Description
290 Saturday 11 Aug noon Darling, Before I go any further let me thank you for the deluge of mail, packages, clippings etc - received from you in the past 10 days, most of it not yet acknowledged: 2 boxes of stationery - I'll start using it shortly, and advise your mailing another 2 now; then I can let you know if I think I'll need any more; the fudge bar: after sharing a couple of hunks with Arthur, I took it next door for the two Jims to try and we had a merry laugh as they pronounced it characteristic of Carmel, and went on to expatiate on the town's feeble character (they have voiced many of the same impressions of it that you have) - in short, that fudge was a glutinous nightmare, but I got a kick out of it anyhow; “God Mammon and the Japanese,” [pg 2] of which I've read a couple of chapters; it is scholarly though not pretentious, and very good background material for understanding something of the Korean people - there are several references to Horace G. Underwood, who (since the time of the book is 1884-1905) I take to be Hedge's grandfather. This morning I left the office at ten and stopped by the Officers Club for coffee, which is on tap with waiter service all morning, prior to returning early to my quarters and writing you. I chanced, however, into Jim Boyle, and had the third of a series of thoughtful conversations (I doing most of the listening) on various every day subjects. My estimate of Jim's character and intellect-meaning his clearcut appreciation of things, events and people - has arisen steadily since [pg 3] the initial impression I had of him, fostered partially by what I was led to expect even after discounting Will Ebling's depreciation. He is given to a good deal of highpowered nonsense (for which, since he is steeped in all the classics, the Bible and the comic strips, he is exceptionally well fueled) and to the casual observer this sounds like gross affectation. But it is anything else; he is so full of irrepressible good spirits that he is oblivious to the guffaws of the callow and supercilious. He is a man of mettle, full of old school tradition yet clearly capable of appraising modern values, forceful - he never pulls his punches when an issue is raised, - and mature. I should judge him to be a schoolmaster in the best sense of the word and of the best sort - a strong exponent of intellectual and moral values who would hold men responsible for their actions, yet not [?] and not a snob. [pg 4] If I have made him out a paragon of virtue (in the old Latin sense of the word) it is perhaps partly because he stands alone here and almost so amongst all my acquaintances, and partly because of the unexpected way he has turned out. He's far from what Will Ebling described him as being and all that implies except on the very superficial impression of a superficial observer. He has done much in this short time to strengthen and clarify my sense of values. With that I'll leave him for the moment to return to work until two, when he and Tel and Arthur Smith and I am going to see a doubles match amongst Bobby Riggs, Don Budge, Parker and another guy (Sabin) who are playing on the island. 6:30 pm I thoroughly enjoyed the tennis, and if I don't hear from Chuck by tomorrow afternoon I may go again to see the last [pg 5] of three days’ play, this time featuring singles between Sabin (Navy) and Parker (AAF) followed by a singles match between Riggs (Navy) and Budge (AAF). Today's match was disappointingly onesided but included some exceptionally brilliant shots by each of the four. Budge and Parker won 6-1, 6-2, 6-1. (They usually win, but not straight sets) Budge is a cinch to win his singles tomorrow something like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 and Parker will probably beat Sabin. There are five or six asphalt courts at Island Command for use of anyone on the island. Our crushed coral court here has long since fallen into disuse because it had us bounce but has been replaced in another location (the former, next to the Officers Club, being used to build our new Officers’ Mess on) by a cement court which Tel and MacQuarrie are using tonight for the first time. [pg 6] It is now 4:30 am today in Washington and everyone is waiting eagerly for Saturday's dawn to break - though it may be a few days before a reply is made. My guess, for what it's worth: the reply will be made Saturday afternoon (Washington time) in something like the following terms - As has been implicit in the fact that he and his palace have been spared by bombings which might have been directed at him with a fair chance of getting him, the Allied governments do not seek to destroy or depose the Emperor of Japan. They will now add for the sake of further clarification that the Emperor is not to be regarded as a war criminal subject to trial; there will be no effect to interrupt his reign [some emphasis on limitation of power, or [pg 7] an indication that Japan's use of “sovereign ruler” is to be taken in the same limited sense as that which applies to the British king-emperor]; indeed, terms will be made with the Emperor or his personal representative who in turn will collaborate during the period of occupation to see that they are carried out. Beyond this clarification and the Potsdam statement there will be no further amendment to the meaning of unconditional surrender, and should the terms as they now stand clarified by rejected the war will be prosecuted with augmented fury. This statement will be made Sat. pm Washington time or Sunday morning Tokyo time; the cabinet will meet at once and reply, accepting these terms, by Tuesday morning their time, Monday noon Washington time. Arthur has an astute alternative: [pg 8] the Allies will demand that Hiroshito be deposed and held responsible for his share of the war guilt but will allow a successor of the royal family, someone deemed not to have shared in that guilt. I shouldn't be surprised if some play on the name of Hiroshito's reign, Showa (“Enlightened Peace”) were included in the Japanese bid to retain him, as a facile interpretation of a future ordained by fate. But I suppose speculation at this point is rather foolish when so little time remains for waiting and seeing. Sweetie, are you wearing yourself out by the radio? I'm not going to stay up tonight as I did last night, when Tel and Don and I went down to JCC and didn't get to bed till after midnight - pow'ful late for around here - [pg 9] #355 (Fri Aug 3rd) - Yes, I’d heard all about CASA by the time I got your letter, from letters written to the visiting officers who had left there recently. You've gathered that one of them, George Clark, was recalled - he went to Army rather than Navy M.G. schools. Nevertheless everyone was anxious to hear your comments (I read it walking back from the P.O. in the company of several officers) and nobody had heard that Navy M.G. on Okinawa was definitely being replaced - though everyone knew of the change of command and was expecting such a move. Darling just once more, in reply to your “What a hell of a mess - and where does it get us -” (tho I had to laugh as the mood and spirit in which you wrote that): It's not supposed to get us anywhere. We have, in speaking of the subject at various times, invariably evaded the one basic issue: whose war is this, and whose responsibility? It is most certainly ours as much as any other human being's in the world, and we ought to [pg 10] grateful for the smallness of the share of the burden assigned to us. Our small sacrifice, darling, was essential, and anything we get in return is just incidental - By that I don't mean that the war couldn't have got along without me: that would be pure nonsense. But - the character of a nation is the character of its people; any society has its parasites, but it's only in inverse proportion to their number and influence that it flourishes. Look at France, darling, and try to remember, if you can, and compare, your attitude toward the war at the time I was getting into the Navy, you have changed much since that time, and I could have predicted, as indeed I felt, that you would - because underneath a spoiled and weak exterior (in that respect) was a real, healthy and sound vigor and love of life. What you didn't see then and see perhaps [?] only dimly now - it's been hard for you because you've [pg 11] been surrounded by so much of the seamy, meretricious, indecisive and ineffectual side of the war - is that there is an essential relationship between a healthy and vigorous love of life and the voluntary and positive acceptance of some active or passive part in the war effort, according to one's lights and circumstances. I think that you and I have played our part as we should have done and I think, darling, that we have a right to be proud of ourselves. Not self-satisfied, because it was no more than our duty; but proud, because it has been hard for both of us, yet we've embraced the situation, have grown in spite of ourselves (or that part of us that cried out for shelter and for respite) and have not grown embittered - rather the opposite. [pg 12] Another thing, sweetie: I don't claim any moral superiority over you for having had, in a mind full of the confusion of the decades in which I grew up, just one strong purpose and realization with regard to the world crisis. I well know how much a product of that period of extravagant but superficial idealism and cheap cynicism, a decade of fatuous pacifist pledges in the shadow of active doom, of looking the other way and refusal to face issues, both of us were. So we have faced a stern test, and such a crucial [?] to each of our own heart of hearts! Maybe we could have escaped most of this. Would you now have had it so? My dearest, I rant, and write badly - I need your merry humor to balance me, while I learn to acquire more of it on my own. To finish the thought I was expressing above however, I have no claim to moral superiority because, ironical as it may seem, at that critical time of decision in November ’42 I might not have had the courage of that single mute conviction but for you, my life and my comfort. It was from your solid vitality that my own conviction, contrary then to your outlook, was nourished: we have come through this together, my dear, and together we must refuse to reject this portion of our common life as futile and to be forgotten - [pg 14] It is not so; it's a vital part of us and our first real acceptance of life as adults, our first credentials to the ancient and most honorable fraternity of parenthood, our price of admission to the society of those people who create, and give joy, and honestly call the earth their own. There - it's time now for bed, and tomorrow I'll be mailing you a pair of well-slept in pajamas (With three and maybe one more good dreams of you to their current credit), and writing again to answer your recent letters. Goodnight, beloved Warren
