06 July 1945

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

6 July, 1945      0900

Nancy

My dearest sweetheart –

Well – another work day in Nancy to get rid of, dear – so that I can be one day nearer you. We’ve been pushing them by us for a long time now. I think I started when I left New York. It seems like such a waste of time – but what can one guy do when he’s bucking a few million others? I’ll just have to take my turn, I guess. But don’t fail to yell out at me, sweetheart, as I finally get by the turnstile.

I ran all over this damned town yesterday looking for a new spot for our Dispensary – and it was impossible to get a thing. I found an available vacant house – but hell, it was high up on a hill in the outskirts of town. It was very nice – but not for us. So I’m going to sit tight for now and see what happens. We’re bound to end up in the right spot, and I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

Last night was interesting. You remember of course that we’re here on an M.P. mission. Well we have a lot of Airborne troops in town – and they’re as tough and rotten as they come. They’re fed a lot of rough stuff in combat and the trouble is they carry it on right now. Well there have been so many “incidents” – that it has caused a lot of discussion among the French. There have been several brawls between French soldiers and these paratroopers and there’s no doubt that the American Army is losing face every day in the eyes of the French. At any rate – every officer in battalion has to patrol the streets each evening to check on the M.P.’s to see if they’re carrying out their assignments – i.e. – every officer except the chaplain and myself. We went out together just to look around – unofficially. They were picking up G.I.’s by the dozens, and we were surprised to find that the Commanding General of the Airborne division – a two-starrer – was also on patrol.

I got two old letters from you, darling – the 3^rd and 8^th of June. The latter contained the clipping about the smell in Salem and Joe Harrington’s tirade. I know him – and he’s just like that; but he does get results. So you wonder about living in such a place! Maybe it will all be cleaned up by then. Anyway – I don’t even remember smelling anything at all and I lived only a stone’s throw away from the North River.

Say I found your note about this Bob Herfort interesting – not that I knew him but because he was with the 3rd Armored. They landed after we did – by a few weeks as I remember it, and they joined the 7th Corps. We were closely associated with them from that time on until the end of the war; an excellent outfit. I’m glad he’s doing all right and he’s lucky to have landed himself a decent job. I guess with everything I did get out of the war – I lost out on one of the important things – my profession, but it’s much too late to worry about it now. I’ll do something about it at a later date. Hell, I’m still an MD – with a license to practice – and that’s something, isn’t it?

And I have a sweetheart waiting for me – whom I love dearly. How about that? Well, I’ll tell you – that fact is enough to compensate for anything and don’t think I’ll ever forget it sweetheart – I love you, you love me and that’s a swell combination.

Have to stop now, darling. By the way – Pete keeps sending his regards and I’ve been forgetting to mention it. For now – so long, dear, love to the folks –

And all my deepest love,

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about the WWII Victory Medal

The World War II Victory Medal was established by an Act of Congress on 6 July 1945. The medal commemorates military service during World War II and was awarded to any member of the United States military, including members of the armed forces of the Government of the Philippine Islands, who served on active duty, or as a reservist, between December 7, 1941 and December 31, 1946.

The World War II Victory Medal was first issued as a ribbon, and was referred to simply as the “Victory Ribbon.” By 1946, a full medal had been established which was referred to as the World War II Victory Medal. The medal's front depicts Nike standing victorious, holding a broken sword, representing the broken power of the Axis, with one foot upon the helmet of Mars, the Roman god of war, representing the end of the conflict. Behind Nike is a sunburst, representing the dawn of peace. The reverse recalls the "Four Freedoms" speech by President Roosevelt, with a laurel sprig, surrounded by the words "United States of America", and the dates of the conflict, "1941-1945". The edges of the ribbon revisit the multi-colored rainbow ribbon of the Allied World War I Victory Medal. This again honors all the allied nations. The wide red center represents the new sacrifice of blood by World War II combatants. The thin white lines separating the central red band from the outer multi-colored bands represent the rays of new hope, two of them signifying that this was the second global conflict. The twin rainbow stripes, suggested by the World War I Victory Medal, allude to the peace following a storm.

No attachments were authorized although some veterans received the medal with an affixed bronze star which, according to rumors at the time, was to distinguish those who served in combat from those who did not. However, no official documentation has ever been found to support this supposition. Although eligible for its award, many World War II veterans never actually received the medal since many were discharged prior to the medal's institution.

On the other end of the spectrum, there was no minimum service time limit for the issuance of the World War II Victory Medal, and the National Personnel Records Center has reported some cases of service members receiving the award for simply a few days of service. As the Second World War ended on 2 September 1945, there are also cases of service members, who had enlisted in 1946, receiving the decoration without having been a veteran of World War II. The reason for this late date is that President Harry S. Truman did not declare an official end of hostilities until the last day of 1946.

05 July 1945

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

5 July, 1945      835

Nancy

My dearest darling –

I’ll try an early start today – before sick-call, because once I get tied up, I’m going to be busy most of the day. It seems that when we got permission to use the house we’re now in for a Dispensary, it wasn’t cleared correctly and it still belonged to a quartermaster outfit. The Colonel of the Q.M. outfit was down yesterday and told me he needed the place for some of this own men. I hadn’t made the original arrangements – so it was all a big surprise to me. Anyway, I’ll have to go down to see the town major – but I know well enough that it’s almost impossible to find billets now. The Americans have use of the quarters that were originally taken over by the Germans. We are not allowed to take anything else. Anyway, I’ll have to spend the rest of the day scouting around.

Well this Fourth of July was certainly the ‘safest and sanest’ I’ve spent in a long time – that is, if you can call being away from home ‘sane’. But it was quiet. We had breakfast later than usual and didn’t do much in the a.m. We tried playing tennis in the p.m. and found that the courts were in terrible condition – so we went to an indoor pool instead. It’s a beautiful thing – but I like outdoor swimming better. In the evening we went to see “Murder, My Sweet” – with Powell, Claire Trevor and Anne Shirley – a pretty fair story with the usual ridiculous set of explanations. But the surprise was reasonably well maintained.

Well, darling, the mail is starting to come in at last and yesterday p.m. I heard from you as of the 10, 19, and 25 June – as well as from Lil Zetlan and Dad A. Lil sent her regards – and of course tells me to hurry home and get married. Dad A told me about getting ready for the summer and his plan for closing up shop for a couple of weeks. I think it’s an excellent idea and I shall so write him. He needs a rest and that’s the only way he’ll get one in these times. In his letter he included a sort of statement of my assets (sounds business-like, that). Seriously though – I never really know how much I have in my checking account – because Dad A. keeps sending in my Coop. shares check, pays for my insurance – etc – and I draw an occasional check from here. Anyway – it’s straightened out and from what I can see – I’m satisfied we’ll have enough to get started on anyway. And that reminds me, dear – thanks for taking care of the Father’s Day gifts – and I’ll send you a money order as soon as our mail clerk will do it for me. I can’t send you a check because I can’t seem to locate my checkbook. I don’t think it’s lost – but it was misplaced when we moved from Leipzig. It’ll turn up.

Gee – just happened to think I don’t remember commenting on that note Mother B added to one of your letters some time ago. I’m glad the perfume arrived unbroken. I’ve had pretty good luck at that – because many of the fellows report the opposite. I hope she liked it. I believe I told you I got it when I was in Paris – and it was next to impossible to find perfume – that is – name perfumes. They all smell wicked to me, but anyway, it got to her and that’s what interested me mostly.

I seem to have rambled a bit today, sweetheart, and I haven’t yet told you today how much I love you and miss you. Can I possibly tell you enough times? I doubt it. When will that day come when I can tell you it every day and show you too? I’ll probably be so used to writing it – that I won’t feel right – unless I sit down, write the words and hand it to you. Oh yes? No!! Well all for now, darling, will write again tomorrow. Love to the folks and

All my sincerest love –

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about the Election Loss of Winston Churchill

From BBC News comes this review of the British election of 1945:

The 1945 election marked a watershed in British history. The successful Conservative wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, was defeated by Clement Attlee's Labor Party. Attlee's landslide victory ushered in the welfare state and the National Health Service. The commanding heights of the British economy were nationalized. India was granted independence. Attlee's government changed the face of British society, creating a new social consensus that was to remain largely unchanged until 1979.

The national government set up by Winston Churchill in 1940 to see Britain through the Second World War came to an end on 23 May 1945. With the Allied victory in Europe only two weeks old, the Labor Party was anxious to return to politics as usual and fight a general election. Churchill was unwilling to dissolve Parliament before the close of the war in the Pacific, but he had little choice when his coalition partners made clear their intentions to go to the country as soon as possible.

The 1945 election was the first to be fought in Britain for ten years. The previous decade had seen massive change and during the war a new left-leaning consensus had gradually developed within Britain, with the Beveridge report at its heart. The report, published in December 1942, recommended a comprehensive welfare state and National Health Service. Its proposals enjoyed widespread support throughout the country but received only lukewarm support from Churchill and the Conservative Party. The nation had undergone the horrors of war and expected to enjoy the fruits of victory.

The position of the Labor Party changed dramatically during the war. Churchill had given Labor several key ministries within the national government, including the Ministry of Labor (Ernest Bevin) and the Home Office (Herbert Morrison). Clement Attlee, the Labor leader, was made Churchill's Deputy Prime Minister. The effect was to give Labor a wealth of experience in office which was to prove invaluable when the party went to the country.

Most observers, including the Soviet leader Stalin, believed the Tories would win, despite the publication of opinion polls that showed Labour six points ahead of the Conservatives. Churchill had been an incredibly popular and successful war leader and few could imagine that the electorate would turn against him. Although the Conservatives appeared to be in a very strong position as they entered the election campaign, to many voters they remained the party of appeasement, unemployment and the means test.

The Conservatives' appeal to the nation under the slogan "Vote National - Help him finish the job" was based around Churchill's personal popularity and as such found itself out of step with the public's new mood.

Churchill and Tory media mogul Lord Beaverbrook based much of their campaign rhetoric on the dangers posed to democratic institutions by Labor's proposals for a welfare state and the nationalization of key industries. Churchill even went as far as to stay that if Labor were elected it would need to "fall back on some kind of Gestapo" to implement its policies. Ironically the Conservative manifesto A Declaration of Policy to the Electors offered many policies similar to those of Labor.

Attlee leaped on Churchill's "Gestapo" remark and took the opportunity to remind voters that Churchill the wartime leader had been replaced by Churchill the leader of the Conservative Party, remarking, "I thank him for having disillusioned them so thoroughly."

The Labor manifesto, Let us Face the Future Together, offered the nation a radical departure from the past, including comprehensive social security, a national health service and the nationalization of major industries.

Polling day was 5 July 1945. When Labor's victory was announced on 26 July 1945 (three weeks after polling day to enable those overseas in the forces to vote) it took the country, Attlee included, by surprise. With 48 per cent of the vote, Labor gained a Parliamentary majority of 146 seats, the largest in post-war British history. The swing of 12 points to Labor was unprecedented (and remains a record swing at post-war elections). The vote represented more a rejection of the Conservative Party than of Winston Churchill's performance as a war-leader. (Churchill was another astounded at the result).

Many first-time voters voted Labor as did those in the forces. Labor's success was down to its ability to persuade the voters that only it was capable of building the post-war world that the majority of the population desired. Churchill's refusal to embrace the Beveridge Report whole-heartedly cost him dearly as did the public's perception that he was a "man of war" and not a suitable peacetime leader.

04 July 1945

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

4 July, 1945      1100

Nancy

My dearest sweetheart –

Happy 4th of July to you! Just think – this is my second 4th in France, but this one is so much easier to take than the first was. I dug out the little book I have which you might call a diary. It starts with 6 June and I just stopped writing in it the other day. I’ve never believed in diaries – but I knew I’d like to have a permanent record of my travels on the Continent; I felt the 438th would travel, and it did. The notes I have on the 4th last year tell me we were at St. Come du Mont, Normandy – and I can remember the place very well. The notes go on to say that it rained in the p.m. and that in honor of Independence Day General Bradley (he was in charge of the First Army then; Hodges took over later) ordered every artillery gun in tactical set-up to fire one round in the direction of the enemy – at noon. But there was firing all day anyway. There was supposed to be a push that day but I have noted down that it was called off because of heavy casualties suffered by the 83rd Division in the very early stages of the Push-off. And as I sit back now and remember it – we had to wait until 3 weeks later – the 25th – for the breakthrough. Boy – those were long hard days, full of anxiety and wonder – if we’d every get out of the damned peninsula.

Yes – it’s better now, sweetheart – except that we’re or I’m still waiting, but for something infinitely nicer. Oh yes! Yesterday p.m. I went over to visit Dave Ennis at the hospital. I stayed for dinner – which they have at 1700. We sat around and talked and then he suggested we visit some French friends of his – a couple aged about 40 I should say. Well – we got to their house at 2000 and had to eat with them. The French (and the Germans) eat late you remember – and you can’t refuse them when they invite you. I enjoy eating with the French. Their meals take at the very least – an hour and usually more. The courses are served one at a time. When you finish the potatoes, for instance, the meat is served; after that, the vegetables – etc. They turned out to be very nice people and the conversation was entirely in French. I’m way behind in it – particularly the vocabulary. Dave speaks just like a Frenchman. Of course he’s been in France for almost a year.

After that – the evening was pretty well gone. We came back here – our quarters – had a couple of drinks – and I took him back. It was not the kind of “night before” celebration I would have liked to spend.

Ah – yes – yesterday. I got 3 letters from you, darling, the 12th of June and 2 dated the 18th – and most welcome, too. So you’d like to know what part the 7th Corps – the 438th played in the war. I can tell you this now, darling, the 7th Corps spearheaded every drive that the First Army made, from the landing in Normandy, until the end of the war – and where the 7th Corps went, the 438th was with it. We saw the war develop and come to a climax – and I’ll always remember it as I saw it and not as I heard about it. And yes, I’ll probably miss the group I’ve been with for so long. I dread being separated from them when they finally start re-deploying the outfit. The re-deployment is done here, and not in the States. When that time comes, I’ll probably be re-assigned – because I’m in the Medical Corps and the Lord knows what I’ll hook up with; but as long as it’s with an outfit going home, I won’t mind.

And now I must stop, sweetheart. It’s almost lunch time now – and I’ve got to get washed up. I hope you’re having a pleasant Holiday. Be well, darling, love to the folks – and

All my deepest love is forever yours –

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about Another "My Day" by Eleanor Roosevelt





4 July 1945

HYDE PARK, Tuesday — All over the world our men will observe the Fourth of July. Even some of the nationals of foreign countries are going to celebrate this national holiday of the United States of America. I have a communication from our Ambassador in Brazil asking if I would accept, through our Ambassador, an honor which they wish to extend in memory of my husband on this important day.

This means that people throughout the world are going to ask what happened on July Fourth which made the American people choose it as their national holiday. They will be told that on that day a document was written in which a very small group of men set forth their convictions as to what was right or wrong. These men then led a successful war to uphold these convictions and freed themselves from a strong power across the sea that, at that time, was not concerned with the rights of people far away. Then they wrote a Constitution, to which they appended a Bill of Rights which delegated certain powers to their representatives in government, but retained the vast majority of fundamental powers in the hands of the people themselves.

* * *

What we remember most on the Fourth of July and what, I think, will impress itself most on the peoples of other nations as they read our Declaration of Independence, is that our concern was with human rights. In the last few years all over the world this question of human rights has been increasingly of importance to the people.

I think when the history of this past twelve years is written, we will find a very great development in the awareness of the people that their government belongs to them and is designed to furnish them with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

We have had periods here when property rights transcended human rights. But because our continent was such a vast one to develop, there was room for the development of property and its protection and we did not greatly harm the rights of human beings.

* * *

We have reached a point today, however—obviously we have been working toward it steadily during the last twelve years—when all questions will be considered first from the standpoint of human rights. That is going to hold good, I believe, throughout the world.

Perhaps, therefore, it is fitting that more and more this national holiday of ours should become known and respected by the peoples of the world. For the truths set down in the Declaration of Independence are the fundamentals of a lasting peace. If we are to move forward under the new charter toward a peaceful world, we must accept in all the United Nations these truths and it is well that we should remind ourselves individually in the U. S. A. that the Fourth of July is a day on which we glorify human rights.

E. R.

(Copyright, 1945, by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.)

03 July 1945

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

3 July, 1945

Nancy, France

Dearest darling Wilma –

Well, I got two letters yesterday – one from you, 20 June, and one from Lawrence, 22 June. I’ll never be able to figure out how a letter all the way from California can reach me earlier than yours do, dear. But I don’t care – as long as I continue to hear from you.

Lawrence is apparently all set to sail and from what I can gather – it seems like he’ll go to Hawaii first of all – although it may be to the Philippines. He seems excited about it all, and I can understand that. There’s something about being alerted – and the few days or weeks before sailing – that gets you and there’s nothing you can do about it. He still thinks that he just missed my homecoming, but I had already written him that that was delayed somewhat.

Your own letter, darling, told me about visiting Do and Ab and how happily married they are. It’s so refreshing to read things like that – particularly when you know of so many marriages that don’t turn out that way. Your mention of Nancy and Abbot in the same letter seems like a good example. I never knew them very well either – but I saw enough of them to realize that things just weren’t all right with them. I want our marriage to be of the former type and, darling, there’s no reason why it can’t be. One of the most important things, once it is agreed that two people love each other, is to have understanding and tolerance of the other person’s faults – because we all have some. I honestly feel we’re going to do all right, sweetheart, and I’m so anxious to get started and prove it.

Well, well – I was surprised and happy to note that you were getting down to facts about marriage. I don’t give a hoot about the actual facts themselves – but what pleased me was that you were thinking about it. An earlier letter of yours, dear, on the same subject – was a little more vague – or hesitant. About the actual wedding itself, dear, it makes very little difference to me. I’ve always felt that weddings were an ordeal for the couple getting married and a good time for everyone else. But families always think differently about it and I suppose they’ll have something to say this time. It makes no difference to me at all. What I want to do most of all is to marry you – even it it’s in front of a big crowd at the corner of Tremont and Boylston. I’ve never heard my folks say a thing about it – for I left before the subject could possibly be brought up – and they’ve never mentioned it in their letters. And I don’t know, of course, how your folks feel about it. What I want is to get married – and how makes little difference. As you say – it’s only once, and if your folks and mine will get any more pleasure one way or another – well as far as I’m concerned – we’ll leave it up to them. It’s nice to talk about though – the subject of a wedding. I just can’t wait for the time when I can really feel you are mine alone, sweetheart. That will be a happy day –

There’s nothing new here. The weather stinks – and activity is nihil. But it’s better than sweating out the German 88’s – and I’m not forgetting that.

And that’s it for now, darling. Above all – remember how much I love and want you – and that’s the way it will always be. Love to the folks, dear, regards to Mary and

All my everlasting love

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about To Bomb or Not to Bomb
(continued)


Leo Szilard
11 February 1898 - 30 May 1964

Leo Szilard is best known for his pioneering work in nuclear physics, his participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II, and his opposition to the nuclear arms race in the postwar era.

The son of an engineer and the scion of an affluent Jewish family, Szilard was born Leo Spitz in Budapest, Hungary. His family name was changed to Szilard when he was 2 years old. Szilard was a precocious child, and he took an interest in physics at the age of thirteen. Due to political unrest and a lack of suitable educational opportunities, he left for Berlin in 1919. He was attracted to the work of great physicists like Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Max Von Laue, Erwin Schroedinger, Walter Nernst, and Fritz Haber — most of whom were teaching in Berlin at that time.

In 1933, with Hitler's rise to power in Germany, Szilard moved to England. Between 1935 and 1937 he worked as a research physicist at the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University. It was on a street corner in London, in October 1933, that Szilard first conceived of the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction. The possibility of such a chain-reaction - the process essential for the releasing of atomic energy - had been dismissed by the eminent physicist Lord Ernest Rutherford. Szilard successfully proved Rutherford wrong.

Szilard visited the United States several times in the mid-1930s, and he began to consider a move to America as the prospects for war in Europe increased. In 1938, at the time of the Munich pact, Szilard was a visiting lecturer in the United States. He decided to shift his residence to New York in anticipation of England's weakening policy toward Germany and the impending world war.

On December 2, 1942, Szilard and his colleagues demonstrated the first nuclear chain reaction. This demonstration took place in the graphite block reactor built under the grandstand at the University of Chicago's Stagg Field. This successful experiment was in part the result of Szilard's atomic theories.

Throughout the Manhattan project, Szilard was often frustrated by cumbersome government administration and security regulations. Like other scientists involved in the project, he felt uneasy about the dominant role played by the military. After Germany surrendered, Szilard organized his colleagues to press for limitations in the use of the atomic bomb. He drafted a letter to President Roosevelt urging restraint in the use of the bomb, but the President died before the letter could be delivered. In the spring of 1945, Szilard influenced a group of scientists to produce the Franck Report outlining the dangers of a nuclear arms race. The report advised against the use of an atomic bomb against Japanese civilians, advocating instead a non-combat demonstration.

In July 1945 Szilard circulated a petition urging President Truman not to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. A revised version of this petition was eventually signed by 68 scientists at the Metallurgical Laboratory. It was strongly opposed by General Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, on the grounds that such a petition would breach security and expose the existence of the atomic bomb. The petition did not reach the president. Here it is:

A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power for a number of years. Until recently we have had to reckon with the possibility that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today with this danger averted we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.

Atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.

Signed by Leo Szilard and 58 co-signers

02 July 1945

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

2 July, 1945      1045

Nancy

My dearest sweetheart –

I’m sitting in front of a fireplace right now – and there’s a swell fire going. Yes – it’s cold enough now to have a fire. The weather has been rotten the past few days – and the more I’m away from New England, the more I realize that New England’s weather isn’t any worse to take than that of England, France, Belgium or Germany. They all have weather just as inconsistent as ours.

Today, darling, completes three years of active service in the Army. It hardly seems possible it has been so long. I can remember very vividly the morning I said “goodbye” to the folks at Winthrop, got into my car and headed for Camp Edwards. I was already homesick that afternoon – it was a Friday – and I got that week-end off and headed right back to Winthrop. And was I green! I’ve learned and seen a heck of a lot since then, dear – but I’m glad that the greatest part of my Army career is behind and not ahead of me. Starting tomorrow – I actually receive a 5% increase in my pay. Just think – $10.00 more per month! In the old days – that used to mean a stripe on the left arm for every 3 year period in the Army, a so-called “hash-mark”. They don’t do it now.

Talking about wearing things on the arm – reminds me that all combat troops that are returning to rear areas for duty – as we did – don’t like the regulation which says we have to wear the shoulder patch of the Zone of Communication. We have been wearing the A – of First Army and proud of it – just as are the men who wear their Division patches. I understand that we’ll be allowed to wear our old patches on the right shoulder. It’s just that having been combat all the way – we hate to have our uniforms show us as rear echelon soldiers. It’s impossible to tell by campaign stars – because we were amazed when we came to Reims and found that the Com.2 soldiers had a campaign star for the Battle of the Rhineland – and they never left Reims. It makes you kind of mad. And so you can tell a combat soldier these days only by the patch he wears.

Yesterday was a long long day. I was kind of blue, sweetheart – but hell – what can you do about it? All in all – I’ve got so much to be thankful for – I’m not going to let myself start complaining. Most important of all is the fact that I have your love, sweetheart, and that’s enough to compensate for anything. And loving you is a wonderful feeling, too dear. It’s so satisfying – the realization of it. I love you so strongly and sincerely; I just want to come home and show you. So when I’m blue – I tell myself all that – and I feel a little better.

We managed to break up some of the monotony by playing some Bridge in the p.m. I read a little, looked through a G.I. French grammar –and then in the evening we finally went to a movie – “Keep Your Powder Dry” – with Turner, Laraine Day etc. – the same old thing, but it helped pass a couple of hours. We got back early and went to bed.

I’ve got a little work this p.m. One of our civilian help at officers’ quarters has Syphilis. I thought I’d do a routine Wasserman the other day – just for the heck of it – and sure enough – I got one positive. We’ll get rid of him, of course, but I’ll have to contact the French medical authorities and see that he gets treated.

So – so long for now, sweetheart. Be well – and patient – and send my love to the folks. And for you, dear –

All my deepest love and devotion –

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about "Keep Your Powder Dry"

Here is the review written by Bosley Crowther and published in The New York Times on 12 March 1945.

If they do anything to people for maligning the Women's Army Corps they will certainly do whatever it is to Metro for "Keep Your Powder Dry." For this manifest little indignity, which came to Loew's Criterion on Saturday, makes the distaff members of our Army look like cats in a Hollywood boarding school. Or rather, you might say it makes them look like well-advertised movie stars performing in a thoroughly foolish fiction, only dressed up in Wac uniforms.

The three girls most prominently in evidence are Lana Turner as a former night club hound, Laraine Day as a wised-up general's daughter and Susan Peters as an humble soldier's wife. And the idea is that Miss Turner and Miss Day feud throughout their training stage, while Miss Peters sits sweetly on the sidelines and acts very noble now and then. Of course, in the end, the feuding trainees make up in a burst of gallantry, receive their officer commissions and march bravely off to war.

Mary McCall Jr. (obviously "junior") and George Bruce are the authors of the script, which they must have dashed off on the doorsteps of the studio beauty shop. The situations and dialogue are of that general atmosphere. And Edward Buzzell directed in a studiously beauty-shop style. Miss Turner looks very come-onish in her "perfect 12" uniforms and handles her neatly stacked torso in a plainly unmilitary way. Miss Day plays with ramrod severity and Miss Peters is the soft and wistful type. Some real WACs appear in the background — on a meekly-remote process screen.

And now, the trailer:

01 July 1945

V-MAIL

438^th AAA AW BN

APO 339 % Postmaster, N.Y.

1 July, 1945

Nancy

My dearest sweetheart –

The last I heard – today you became a lady of leisure. You won’t know how it feels until tomorrow, I suspect, this being Sunday. Gee, I hope you manage to stay busy and not too bored, darling.

Last nite, Saturday, I had Dave Ennis over to have dinner or supper with us. It so happened that two other of our officers happened to run into fellows from their home towns – and they came up too – so we had a sort of reunion dinner. Naturally we had a couple of drinks – but it didn’t amount to much. Don’t worry, sweetheart – despite everything, I do not like drinking!

No letters from you yesterday – darn it – but maybe today. There’s so much I’m waiting to hear, dear – particularly your reaction to the news that I’m not on my way home yet. Oh how I wish I were!! I love you so much, darling, and this writing is so difficult!! All for now, dear – love to the folks – and

All my everlasting love,

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about The Last Major Amphibious Assault of WWII


Main Island of Borneo

The Borneo Campaign of 1945 was the last major Allied campaign in the South West Pacific Area, during World War II. In a series of amphibious assaults between 1 May and 21 July, the Australian I Corps, under General Leslie Morshead, attacked Japanese forces occupying the island. Allied naval and air forces, centred on the U.S. 7th Fleet under Admiral Thomas Kinkaid, the Australian First Tactical Air Force and the U.S. Thirteenth Air Force also played important roles in the campaign. They were resisted by Imperial Japanese Navy and Army forces in southern and eastern Borneo, under Vice-Admiral Michiaki Kamada, and in the north west by the Thirty-Seventh Army, led by Lieutenant-General Baba Masao.

The plans for the Allied attacks were known collectively as Operation Oboe. The invasion of Borneo was the second stage of Operation Montclair, which was aimed at destroying Japanese forces in, and re-occupying the Netherlands East Indies, the southern Philippines, Sarawak and British Borneo. Borneo in particular was considered at the time a strategic location for its natural resources, oil.

Although the Borneo campaign was criticized in Australia at the time and in subsequent years, as pointless or a "waste" of the lives of soldiers, it did achieve a number of objectives, such as increasing the isolation of significant Japanese forces occupying the main part of the Dutch East Indies, capturing major oil supplies and freeing Allied prisoners of war, who were being held in increasingly worse conditions. The Sandakan Death Marches and the Batu Lintang Camp are but two examples.

The initial Allied plan comprised six stages:

Oboe 1 was to be an attack on Tarakan;
Oboe 2 against Balikpapan;
Oboe 3 against Banjermasin;
Oboe 4 against Surabaya or Batavia (Jakarta);
Oboe 5 against the eastern Netherlands East Indies; and
Oboe 6 against British Borneo (Sabah).

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Borneo Campaign 1945

In the end only the operations against Tarakan, Balikpapan and British Borneo—at Labuan and Brunei Bay—took place. The campaign opened with Oboe 1, with a landing on the small island of Tarakan, off the north east coast on 1 May 1945. This was followed on 10 June 1945 by Oboe 6: simultaneous assaults on the island of Labuan and the coast of Brunei, in the north west of Borneo. A week later, the Australians followed up with attacks on Japanese positions around Weston on the north-eastern part of Brunei Bay. The attention of the Allies then switched back to the central east coast, with Oboe 2, the last major amphibious assault of World War II, at Balikpapan on 1 July 1945. These operations ultimately constituted the last campaigns of Australian forces in the war against Japan.

30 June 1945

438^thAAA AW BN

APO 513 % Postmaster, N.Y.

30 June, 1945      0945

Nancy

My darling fiancée –

As I remember it, on this date the fiscal year ends – whatever that is. I’ve never been sure exactly. But I do know it had something to do with straightening out accounts, balancing books, etc. And so I’m asking you to kindly settle up on the several thousand kisses you’ve owed me so long. Now – how about it? It’s going to be a heck of a mess, really. When I get back, I’m entitled to countless kisses in my own right and you in yours. Just the day to day quota is going to take up a good deal of time – then how am I going to make up the back pay? What a wonderful dilemma!

Well, darling, I heard from you yesterday in a letter written on the 19th of June – which isn’t bad at all. The fact is though – there are a whole pile of letters outstanding from early June and some from May, too. I really enjoyed hearing from you again and from a recent date. I can understand your feeling about writing – but you’re wrong about the morale angle. My morale – although definitely affected by the war of course – depended more so on you, what you had to say, how you were taking the war, how often I heard from you, etc. It still does, sweetheart, because that’s the most important thing in my life right now – and more so than ever, do I have time to think about it now; more so is it aggravating not to be able to be with you now that the war is over, and more so do I want to get to know you in person. Your letters, sweetheart, are still the only substitute – although I agree maybe there’s not as much to say now. Anyway – you’ve been in it a long time now, darling. Maybe you ought to skip a day here and there or regularly. You know I’ll understand.

It was a very uninteresting and unexciting day here yesterday, and I’m afraid that there are going to be all too many just like that in the future. I didn’t do a damned thing all day – and that always annoyed me. I did start to read a rather interesting book though – and I finished it before the night was over. “Earth and High Heaven” – by Gwethalyn Graham. You may have read it or heard about it; it deals with the problem of a boy, Jewish and a girl – Protestant – and their love. It interested me particularly because I once had such a problem myself. Incidentally – the book didn’t or the author didn’t have a satisfactory solution – as I saw it.

I called Dave Ennis yesterday p.m. and he’s coming over to eat with us this evening and hang around. It was refreshing talking with him the other day. The fact is I’ve had so little opportunity for a long time to talk with another doctor about anything. The conversation at our place gets pretty monotonous at times – although it’s worse in other outfits that I know about. Anyway, as long as I’m going to be here any length of time, I may as well get out of the shell of my own set-up.

I must go now, sweetheart. Today is payday and I’d like to get it over with this morning if I can. I’ll be with you again tomorrow. How about a midnite dance – on the night before the 4th. You would? Swell! I guess I mean next year – damn it !!!! Well I’ll be with you in spirit anyway, and by gum – I’ll love you almost as hard as if I were with you, dear – Be well, love to the folks – and

All my deepest love is yours,

Greg

* TIDBIT *

about Earth and High Heaven


To read the full text, click here.

Earth and High Heaven is a 1944 novel by Gwethalyn Graham. It was the first Canadian novel to reach number one on The New York Times bestseller list and stayed on the list for 37 weeks, selling 125,000 copies in the United States that year. Earth and High Heaven won the 1944 Governor General's Award for fiction, and the 1945 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award. It was also the ninth best-selling book of 1945 in the United States.

Producer Samuel Goldwyn bought the movie rights to Earth and High Heaven for $100,000 - intending for Katharine Hepburn to play Erica Drake. He initially hired Ring Lardner Jr. to adapt the screenplay. Goldwyn was, however, dissatisfied with the results, telling Lardner that he "betrayed [him] by writing too much like a Jew". Goldwyn subsequently hired a succession of other writers to develop the script, and remained dissatisfied with the final product. After Elia Kazan released the similarly themed Gentleman's Agreement in 1947, Goldwyn abandoned Earth and High Heaven rather than risk having it labeled by critics as a copy of Kazan's film.

Here is a review by Claire (The Captive Reader) on Wordpress:

Taking place in Montreal over the summer of 1942, Earth and High Heaven details the relationship of Erica Drake, a twenty-eight year old editor of the newspaper’s women’s section, and Marc Reiser, a thirty-three year old lawyer. Meeting at a party at the Drake’s house, there is immediate interest on both sides but Erica is from an established Anglo family while Marc is Jewish, distinctions which certainly mattered in 1940s Montreal. The novel is the story of how their relationship progresses in the face of their families’ objections and their own prejudices.

Erica’s family immediately discourages her interest in Marc, even before the two make contact again after their first meeting (admittedly, this takes them a while as both are very conscious of the issues confronting them). The Drakes’ protests, while not the violent or hate-filled rants polluting Germany at the time, are of a more common, insidious form of racism, the kind found among those who consider themselves tolerant, well-educated and liberal. There is a concern about the lack of shared culture and beliefs, of different values and aims, and the knowledge that, if married, the pair would not fit easily into either of the social spheres from which they came:

‘I don’t want my daughter to go through life neither flesh, fowl, nor good red herring, living in a kind of no man’s land where half the people you know will never accept him, and half the people he knows will never accept you. I don’t want a son-in-law who’ll be an embarrassment to our friends, a son-in-law who can’t be put up at my club and who can’t go with us to places where we’ve gone all our lives. I don’t want a son-in-law whom I’ll have to apologize for, and explain, and have to hear insulted indirectly unless I can remember to warn people off first.’

The Grants’ arguments have nothing to do with Marc himself – they refuse to meet him – but with the exile he represents for Erica, the stigma that an alliance with him would attach to her. Marriage, both sets of parents say, is difficult enough without bringing in these kinds of stresses, stresses which Erica and Marc can do nothing to alleviate. As Mr Reiser tells Marc,

‘You think you could compromise and somehow you’d manage, but sooner or later you’d find out that you can go just so far and no farther. You’d get sick of compromising, and so would she, and some day you’d wake up and realize that it wasn’t a question of compromising on little things any more, but of compromising yourself. And you couldn’t do it, neither of you could do it. Nobody can do it.’

Erica’s own racism colors her views, even after she has fallen in love with Marc. To her, Marc is simply Marc. He is an entirely unique and fascinating person who happens to be Jewish. But she still seems to think of him as the exception. Her racism is unconscious, which she realizes when listening to Marc describing his brother David and finds herself waiting to hear some sort of defining Jewish characteristic in his description, surprised by her surprise that David sounds just like any Gentile:

Evidently it was not going to be anything like as easy as she had thought; you could not rid yourself of layer upon layer of prejudice and preconceived ideas all in one moment and by one overwhelming effort of will. During the past three weeks she had become conscious of her own reactions, but that was as far as she had got. The reactions themselves remained to be dealt with.

She had counted too much on the fact that her prejudices were relatively mild and her preconceived ideas largely unstated…

Erica is a much more forceful presence in the novel than Marc. Marc is rather resigned, beaten down by the world and himself. And yet he is still interesting and quietly competent and forceful, despite this rather melancholy description of him:

There was a lurking bewilderment in his eyes, as though, in spite of all his common sense and most of his experience of living, he still expected things to turn out better than they usually did.

Above all, when that smile went out like a light, his appalling vulnerability became evident, and you began to realize how much strain and effort had gone into the negative and fundamentally uncreative task of sheer resistance – resistance against the general conspiracy among the great majority of people he met to drive him back into himself, to dam up so many of his natural outlets, to tell him what he was and finally, to force him to abide by the definition.

I found Erica incredibly sympathetic and appealing. At twenty-eight, she has a successful career and is generally respected and admired. But she has no particular interest in working, despite having a talent for it, only having started at the newspaper after her fiancé died when she was twenty-one. What she wants most is a family of her own, though her life seems to have been remarkably romance free prior to the arrival of Marc. But most importantly, she has an incredibly close bond with her father, Charles. They are confidantes and best friends, as well as father and daughter. She brings out the best in him and, we see as the novel progresses, the worst. The violence of Charles’ reaction to Marc has more to do with his terror of losing the person he loves most than with any deeply held anti-Semitic beliefs. The fight scenes between him and Erica are harshly realistic and almost unspeakably cruel – no holds are barred and they each know just where to strike to make it hurt the most.

Graham’s dialogue among Erica’s coworkers was equally well-written, though significantly lighter and quite humourous, reading like something straight out of a screwball comedy. These moments of levity blended well with the otherwise serious tone of the book, since even in the office serious topics are never far off, with the war never far from peoples’ minds. It is always fascinating to read books written and published during the war that deal with issues related to it and Graham touches on almost anything you can think of. Anti-Semitism, clearly, is the main issue discussed, with Marc’s insistence that racism in North American has gotten significantly worse over the past decade, that even as people were ignoring Hitler’s militaristic aims they were listening and sympathizing with his racial slurs.  But there is also much said about French-Canadians and their attitudes towards the war and in Miriam, Erica’s younger, divorced sister just arrived in Montreal after years in London, we see the effect of witnessing the war up close and the way the first-hand knowledge of death has made her pursue physical passion at the expense of emotional love and intimacy.

While Graham’s views regarding marriage and religion may no longer be controversial, her determination to expose Canadian anti-Semitism, and her willingness to suggest connections between Canadian attitudes and the Nazi regime at a time when the true horrors of the Holocaust were starting to be uncovered, remains remarkable.