Censorship!
Myron Fox is vice president of the Military Postal History Society , a group that studies the mail that is sent to and from soldiers. He is an expert on United States military and civilian censorship in World War I and World War II. In this interview, he describes how wartime letters were censored.
When were the first soldiers' letters censored in the United States?
We do not believe it was done in an overt manner before the Civil War. It might be that most of the troops before then were illiterate and officers were largely trusted, so they didn't bother.
There was some censoring in the Civil War because letters sometimes had to cross enemy lines. Most of the censoring comes from the prisoner-of-war camps. For example, if someone was writing a letter from Andersonville [a Confederate prison camp where many Union soldiers starved] those at the camp didn't want people to know what was happening, so the prisoners wouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about a camp. The first heavy censorship of U.S. soldiers took place during World War I.
What were the censors looking for?
The censors were looking out for two things in World War I and World War II. They didn't want the soldier to say anything that would be of value to the enemy, such as where they were. They always wanted to camouflage how strong the troops were. "Loose lips sink ships" was the phrase that was very prevalent in WW II and that was the theory in WW I as well.
Officers also were looking to see any weakening of desire among the troops. It's very important in wartime for officers to know about morale issues.
Were the letters ever censored for moral reasons?
One of our researchers recently found over 500 confiscated and condemned letters at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. They included letters that used graphic language dealing with sex. Our member also found that in some cases the same writer would keep having his letters confiscated and apparently didn't get the message. These letters were never delivered and apparently the sender was never sent a notice of the offense.
Were other types of letters confiscated?
Letters that were sent in foreign languages were also intercepted. Many members of the armed forces were immigrants or the children of immigrants and they were more comfortable communicating home in their native language. A letter written in Polish or Italian usually wasn't delivered because the typical censor didn't know what it said.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/warletters/sfeature/sf_censorship.html
To respond:
What types of censorship during times of war would you agree to and what types would you disagree with? Respond to previous posts. Post by Sunday May 2, 2010 for full credit.
36 comments:
During times of war, I would agree to any censorship to potentially valuable enemy information. Therefore, during World War I and II, when letters were discarded because they gave away locations or strengths of troops, the censorship was justified. However, one major thing I disagree with is censorship of letters for moral reasons. If two people want to exchange letters with graphic or sexual language, that is their choice and is not the business of a censor. Such letters do not effect anyone but the two people involved. For letters written in a foreign language, they should be translated rather than immediately discarded. Discarding a potentially harmless letter is pointless just because the censor does not understand what is being said. However, translating it is very important incase there is revealing information in the letter. Like people, every letter deserves a fair trial.
-Anne M.
Class 3
I think the types of letters that the soldiers wrote giving away positions or something having to do with the mission or operation at hand should have been censored of confiscated. However, the letters written to their wives, as graphic or personal as they could have been, should have been sent as this was the last connection they had with their families at home. The U.S. was wrong to confiscate these.
Brian B
Period 7
I had never thought of censorship during war time until recently. I started watching an HBO miniseries called the Pacific in which a character mentions being commanded to not write any military aspects down on paper. I agree with the censorship of letters from the military standpoint because any location or descriptions of the lay out of their forces could be intercepted by the enemy and become a huge disadvantage. It also was apparent to me that it was important for the officers to understand the thoughts of the troops (morale). If the soldiers were writing about how thirsty they were and that they would be stronger just if they had some water, then the officers could try harder to get water for their forces. However, I do not agree with all types of censorship that occurred. I do not think letters that were written in alternative languages other than English should have been held back. If the military was to censors the messages then they should have all the appropriate tools and keep the censorship equal for all the messages. I have the same view on letters written from prison camps. They shouldn’t allow the prisoners to write letters if they were just going to hold back letters that were written badly about them. Censorship of letters during war seems like a necessary task, however, it should not over step the boundaries of soldier’s rights.
Adam M
Class 7
I believe that in times of war, certain types of censorship are acceptable while others are not. I agree with Anne that if the information could be of use to the enemy, then it should be censored. Sometimes the person writing the letter may not realize that what they are saying could be information that is useful to the enemy. This is why censorship is important. However, this is the only type of censorship that is acceptable. What other people want to write about should not be limited. Furthermore, those who write their letters in different languages deserve to have the letter read as well so that, if no explicit information is included, the letters can reach their destination.
Josh V.
Period 7
I would agree to any censorship to potentially valuable enemy information. That is a matter of life and death, and letters sent home should not be a danger to the soldiers sending them. I also believe that the letters sent in a different language should be censored. Because the soldiers could be giving valuable information away, without the censors being able to understand what is being written. I also feel that censoring the letters can get a real opinion of the troops, and that could be a valuable tool for the commanding officers. It could help the officers better command their soldiers, and make for a better fighting force. I feel that the letters should be all in one language, because it would make it easier on the censors so they don’t have to waste time trying to decipher what the letter said, it would make the censorship more efficient. So, I agree that all the letters sent should be in English. But I don't agree with the censorship of letters containing graphic language dealing with sex. But if the letters don't have to do with the war, why should the government worry about them. It doesn’t concern them. Censorship of letters during war seems like a necessary task, but, it should not totally invade boundaries of soldier’s rights.
I have to agree with Adam and Anne in regards to what should be censored during war. I think that it is perfectly fine to censor letters that gave away military locations, strategies, or prisoner camps because like Adam said, it give one side a huge disadvantage over the other. Essentially, it would be like having a bunch of spies telling the opponent all of your information. Therefore, censorship with military information is acceptable during war to prevent secret information from leaking out of the prison camp.
Censorship that I don't agree with includes personal affairs and foreign language letters. It is not the business of the censor to stop any letter based on their own morals, religion, or personal beliefs. I believe that if a letter contains personal affairs that was meant for the recipient, the letter should be sent. Censorship of this kind violates the prisoners' rights to freedom of speech, something guaranteed for every American under the Constitution.
As for letters in foreign languages, these should not be censored only for this reason. Like Anne said, hiring a translator would be the best option for these letters. Just because you cannot understand the letter does not mean it contains vital information and it must be discarded. The letter could simply be a letter home that never reaches the recipient because it was censored. All in all, letters containing vital military information can and should be censored, but letters about personal affairs or in a foreign language should be sent to the proper recipient.
-Kevin R.
Class 3
Censorship of letters during war was a very complex issue due to the invasions of privacy that it required. In order for letters to be checked, every single one had to be read, meaning that the man who scanned the letters gained knowledge about each soldier. The issue is that soldiers did not know that they were providing generals with issues from their personal lives and were often "tricked" into giving up information regarding their own feelings on the war. After realizing that privacy invasion is inevitable, the next issue is to determine what personal information is worthy of being censored. I agree with Louis, Anne, and Brian when they stated that sex-related letters should not be censored. This is solely based on the ideal that the point of censorship is to remove any potential threats to the safety of the army. A soldier writing to his wife who he has not seen in months of years is certainly understandable, so letters of this nature should not be censored, even if they are graphic in their contents. Also, generals should not judge soldiers based on the information provided in the letters. If a soldier expresses anti-war feelings but is still a dedicated soldier, then there is no issue. As long as the soldier serves with his best effort, there is no need for a general to step in. Judging a soldier on his/her letters instead of performance and effort in war-related causes is unjust.
Besides personal information, another issue with censorship is letters written in other languages. I have to disagree with Louis's idea that all letters must be written in English. Soldiers should be granted the right to write in any language, especially because letter writing was the only form of communication with family during the war time. I agree with Anne that letters should be translated before being deemed inappropriate. Once they are translated, they can then be evaluated. When they are evaluated, safety and protection for the army and for the United States should be the only factor involved. Censorship and letter scanning is tempting because it can reveal a great deal of info about soldiers, but in order to be fair to these soldiers, letters must only be judged on their threat to the army.
Drew R.
Class 3
I would agree that the censors should look for things that the enemy could use against the other army. For example, if the letter said anything about where they were it should not be sent because that could be an advantage to the other side. I disagree that letters should be disgarded for moral reasons. I agree with Anne that it is non of the censors business and if the soldier wants to write to someone that has nothing that could be useful for the enemy they should be allowed to send it. I also think it is wrong to discard the letters and never notify the writer. They should at least know what they are allowed to write so they are allowed to have some contact with people outside of the war.
Liz P.
Period 3
What were the censors looking for?
The censors were looking out for two things in World War I and World War II. They didn't want the soldier to say anything that would be of value to the enemy, such as where they were. They always wanted to camouflage how strong the troops were. "Loose lips sink ships" was the phrase that was very prevalent in WW II and that was the theory in WW I as well.
Officers also were looking to see any weakening of desire among the troops. It's very important in wartime for officers to know about morale issues.
Were the letters ever censored for moral reasons?
One of our researchers recently found over 500 confiscated and condemned letters at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. They included letters that used graphic language dealing with sex. Our member also found that in some cases the same writer would keep having his letters confiscated and apparently didn't get the message. These letters were never delivered and apparently the sender was never sent a notice of the offense.
Were other types of letters confiscated?
Letters that were sent in foreign languages were also intercepted. Many members of the armed forces were immigrants or the children of immigrants and they were more comfortable communicating home in their native language. A letter written in Polish or Italian usually wasn't delivered because the typical censor didn't know what it said.
During the times of war, I believe that certain types of censorship were very important while other types were unnecessary. I agree with Josh and Anne, that information that could be of any use to the enemy should be censored. I also agree that any letters in foreign languages should be confiscated, unless the person filtering the letters understands that language. I agree with Brian, that the letters that were graphic and personal should not have been censored, since they were of no use to the enemy.
Andrew M
Period 7
I'd have to say that I don't agree with Anne on the comment to agree with any type of censorship. Sure, anything that would be valuable to the enemy should definitely have been censored, because we wouldn't want certain information getting out. I agree with that. But like Brian said, I also believe personal messages and such are personal. That is for the person who's writing it to talk to just who it's meant to get to. It's not for the officials to decide what that person can and cannot say. It's not their business. So if a person wanted to have graphics and foul language in a letter to a friend, that's their opinion. That letter has nothing to do with giving information to the enemy so I don't see why they did that.
Emily M
period 7
I agree with most people that letters that contain potentially usefull information to the enemy shoud be censored and not sent home. Everything else is just an invasion of privacy. If a letter has sexual content then it shouldn't be censored because it isn't doing any harm, it just may make the person censoring it feel uncomfortable at worst. I don't agree with Louis and Drew that all letters should be written in english. This country doesn't have a national language, even though the majority of our population speaks english, so letters should follow the same guidelines. If we don't have a national language, why should we force poeple to write in english if we don't even require them to speak it? Anne and Kevin are right that a translator should read the letters and censor them from there.
Sarah P
period 3
i really did not like the idea of censorship one bit, i dont think it was fair to the people to get there personal belongings consficated from them. But if i had to choose, the censorship that i somewhat agreed with would have to be the letters. There is an actual ligit reason why the letters cannot get to the people and that is because they would have to cross enemy line. i really am not for this whole idea of censorship though.
dugan
period 7
While I may not always like censorship I do agree with a few of the reasons regarding why the military would censor letters. Like everyone else I do agree with the military censoring letters that divulge valuable information such as their position and the number of troops present. This letter could be lost and wind up in the hands of the enemy which would be devastating. Info such as this in a letter could potentially risk the safety of many soldiers.
One type of censorship that I do not agree with is the censorship regarding the language used in the letters. If someone writes a letter using vulgar language then that letter should still be delivered to the recipient. The military has no right to censor the letter due to the language used and as Kevin said this violates our right of freedom of speech.
I also do not agree with the censorship that was used when dealing with a letter written in a foreign language. As the article said, "Many members of the armed forces were immigrants or the children of immigrants and they were more comfortable communicating home in their native language." It is not fair that letters sent in a foreign language were confiscated. If a person understands one language better than another or their family does not know English then they should be allowed to write home in a foreign language. There also were, and still are, many immigrants serving in the military and it would not be right to not allow them to receive letters just because of the language it was written in.
So in the end I think that it is okay for the military to censor letters if they are revealing potentially devastating information but if the letter is just written in a foreign language or contains inappropriate language then it should be allowed to pass.
I agree with Kevin in that letters should be censorship should only apply to letters containing vital military information. For example, if a soldier was writing about a mission that they were going to carry out in the future, and during the description a landmark or symbol of the aforementioned mission was revealed, an enemy spy could come into possession of said letter and be able to counter the mission. This is especially crucial during times of war when the entire country has to be on their guard.
However, I do not think any letters regarding the soldiers' feelings, how he is being treated, or his day to day life should be censored. Each person has the right to express themselves, and it would be a violation of those rights to censor such letters. Additionally, I think that the letters containing sexual references should not have been censored. Sexual relations are intimate experiences, and it the business of only the people involved, not the military. Plus, it does not serve as a legitimate threat to national security.
I believe that censorship on foreign language letters should follow the same rules. In order to overcome the language barrier the letters should be translated, as Drew and Anne said. Thus, any letter in any language is given the same amount of freedom.
I agree with Kevin, Anne, Adam and Louis—I believe that the only letters that should be censored are letters that give away military secrets, such as troop locations, strategies and movements. If the enemy got their hands on these letters, then they would gain a clear advantage because they would be able to sketch their battle plans based on the new information. Effectively, capturing letters that contained military secrets would be akin to receiving a report from a spy on “the inside,” so it would be imperative to censor letters that contained information pertaining solely to the military.
On the issue of censoring letters with private information, I agree with Drew that the army officers should not overstep the bounds of their powers under the Constitution by censoring information that does not pose “any potential threat to the safety of the army.” While it is true that the Army is an employer and employers have certain increased rights of their employees, the Army is an extension of the US Government and therefore should go the extra mile to protect certain rights that do not affect national security, such as freedom of speech as it applies to personal discourse. If a soldier writes to his wife using graphic language but does not give away any military information, there is no harm done. I do agree with Drew that beyond initially reading the letters, what is read should go no farther and should not pass throughout the Army as some sort of rumor. To a certain degree, soldiers should have privacy, even if that privacy must be protected only by the people who initially violate it (meaning those who read the letters).
I also agree with Anne and Drew by arguing that letters in other languages should be translated and not just immediately confiscated. Yes, it may pose more work for the Army to translate all of the letters written in other languages, but to disallow letters to be written in other languages is to discriminate against those people for whom English is not their first language. After translation, the same rules that apply to all the other letters (such as that military information should be censored but personal information untouched) should be abided by so as to ensure equality among those who wrote the letters.
I absolutely agree with Anne, letters that contain valuable enemy information (such as locations or strength of troops) should be discarded. Although no one has the right to discard a letter just because it may contain graphic or sexual language, the person writing the letter should be given the right of freedom of speech. They should be allowed to qrite in any way they want, especially if they aren't giving away any valuable information away. The letters written in a foreign language should be translated instead of being discarded. Like Anne said these letters may be harmless but yet are discarded just because they're in a different language(which is unfair to the letter writer).
Ale F.
Period: 7
I didn't know that censorship was a significant part of the war. The main aspect of World War I and World War II that I focused on during my studies was the battles and their outcomes. After reading the article on censorship during the war, I believe that some aspects of censoring letters was unjust and others were done for a good cause.
I believe that the prisoners-of-war had the right to write letters to their families and friends. Censoring these letters was a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech. If they wanted to complain about the camps that they were in and how they were treated, they had the right to do so. Since most letters were censored, the way the prisoners were treated was never changed.
The location of the troops and the troop counts were rightly censored since it would greatly help their enemies to attack them unexpectedly. Troop morale, although it may be a factor tied into the treatment of the troops, was rightly censored since their enemies could know their fatigue. In terms of graphic language and references to sex, that was unjustly censored even though the language was vulgar. The troops were writing to their families, and most of the troops were never heard of again because they died in war. Thus, it was wrong for them to censor letters to their families no matter what the language was like. The censorship of these letters made the families of the troops very worried and it's shocking to censor these letters. Finally, letters in foreign languages should have been translated like Anne suggested. Depending on their content, they could have been censored or sent off. Also, it would provide the viewpoints of the foreign troops on the wars.
Andy H.
Class 7
I agree with Brian that the letters should b censored for things that could give away the location of troops, and even the strengh of the troops. That information deffinetly gives the enemy an advantage and could use it against us easily. I do not think that the letter should be confiscated though, because it was personal property. It should be simply given back to the soldire to keep at camp. I, however, do not agree with the censorship of letters in different languages. If the censor can not read the language he could easily find a soldire to read it to him, because there were so many immigrants serving in the war.
Like everyone else, I am not opposed to the censoring of letters that hold information that would benefit the enemy. I also think if censorship was not allowed, those letters would just be entirely discarded secretly. At least with censorship, the soldier gets to send something out, even though it may have black lines through it. On the other hand, censoring letters for moral reasons is a waste of time and I don't see why anybody would care so much about someone's personal life. It's okay for a soldier to witness unimaginable death and destruction but completely unacceptable to send a sexy harmless letter? That just doesn't seem fair.
Letters that are not in English should obviously be translated. These people are risking their lives for the safety of the American people and they deserve to get the chance to communicate with their families like everyone else.
Also, if letters are held back, they should let the writers know so they don't keep on writing ones of the same sort. Like i said, everyone should get the opportunity to speak to their loved ones. Especially during such a traumatic experience.
I believe that in times of war, certain types of censorship are acceptable while others are not. Some information could be of use to the enemy, then it should be censored. The person writing the letter may not realize what they are saying could be information that is useful to the enemy. This is why censorship is important. However, this is the only type of censorship that is acceptable. People should write about what they want back to their families, its wrong to censor. Those who write their letters in different languages deserve to have the letter read as well so but i would agree that some information is valuable to the enemy, while other family oriented writings should not be taken out.
Ricky G
p.7
I think Josh V. put it best "What other people want to write about should not be limited... those who write their letters in different languages deserve to have the letter read as well so that, if no explicit information is included, the letters can reach their destination". If the army is putting money into censoring letters than they can spare money to translate the letters so that each soldier has an equal opportunity to write home as the next.
I think Emily M. said it best about graphic language, "personal messages and such are personal. That is for the person who's writing it to talk to just who it's meant to get to. It's not for the officials to decide what that person can and cannot say. It's not their business. So if a person wanted to have graphics and foul language in a letter to a friend, that's their opinion." It really is up to the writer to decide if it's appropriate for the reader and not the army. Love is love and letters are words. People have the right to send and receive letters regardless of sexual or dirty language.
Paige O.
Class 7
When it comes to any type of censorship there will always be both upsides and downsides to the cause. I would have to agree with the majority of comments made; that censorship should only be limited to potential and vulnerable war information passed through the soldier's letters. The upside to this censor has obvious reason and that is to protect the United States Army. Although it is invading the sender's privacy, censoring could prevent serious problems. I also think that letters written in a foreign language should be censored for information and then sent instead of thrown out. In addition, censoring of graphic or sexual language is unfair to the soldier because he/she should be able to choose the style in which they write. Altering or deleting certain use of language in a letter would take away the right to free speech. To sum it up, letters should only be censored for harmful information, in any language.
I agree that letters should have been censored during times of war but only to some degree. For example letters dealing with personal information should be left alone because it's not significant to the war. I think censoring the letters was just another degree of saftey for the troops even though it may not have seemed that way. What if their was some kind of spy or rebelious soilder giving valuable information about whearabouts or millitary stratagies? The easiest way to communicate in a time of war was to send letters so the censoring of letters is a justified precaution. I also agree with what Anne said about letters in different languages being discarded because they most likely were harmless letters that generals didn't see the need to translate which is silly because there was a family waiting for that letter to come but it never did.
I agree with almost everyone who has posted because they all basically said the same thing- that the censorship of letters containing information that the enemy could use in any way to hurt us in the war is okay, and that the censorship of letters containing personal messages, no matter how graphic they are, is not okay. The reasoning behind censoring the graphic, personal letters was probably something along the lines of wanting to keep the image of the American soldier clean, but every soldier should have the right to write letters to their loved ones whether they contain mere formalities or the most graphic and sexual of language.
I also agree with Anne, Kevin, Drew and everyone else who said that letters written in foreign languages should be held to the same standards as those written in English. There should be people who can translate the foreign language and make a fair call on whether or not to censor the letter.
Kristin
Class 7
I think the censorship in order to protect the safety of troops and their location during World War One and Two was acceptable. It makes sense that people did not know the location or the soldiers. Also as Adam and Kevin said it would give one side a disadvantage. If the enemies got hold of one letter they would be able to find their location and attack.
However, also as Kevin said I do not agree that the government would censor personal affairs on information. People’s personal affairs and information about their lives do not affect the army; therefore it would be wrong for them to withhold them from their family. It is really unfair that the government would sensor personal information to love ones back home when these people are giving their lives for our country.
I also disagree with Louis when saying that they should only be written in English. It is unfair to discriminate against Americans who might speak different languages. The United States is a huge melting pot with many different people from every country. If people who are Americans but originally from different countries, want to serve in the army we should not discriminate.
Meghan L
Period 3
What a soldier can and cannot communicate to his family back home is a sensitive subject and a very difficult thing to judge. When all they want is to tell their family what they're doing and what's going on, it's somewhat unfair to them that they have to leave out certain details, but I do agree that the sensitivity of certain information and it's potential effect on our nation overrules one man's desire to describe his situation to his family.
I think that it makes sense that information like the whereabouts of a soldier's unit or other secret information should be kept out of personal letters just in case. If it is beneficial to the troops, digression about the strength of the troop is important too, and worth censoring, but I don't think that purely superficial reasons are enough to intercept personal letters. It's unfair that P.O.W. letters that made the camps look bad should be intercepted, because that's solely a matter of pride and an attempt to hide unnecessarily. Also, if letters are graphically sexual, however offensive they may be, if they have no impact on how well the United States can win a war, nobody has any right to censor them.
I believe that if a letter in a different language is intercepted it should be translated before being automatically censored. It would take little effort on the part of the U.S. to get translators to read these letters, and it is unfair not to let people send letters just because they write them in a different language and we don't feel like getting a translator to help assess it.
As most of my classmates have already said, I would only agree to the censoring of information that could somehow be used to aid the enemy. You can't trust all the soldiers to make sure they don't give away their position or where they plan to go, not that they want to help the enemy, but that they don't realize the information they're giving to another person could be intercepted by someone who could use it against them. If a letter is confiscated because of this though, I feel like a separate letter should be sent to the person who would have received this letter, letting the person know what had happened. Anything that does not in any way aid the enemy should not be censored. It in no way would benefit the military to censor it so they would have no reason to do so. Concerning letters written in different languages, like Anne had said, the only fair way to go about it would to translate them, and then treat them like normal letters.
Mark A.
Class - 3
I agree with Anne and others in that any censorship of valuable information, like troop formations and positions, is a good thing, because should the enemy get a hold of these letters then the could achieve a significant tactical advantage. I also agree with Louis in that the government/military should not censor any letters that contain graphic or sexual content, as that is none of their business. I would like to add, however, that if the letter contains anything about troop morale then it should be censored. My reasoning is because, if a soldier were to describe in a letter how his unit's morale was poor, and should the enemy get a hold of said letter, they could use that information to their advantage. Finally, in regards to censoring letters in foreign languages, I agree with Anne and Kevin in that getting translators would be the best option. I do however, understand the situation that the censurers are in; if they are unable to get a translation of the letter the safest options is too discard the letter, as you can not disregard the chance that the letter contains some information that the enemy could take advantage of.
Colin S.
Class 3
As most have already stated, censorship should only apply to letters containing military information, that could potentially help or sway the enemy in any way. However when it comes to the soldier's personal life including his own thoughts and feelings, i don't think such letters should be censored. If a soldier wants to express how his is feeling to his love ones, he should have the freedom to do so. I think if anyone was in the position of being away from home, fighting in a war so courageously, they would at least want the ability to stay in honest contact with their loved ones. This includes letter containing sexual references, in that as Ishan stated, it does not contain any threat to national security and therefore should be allowed to the soldiers.
letters that are written in a foreign language should be translated so that we can be sure exactly what they say. By doing so, potential threats of any kind can be accurately determined. Also, if the letter contains anything "graphic" in nature, the letter writer will receive the same freedom the other, English speaking writers would.
Cristina N.
Period 7
upon reading the interview and viewing the opinions of my class mates, its quite obvious of what should and should not be censored from soldiers' letters. in agreement to what nearly every peer had to say, the only necessary censoring should be information about our government or anything else that, if slipped into the wrong hands, could jeopardize the safety of our government or anybody for that matter. in regards to what should be kept uncensored, id agree with tom on the explicit and sexual topic. if a soldier feels the need or desire to write in a perhaps inappropriate manner, although maybe frowned upon, he should be allowed to do so in accordance to our country's right to freedom of speech. as far as i'm concerned, it seems only logical to censor information about anything that could be useful to an enemy of our country, God forbid, should anything of the sort ever happen.
Eric Sippin
Period 7
Matt M
Class 7
I agree with brian when he explains that the confiscation of letters to the enemy or others that gave away information about positions and military strategies was the right thing to do. If the military took away personal letters to their families, that was very wrong. As brian said, that was the only connection they had to home. They needed to think a little more before they acted.
For the continued safety and strength of the war effort, it was perfectly acceptable to sensor soldiers letters during war. I agree that it was very important for soldiers to not write anything of value to the enemy. Imagine if a whole military campaign was defeated because the enemies found a soldiers letter home that said what the troops were going to do next or where the troops were located. That would be a shame. It would have been a good idea to for the army make it clear to soldiers what they could write in their letters and what they couldn't write. This way, soldiers would still have the well deserved comfort of writing home to loved ones. It was perfectly ok for letters to be confiscated because they were written in a different language as well. Letters in different languages were the most likely ones to be giving away information to the enemy. It was of little importance and there wasn't really the time to have translators read through each letter to make sure that it was safe. It made the most sense from an economic standpoint to discard of these letters. It didn't make sense to confiscate letters for moral reasons. There wasn't really anything that the enemy could learn from an explicit letter, so there wasn't anything harmful about them. I agree with Anne when she said that it is a couples choice to write graphic content and not the business of the sensor. If anything, exchanging that kind of talk with loved ones at home could probably boost the moral and desire to fight for the soldier.
Patrick B. Period 3
I agree with Pat on all of the points. It would be more than a shame, however, if hundreds of lives were lost in a battle because the enemy knew exactly where and when to attack, all because a soldier was writing home to his parents. Also, he mentioned that letters in other languages would be more likely to give away information. I hadn't thought of that, but it is a very good point. As for the censorship of explicit letters, I do not see a point in that, but I can understand why they might have done that in the 1940's when anything with sexually explicit content was much less accepted than it might be today.
In war, you have to give up certain rights in order to save lives. The right to free speech in documents that could be intercepted by the enemy is a perfect example of a right I would be willing to give up to help my country.
During times of war I believe that censorship should be permited to a certain degree. Censorship should be allowed to prevent the enemy from getting valuable information, which would negatively effect the U.S. If a soldier is revealing their position, valuable intel, or future battle plans. That one letter could effect the outcome of a war or conflict. Although, letters sent that do not contain military information should be sent through because as Brian Buchetto wrote, that letter could be the "last connection they had with their families at home."
Doug B
Class 7
During times of war, I feel that limited censorship was acceptable. Obviously if letters included and gave away military tactics, such as stragies, locations, past events, etc., then they should have been censored. However, if a letter was completely personnal, no matter how intimate it was, it had no right to be censored. That is the same for letters written in foreign languages. Obviously if it is written in a foreign language and gives away military tactics it should be censored. But if it is a personnal, intimate letter it should not be censored. Overall, I feel that the only letters that should have be censored and should be censored today are letters that pose a threat to military and/or national security.
-Hank H. Class 7
I believe that this assignment taught me a lot. Before the project all I knew about my heritage was that I was mainly Irish, and my mom's maiden name is O'Shea, so not much. I was able to trace my families generations back to a small town in Ireland. Not only did I learn about my personal history, but I was able to learn about the Irish culture and history. I was able to learn their traditions and daily life. On a more general side, I learned about Europe as a whole and the entire immigration process. I always though that families from Europe moved to the United States just to go, not really for a purpose but to start a new life. While there were many cases where families moved to America just to explore the world and new opportunity. What I found interesting was the struggle in Europe economically that forced these families out of their homes. In most cases they didnt have a choice and their only option was to leave everything they loved behind them to a country that they only have heard about.
When my mother realized how little i knew about my own culture and heritage, she was shocked. She was determined to teach my family everything she knew about our Irish heritage. At dinner that night she also realized that my siblings didn't know more than i did. She did the best she could to inform us of our past and where we came from. I think that knowing this kind of stuff is very important. Where you came from defines who you are and everyone should be aware of their past.
-Will Fletcher
Class 4
Post a Comment