TIME TO SHARE LETTERS FROM...

Before I Go Berserk, Hon: Tumultuous Love Letters, Comfort Women with VD, and 4 Ton Wreckers

Kathy and Christine are starting a 12-part series of some of their favorite Jack Cavazzi love letters. Each week they will post a letter for their readers and fans.

Christine is up first with her six, then Kathy.

Christine will tell you, “Jack’s letters are not your typical sweet sheets. What newlywed tells his young wife about the prostitutes across the road? The rampant venereal disease among the soldiers? Can be hot and bothered by Anne’s love in one paragraph, and in the next lace into her like a jealous, frustrated lover? Jack Cavazzi! And, boy, does he have a way with words. This is love letter history – and an emotional romance story – that hooked me from the get-go.”

We hope you enjoy Jack’s letters and look forward to your feedback and comments.

Letter 1 in a series of 12.

---

8th Training Co

2nd Engineer Training Battalion ERJC

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

June 19, 1952

Hello Hon,

Boy I sure miss you babe. I want to see you more than I want anything else in the world.

You’ll notice the new stationery. This is my company name and insignia. You have my address already but just in case you lost it, it will be on the envelope of this letter.

I had a bad night last night hon, I had the feeling that you were out with someone else. I hope that was just a notion. Probably just another of my jealous thoughts.

Hon I sure hope I can get used to not being with you, right now it drives me nuts.

Please write as much as possible, I sure enjoy reading your letters. I know your first two by heart. I must have read them a thousand times. A hundred anyway. Write all the time.

The next few lines will be devoted to the thoughts which flood my mind all day and night.

I love her so much, I miss her so much. I wonder what she is doing now. Does she think of me much? Does she love me enough to wait until I can take her out? Will I get a letter explaining that she got so lonely that she had to go out? I don’t care, I love her too much to leave her because she does something wrong.

It would break my heart if you did deceive me or give part of your love to someone else.

I guess you get an idea of how I worry. Multiply that by a million. No kidding Anne, I do worry.

Sometimes I wake up and find myself dreaming of you, in broad daylight, during formation or something like that.

Well sweet, it is getting late. I get up at 5:30 you know. Sweet dreams babe. I love you very much!

All & I mean All of my Love forever

Jackie

P.S. I miss the hell out of you babe.

The Returning Soldier Effect – A Detailed Explanation

Or why are in times of war,

significantly more boys born than girls?

The Returning Soldier Effect is a phenomenon that soldiers who returned from wars are more likely to father sons than other genders leading to an effect that during war times more boys than girls are born.

How was this effect discovered?

During a study conducted in 1954 by MacMahon and Pugh in the United States, the two scientists came to a surprising conclusion. Originally, they had wanted to investigate how many white children were born in the U.S. during the Second World War. But while they were doing this, they discovered one of the most incredible phenomena in the recent history of science. They noticed that during the Second World War more boys were born than girls and that this effect can be seen in several countries participating in World War II like Austria, the U.S., Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK (only for Italy and Spain there was no significant change of the gender ratio). However, they were not able to come up with any explanation for this.

In their search for answers, the U.S. scientists also examined the birth rates in earlier centuries and came to the conclusion that always during and after a war, more boys than girls were born. For a long time, there were no explanations for this “returning soldier effect”, as scientists called it – until evolutionary researchers put forward an interesting theory.

What is the reason for the Returning Soldier Effect?

One of the first explanation for the Returning Soldier Effect was that it is just an evolutionary phenomenon. As sons have a higher expected reproduction rate than daughters during and immediately after wars in which many men die this theory was proclaiming a general preference by nature for boys in order to increase human reproduction. However, this theory is not rational as it is impossible for parents to know in advance how long a war may last.

Another explanation by Grant was saying that not the father but the mother had a higher impact on the sex of the offspring. Grant was assuming that the more testosterone a mother is having in her blood the higher the chance for giving birth to a son. During war years women had to be “harder” and “tougher” and as a result, they have more boys, presumably because their testosterone levels increase during wars.

Scientists however are skeptical about that theory as there is no proof for a mother’s impact on a child’s gender. In addition, this theory also cannot explain why the gender ratio remains high even a few years after the end of the war.

The most likely explanation for the Returning Soldier Effect

The most common theory however comes from a study of British soldiers that showed that survivors of a war are, on average, taller than the fallen soldiers. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes sense because it can be assumed that larger men are also stronger and therefore have more strength and endurance.

At the same time, it was also demonstrated that the probability of giving birth to a boy is high when the parents are tall. The “returning soldier effect” is therefore based on the fact that during a war on average taller men tend to survive and that the probability of them having a boy is higher than among smaller men.

Why do taller soldiers have a better chance of surviving in a war?

There are actually two main theories to explain why taller soldiers have a better chance of surviving in a war. The first theory states that taller soldiers tend to be physically stronger and fitter giving them a natural advantage in fights with smaller and weaker soldiers.

A second reason might be that height is also correlated with intelligence. More intelligent soldiers might reach a higher military rank reducing the chance of being involved in dangerous situations due to their relative seniority.

How big is the impact of that effect?

The impact of the returning soldier effect during and after war times might not be huge but still significant. The following figure shows how the number of boys born per 100 girls born changed in Germany over time. As you can see the number of boys born is increasing during and after the first and second world war.

Is the Returning Soldier Effect still relevant?

The days of the First and Second World Wars and other major wars are long gone, and the question remains whether the “returning soldier effect” will continue to have the same effect as observed in those times. Statistics show that this is no longer the case, despite the war in Iraq, the Ukrainian crisis or the Syrian conflict. Once again, the question is: why? But here, too, scientists have found a very plausible answer.

The reason for this is that the way in which war is waged has changed. Instead of focusing on large battles, wars nowadays rely on effectively deployed troops and state-of-the-art technology. Not as many men go to war as in those times, and accordingly this also means that more men survive – in absolute terms. The evolutionary selection of larger men resulting from wars in those days no longer plays a role, and the same goes for the “returning soldier effect”.

Courtesy of onlyfunfacts.com

Enjoy what you just read? Please share on social media or email.

American prisoners of war who refused to return to America at the end of the Korean War, 1960s

Reprinted by permission from https://rarehistoricalphotos.com

Twenty-one American soldiers refused to return to America at the end of the Korean War.

On 27 June 1953, the United Nations Command (UNC) and North Korean Communist forces signed an armistice ending three years of fighting in Korea. Although the American-led UNC failed to win the entire peninsula, it successfully repelled Communist attacks south of the 38th parallel. Moreover, though contrary to the 1947 Geneva Convention, which mandated the wholesale exchange of all POWs, President Truman’s policy of voluntary repatriation proved highly successful: 47,000 Chinese and North Korean prisoners of war struck a propaganda blow against their Marxist governments by choosing not to return to their homelands.

In September, however, 23 American prisoners of war also refused repatriation, sparking a nationwide debate among journalists, politicians, military officials, psychiatrists, and the soldiers themselves. During a 90-day cooling off period, the GIs were held in the neutral zone at Panmunjom, but only two changed their minds in response to entreaties by U.S. officials and letters from the GIs’ families.

The commonly accepted reason at the time was that they were brainwashed while held prisoner. This was effectively confirmed by 149 other POWs held by the Chinese/North Koreans who “reported that their captors had waged a systematic effort to break down their beliefs and entice them to collaborate”. Time and Newsweek published articles looking for defects in the 21, to explain why they were able to be brainwashed. The magazines blamed reasons such as alcoholism, STDs, low IQs, and being “diseased”.

Race played an important role throughout the nationwide debate, especially since three of the 21 non-repatriates were black. Discussion of the black non-repatriates in the white press highlights public perceptions of Communism and civil rights in the mid-1950s. For example, many publications noted the special effort the Chinese had made to woo black American soldiers, how they had stressed that in their Marxist nation all members of society were treated equally.

During the 90 day cooling off period all 23 US soldiers were held on neutral territory. The 2 that left the group were court-martialed for desertion and collaboration, one was given a 20 year sentence and the other 10. The remaining 21 were dishonorably discharged and journeyed in China.

Once in China the soldiers were sent to a collective farm to work. Within 1.5 years three of them ran away and sought refuge at the British Embassy in Peking. By 1958, 7 more of the soldiers had left China. By 1966, only two remained in China. One of the 21 returned to the US in 1965 and explained his actions in 1953 as being motivated by “anger by the recall of his idol, General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. During his two years as a prisoner, he increasingly felt abandoned by America”

One of the three black soldiers (who returned to the US in 1966) explained that discrimination in US was the reason he went to China in 1953. In 1991, he said: “Brainwashed? The Chinese unbrainwashed me. The black man had his mind brainwashed long before the Korea War”. As the soldiers trickled back to the US, an additional reason was revealed: A handful apparently had informed on their fellows while in POW camps, and rather than rejecting the economic and political situation in the United States they were simply afraid to return.

Brainwashed, choice, or fear? What do you think?

Enjoy what you just read? Please share on social media or email.