:
Mr. Garry* has started something at our house (TIME, July 29, p. 14). Problems arise in the training of an 8-month-old baby--and the old, unvaried expressions somehow seem inappropriate to our small moderns.
So Mr. Garry has helped us a lot. "Going to see Mr. Garry" is a new game around here. . . .
CARL N. BROWN
Chicago, Ill.
Crates
Sirs:
I'm getting tired of reading statements like the one signed by E. A. McCulloch, M.D. in your issue dated Aug. 5, that: "not one single American airplane ever flew over the German lines."
That is not the case. I know that because I flew one there myself.
Three squadrons of the 1st Bombardment Group, Air Service, A. E. F., the 11th, the 20th and the 166th were equipped with the infamous American-built DH45 or flaming coffins, and dumped many tons of bombs on objectives in German-occupied territory from Sept. 13 to Nov. 11, 1918. Their losses, mostly from being shot down in flames, were appalling. When the Armistice went into effect there were three members of the original nth Squadron still on duty, and I was one of them. . .
H. P. S. GREENE
Tucson, Ariz.
Seer
Sirs:
Re: Howard R. Anderson letter, TIME, Oct. 10, 1938.
I wonder how Mr. Anderson feels about his remarks now. Am inclined to doubt his later explanation, "satire" . . . for, as a purveyor of satire, Mr. Anderson is a seer of note. If Mr. Anderson will kindly give our patriotic Americans another look into the necessities of the future with the acumen of above date, I am sure it will be gratefully received.
R. R. SACKLEY, M.D.
Chicago, Ill.
> In October 1938, Reader Howard R. Anderson of Ithaca, N. Y. wrote TIME advocating: 1) $3,000,000,000 a year for defense; 2) a navy powerful enough to defend two coasts against any coalition; 3) an air force superior to that of any foreign power; 4) construction of military roads; mechanization; air defense for major cities; 5) compulsory military service (labor corps, active service, reserves); 6) suppression of "hyphenated organizations"; 7) inclusion within the U. S. of all territory from Alaska to Panama. Month later, Reader Anderson not only pleaded "satire" but conceded that his proposals were "nonsensical." Now Reader Anderson has reverted to his original views (see below).--ED.
Sirs:
. . . If Congress in September 1938 had taken immediate steps to carry out my proposed defense program it is conceivable that Hitler would not have extinguished Czechoslovakia and attacked Poland in 1939. And even if he had undertaken these aggressions it is unlikely that the Nazi war machine could have smashed Allied resistance on the continent. For under those circumstances the Allies doubtlessly would have received an unlimited supply of American airplanes, tanks and munitions in the spring of 1940.
Public opinion today substantially approves the second, third and fourth points of my 1938 defense program, and Congress this year is voting far more than $3,000,000,000 in necessary appropriations. Unfortunately large appropriations do not immediately buy security. This country will be in deadly peril until our defenses, some two years hence, will include an adequate air force and a highly trained field force armed with modern weapons. Incidentally, the provisions of the original Burke-Wadsworth Bill are approximately those suggested in my fifth point, and it is to be hoped that Congress will enact this measure in its original form. . . .
Hemispheric cooperation today takes the place of the policy suggested in my seventh point. Unlike Germany, the U. S. prefers a policy of cooperation to one of domination. But Americans must view realistically the defense needs of this country in the area bounded by Alaska, the Arctic lands, Greenland, the Caribbean islands, northern South America and Hawaii.
HOWARD R. ANDERSON
Ithaca, N. Y.
*Chicago's Superintendent of Sewers who conducted a one-man 45-minute demonstration for Roosevelt at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.