Strategic Bombing

Editor: The article, "Strategic Bombing of Germans," by William Pfaff (Jan. 23), is inaccurate in some of its statements.

Mr. Pfaff refers to "Strategic Bombing" in his title, then describes the "saturation, carpet or mass bombing" of German cities.

The term "strategic bombing" refers to the selection of specific military targets, such as railroad yards, airfields, oil refineries, steel mills, armament factories, and all other industries, the destruction of which will inhibit the enemy's ability to wage war. It has nothing to do with killing civilians.

The next incorrect statement is "U.S. heavy bombers bombed German cities by day while the RAF bombed by night."

I flew 30 missions over Germany in heavy bombers (B-24s and B-17s) in World War II as a lead crew pilot, leading squadron, group, wing and division formations. On each mission, we were assigned specific military targets, sometimes within a city, but we were never assigned a German city as a target.

!Ellis M. Woodward. Baltimore.

Self-Made Loss

Editor: The theme of Dennis O'Brien's Dec. 29 article, "Family's deserted house is not a home -- but they are required to care for it," is that the homeowners, the Grants, are frustrated and "being ground up by the wheels of government." The article leaves one with the impression that the county government has somehow wronged these homeowners, but a logical analysis of the facts presented leads one to the obvious conclusion that the Grants find themselves in their predicament solely due to the decisions they have made.

As a community leader often engaged in battle with Baltimore County officials, I am certainly no defender or champion of the county bureaucracy. This article, however, was so one-sided and unfair to Public Works Director Gene Neff and the county that I was compelled to come to their defense.

The county told the Grants it was "considering" buying their property, after which the homeowner, "who is a real estate investor, took that to mean the county would eventually buy the house" and proceeded to build and move into another house elsewhere in the county. Thus, the Grants ended up owning the two houses because they do not know what the word "considering" means.

The fact that the house has now been broken into and vandalized is the result of the owner's inability to keep good tenants in the property and not the result of any county actions. The Grants' lament that they have "no choice but to use the $70,000" insurance settlement to repair the house is ridiculous whining. That's the purpose of having insurance.

The homeowners, who will "eventually make a tidy profit," which according to my calculations will be in the neighborhood of $700,000, want the county to decide once and for all if it is going to condemn and buy the property.

As a county taxpayer, I would strongly object to the county buying any property until it is irrevocably clear that the property is needed for a county project. County officials refuse to say when they may decide on condemnation because they don't know.

The project for which this property may be necessary has not been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers or the EPA and probably will not be approved for several more years. To suggest that the county and Mr. Neff have somehow wronged the Grants by not buying their property before it is needed is a cheap shot, not supported by the facts.

!Robert D. Sellers. Towson.

Ignorant Article

Editor: I feel that I have to object to the ignorance displayed in your recent article, "State seeks to alter sullied image with anti-smoking pitch."

I am a teenager who smokes and is fully aware of the risks and dangers of cigarette smoke. I was profoundly offended by remarks by Health Secretary Nelson J. Sabatini, an admitted chain-smoker himself, who says that children are influenced by the advertising of the cigarette companies and that is why many children start smoking.

I got the clear impression that Mr. Sabatini was implying that we children can't make up our own minds; that we soak up everything we see and hear about smoking and have no opinions on the issue.

If I weren't a smoker, I don't think that I would take a look at the Marlboro Man or Old Joe the Camel and say "Gee, that man looks so 'cool' smoking that cigarette" or "Man, look at Old Joe the Camel smoking that cigarette. I want to be just like him. Toss me a cigarette 'cause I want to be cool."

I'm not saying that children don't smoke because they think it's cool, but I know for a fact that they don't start smoking because of a cartoon character or because a man dressed in a cowboy suit says that it is the "in" thing to do.

Usually young teens start to smoke because they are going through a phase of rebellion or defiance toward the parents. Every teen goes through it. It's a part of growing up.

Heather Walsh. Columbia.

Dire Warnings

Editor: The litany of dire warnings against re-electing President Bush is hauntingly similar to what we heard about ex-President Reagan both times.

But Mr. Reagan was elected and managed to get re-elected. Mr. Bush was elected once and is now up for re-election.

I sincerely hope we have learned the lesson well for the good of all of us, including the unguided ones who voted for Mr. Bush the first time.

$ Milton P. Sause. Baltimore.

Historic Facts

Editor: A Jan. 22 article by Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University proclaims that it is wrong to help financially or in any other way countries which have been economically and socially devastated by communism.

He writes, for instance, that "the most notable cases of successful transformation from socialism to capitalism are Chile and China's Guangzhou region; in both cases foreign aid was not required."

The facts, however, are that foreign capitalists, mainly Taiwanese, poured lots of money into the Guangzhou region to create sweat shops.

The investors are dividing the profits with the communist dictatorship of China. There is no privatization of industry and commerce for the population itself and mainly there is no democracy but a cruel dictatorship.

It is well known that the bloody regime of General Pinochet in Chile was first supported by the CIA. Later, it received foreign aid from the U.S. and from the International Monetary Fund. Professor Hanke has to know about the many thousands of cruelly tortured and murdered citizens of Chile. Does he want to facilitate these kinds of regimes?

Professor Hanke states that "serious analysis has all but destroyed the widely-held folk image of the Marshall Plan. By 1948 when the Marshall Plan began, the reconstruction of

devastated infrastructures was largely completed."

Everybody who lived after the war in Europe knows that the reconstruction of the destroyed cities and installations took dozens of years. The freight load on the railways he mentions as proof is no indicator of completed reconstruction.

We must be strong in the defense of our interest. It is in our interest to help the countries emerging from communism to survive the consequences of the catastrophic regime and to live in democratic freedom and human dignity.

alter Ehrlich. Baltimore.

Sandy Beaches

Editor: Two of your recent letter writers advocate letting Mother Nature wash Ocean City into the sea. They assert the population is being unfairly forced to pay for the few who own property there.

I may never own property in Ocean City, but I've been going there every year since I was a baby. My very dearest of memories lie there.

I love Ocean City. In these cold and bleak winter days I get out my telescope pictures and dream of my week this summer when I'll be there again.

And so do hundreds of thousands of families from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.

The "affluent few" can well afford to let Ocean City wash into the sea. They have Aruba, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands. The middle class has O.C.

For the millions we spend to replenish the beach, we get back so much more.

Has not Maryland been reaping in the benefits of having its own ocean resort town all these years?

' Georgia Corso. Baltimore.