Appendix A: Petterssen's Correspondence with J.M. Stagg
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix A: Petterssen's Correspondence with J.M. Stagg Dr. Petterssen to Dr. Stagg March 27, 1972 I have with great interest read your recently published book Forecast for OVerlord, and in particular noticed the statement that starts on line 12 from the bottom on page 19 and ends with line 6 from the top of page 20. I would like you to inform me of the background, in documents from the Meteorological Office or any other material, for associat ing me, and also indirectly my colleagues in the Upper-Air Branch, with the generation of and/or issuing of forecasts "for two, three or more days." A connection of this nature also seems to be sug gested in your conference of January 1944 with Professor Rossby and his colleagues, as expressed on pages 23 and 24 in your book. I assume that the above-mentioned assertions are somewhat based on actual occurrences. Seeing that, in the context in which they appear in your book, these assertions shed an unfavorable light on my professional competence and judgement, I hope that you do not find it unreasonable that I ask you to share with me the actual facts your assertions are based on. I would also appreciate knowing if the quotation marks used in your book to indicate parts of my contributions to your conferences are meant to indicate true reproductions of my statements. Dr. Stagg to Dr. Petterssen March 30, 1972 Your letter dated March 27 has been forwarded to me from Shep perton. I regret that you dislike my references to your work as the leader of the Upper-Air Branch (or Group) in Dunstable during 1943/4 as they are represented in my statements on the top of page 20 and on page 24 in my book. You characterize my innocent (and, as I had intended them to be, laudatory) references as "assertions." Assertions of what, or against whom, for goodness sake? There cannot be any doubt about the fact that you were the leader of the UtA Branch. Likewise it is inarguable that one of the group's functions (if not its primary) at the time in question was to assist Dunstable in its role vis-A-vis the other forecast ing centers, in particular the American center, by developing fore casts for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces. At the time 313 314 APPENDIX A when the group was established, Dunstable did not have opportuni ties for development of forecasts. I am therefore hardly guilty of making unreasonable assumptions when I, with a popular book in mind as opposed to a scientific report, described the group's tasks as "to explore and utilize the implementation of new upper-air knowl edge in forecasting for two, three or more days." Nowhere in the book have I, as far as I can remember, made accusations or asser tions against your leadership of the group and the value its work brought about. I must therefore admit that I am completely without an under standing of your reaction to the phrasing you quote. I have read your letter repeatedly in order to find an explanation. In the sec ond paragraph you ask for "the background for associating 'you' with the Upper-Air Branch • • • with the generation . • of fore casts for two, three or more days." And in the next sentence "a con nection of this nature also seems to be suggested in your confer ence of January 1944 with Professor Rossby. ." The way you correlate and repeat the thought of your association with U/A in this paragraph makes me draw the conclusion (since I otherwise do not know where you are going) that your objection must be a result of my associating your name with the U/A Branch. If this is the point in question, I apologize. I had no idea that you wished to be disassociated with the work of the Group/Branch. In regard to your last paragraph I am certain that you are fa miliar with the significance of the use of quotation marks in books of this kind, in particular when the preface informs that the text is based on excerpts from diaries and notes. Dr. Petterssen to Dr. Stagg April 12, 1972 I thank you for your letter of March 30. I regret to hear that you are of the impression that I wish to be disassociated with the Upper-Air Branch within the Meteorologi cal Office, and from the work of the Group/Branch during the 1941-1944 period. Quite the contrary: I am proud of the work per formed by this Group, and am very grateful to the very skilled men who helped in this work. My letter was brought about by a wish to avoid misunderstandings, and the disputed issues can be reduced to a very simple point: What is the background, in documents from the Meteorological Office or other material, for the following statement on page 20 in your book? Dr. S. Petterssen, a Norwegian meteorologist who had recently held an academic position in the U.S.A., was invited into the British service to take charge of a unit at Dunstable whose job was to explore and exploit the use APPENDIX A 315 of this new upper air information in making forecasts for two, three or more days ahead. To simplify matters even further, let me make it clear that the point in question is not what you imagined my tasks to be, but the actual circumstances leading to my invitation. I am certain that you must be as interested as I am in solving misunderstandings. If you would be so kind as to give me a direct answer to the above mentioned question, other misunderstandings might be solved with out larger difficulties. I am of the opinion that you should be able to give me a simple answer to my question, and I cannot understand why it should be necessary to distinguish between what is suitable (as you say) "with a popular book in mind, as opposed to a scien tific report." I am grateful for your explanation of the significance of your use of quotation marks. Dr. Stagg to Dr. Petterssen April 17, 1972 I wish you would believe me when I say that I would also like to solve and remove any misunderstandings. I do not now have, nor have I earlier had, a wish to present a faulty representation of the significance and value of either your personal contributions to the forecasting conference, or of the contribution the Dunstable Upper Air Branch made through you or Mr. Douglas. I am still uncer tain as to what exactly the nature of the misunderstanding on your side is. You say "that the point in question is • • • the actual circum stances leading to my invitation." I of course do not know the cir cumstances leading to your invitation. There has never existed any sensible reason for me to know this. All I knew, and all I now know, is that you became a member of the staff in Dunstable during the war, and that you therefore must have been invited. Nobody could have forced you. Secondly, I knew that Dunstable at this point was strongly encouraged to take part in the conferences that led to the generation of forecasts for longer time periods for SHAEF and other military purposes. Soon after you became a member of the staff, you chaired a new group established to aid this work by making use of the new upper-air knowledge. I therefore assumed that you were in vited to join the staff for this purpose. If this assumption is wrong, and if the phrasing of this para graph does you wrong in a serious way, I apologize, though I still do not understand how I am doing you wrong. All I can say and repeat is that I sincerely believed that the sentence I used to describe the work of the group--the sentence that 316 APPENDIX A starts, "The group's task was to explore and exploit .•• "-that this sentence was a truthful description of the main task of the group that I (and surely most other people in the Meteorological Office who dealt with extending the time frame of the forecasts) un derstood it to be.* Dr. Petterssen to Dr. Stagg April 24, 1972 I thank you for your letter of April 17. I am amazed that I through my earlier letters have not succeed ed at accounting for my views. Let me again draw your attention to page 20 of your book where you, explicitly and faultily, describe the circumstances that in 1941 formed the basis for my accepting the invitation to enter into British service. In your above-men tioned letter you write that you did not have any knowledge of these circumstances, and that there has never existed any sensible rea son for you knowing this. It therefore seems odd that you are as able to describe these circumstances as you express on page 20. It seems even more odd that you refer to these circumstances in your information for Dr. Rossby (page 24 in your book). Dr. Rossby was, as you must have known, scientific adviser to the American sec retary of defense, who represents high military authorities in the Pentagon. It was not until after the war that I was able to explain to Dr. Rossby the scope of the work I had been responsible for. For your information, I would like to mention that I was in the Mediterranean area during January of 1944, and that I did not re turn to England until Dr.