Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525857
label
Captive Nations Assembly, National Press Club, July 21, 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525857
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Captive Nations Assembly, National Press Club, July 21, 1965
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Soviet Union
Communism
International relations
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525857
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-07-31
month
7
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-07-01
month
7
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
759ac5cbe1b6d905
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D18, folder "Captive Nations Assembly,
National Press Club, July 21, 1965" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
READING TEXT
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
BEFORE THE CAPTIVE NATIONS ASSEMBLY
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
July 21, 1965
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
OF SPEECH 7:30 P.M.
JULY 21, 1965
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: NEW MYTHS AND OLD REALITIES
I am honored to be here tonight and to receive this Captive
Nations Award. Your organization has a great mission. You help keep
alive the hope of freedom for the captive peoples under Communism.
With a deep sense of humility, I thank you---and salute your efforts.
Tonight I would like to discuss new myths and old realities affecting
United States foreign policy. American fighting men are at this moment
in a hot war in Viet Nam. They are there to help roll back the tide of
Communist aggression. If they are to succeed, here at home we must face
up to the true nature of the enemy Communism.
The theory has grown in recent years that this enemy is changing
and mellowing. We are told that the Communist world is splitting up.
We are advised by so-called experts that the Soviet Union wants peaceful
coexistence. These experts say that we should encourage such change by a
more tolerant attitude toward Communism.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-more-
Digitized from Box D18 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Ford. Captive Nations
-2-
This has been a dominant theme in recent American foreign policy.
Unfortunately, it is a theme based on hope, not evidence---on myth,
not reality.
For example, there has been an effort to pull down a verbal
Iron Curtain on any discussion of the captive nations under Communist
rule. Some misguided spokesmen have even opposed the idea of having a
Captive Nations Week. They claim it rubs the Kremlin the wrong way and
therefore blocks American-Soviet understanding.
That is the myth--but what is the reality? It is that in Eastern
Europe tens of millions of people live under Communist repression.
No democratic elections are permitted in these countries. The principle
of national self-determination is ruthlessly denied.
The myth says that the United States should furnish trade and
aid to help the economics of these captive nations. We are told that
in this way the Communist monolith will break up.
-more-
GERALD
Ford. Captive Nations
-3-
That is the myth--but what is the reality? The truth can be
learned by studying this Nation's policy toward Hungary. We are
being told now that the Communist rulers of Hungary are changing.
We are being told now that they too are mellowing. We are being
advised by the so-called "experts" that the United States should
consider a large-scale trade and aid program to Communist Hungary.
The theory is that we can help liberalize Hungary's domestic and
foreign policies.
That is the theory. But what is the reality? The reality is
that the people of Hungary today remain under a brutal Communist
dictatorship. The regime there was brought to power through bloody
repression of the Hungarian people---and it remains in power by
threat and coercion.
We will pay dearly for such mistaken theories. We have paid
dearly for them in years past. Three times in this decade the old
realities of Communism have fomented major world crises.
more
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Ford. Captive Nations
to
There was the reality of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Today, four years
later, the Wall stands as a symbol of Communist aggression. The outrage
of Western statesmen has been forgotten--as the Communists knew it would.
But the Wall remains. As with the captive nations, we are not supposed
to mention the Berlin Wall anymore. To do so, we are told, is an
unnecessary irritation of the Soviets.
Thus does the spirit of false coexistence march on. It callously
ignores all proof of Communist aggression. It deceives its followers
and it betrays the cause of freedom.
Then, in 1962, came the reality of the Cuban missile crisis. That
crisis should have upset the theories of our myth-makers. Communist
deceit and aggression were made plain for all to see. Despite this fact,
the reality of the Cuban missile crisis soon gave way to myth.
Again, the apostles of coexistence-at-any-price did not admit their
mistake. Instead, they began arguing that the missile crisis advanced
the cause of American-Soviet understanding. Why? Because, they said, it
proved to the Russians that the United States will stand firm when
& LIBRARY GERRA our
vital interests are at stake.
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
-5-
But we might ask why Khrushchev and his military advisers ever
believed otherwise? What led them to think that the United States
would ever tolerate Soviet missiles in the Caribbean?
The answer is that the Communists concluded--as the late Robert
Frost quoted Khruschev--- that America had become tooliberal to fight.
Our lesson in Cuba ought to guide us during the third great crisis
of this decade---in Viet Nam. In Cuba, our early vacillation encouraged
the Communists to bolder-and-bolder aggression.
We cannot we dare not--- lead them to repeat that mistake in
Viet Name
The Communist leaders in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi must fully
understand that the United States considers the freedom of South
Viet Nam vital to our interests. And they must know that we are not
bluffing in our determination to defend those interests.
Mao has said that America will soon tire of the war in Viet Nam.
It is President Johnson's grave responsibility to convince Mao and his
Communist allies otherwise.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
Our power is known to the enemy. The enemy must be convinced of
the fact that we will use that power to meet the threat of aggression.
Toward this end I recommended a short time ago that we intensify
our air strikes against significant military targets in North Viet Nam.
Predictably, I was denounced by armchair theorists. Many of these same
spokesmen have given the President only half-hearted support in his
Viet Nam policy. Many have openly attacked the President's firmess
and called for a retreat out of Viet Nam.
My purpose was---is---and will continue to be to strengthen the
President's effort to convince the enemy of our firmness. But many of
his ostensible political allies are in fact weakening his hand in this
crisis.
Let me repeat what I have said before: Here at home, President
Johnson need not fear that the opposition party will ever undercut
his efforts to be firm against Communist aggression in Viet Nam, or
elsewhere. We have backed these efforts and we will always put national
interest above narrow partisan interest.
GERALD
-more-
Form.. Captive Nations
-7-
amend handfull
But the President's worst opponents here at home are those critics
within his own party who are undercutting his credibility in enemy capitals.
Before the Cuban crisis, Khruschev was misled into believing
America would not stand firm. Today, Mao is being misled by the
this handful of
cut-and-run speeches made by members of the own pelitical family.
English
Mao hears thes clamor for negotiation-at-any-price- from members of
again by this limited
in group
the President's own political party.
for our camputs
Mao hears the clamor to retreat to high ground-or to Saigon--
those who call it McNameras was
or
even
to Waikiki from members of the President's own political family.
also
Mao hears vague talk of "political solutions" and de-escalation--
1
from a U.S. Seinter Senator who not long ago occupied a powerful policy-making
position in our Government.
And, he too is a member of the President's
political family
Along with the President, we wonder what some of these recommendations
mean. But Mao believes he knows their meaning. To him and his allies,
they mean America is divided. To Mao and his allies they mean that this
country will abandon its policy of firmness in Viet Nam.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
-8-
These then are the irresponsible critics of the President's
Viet Nam policy. Not those of us Democrat and Republican alike--
who want it known that the United States will defend our vital interests.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Not those of us who urge
that the President act to convince the Communists of our resolve.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Many of the same
irresolute voices led us to near-disaster in Cuba. Now they argue that
our fight in Viet Nam is the wrong battleground--in the wrong place---
at the wrong time.
But the vast majority of Americans know that the defense of
freedom is the highest calling of a great Nation. And we believe that the
time we help protect a free people from Communist aggression we are
meeting our responsibilities at the right time--in the right place.
This does not mean---as some cynical spokesmen claim it does
that we must undertake a "holy war" against Communism. But it does mean
that we must respond to own "unholy war" against humand
freedom.
GERALD LIBRARY
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
-9-
What then are the vital interests we must defend in Viet Nam?
Up to now, the public dialogue has been concerned with escalated
means. Perhaps the time has arrived when the President,and those of us
who support him, must escalate not means alone but the ends for which
we fight.
Is it enough to say that we are fighting to get the enemy to come
to a conference table? The enemy himself is fighting for well-defined
objectives. He wants to drive us out of Viet Nam, conquer the people
and dominate the land.
If we are to defeat this enemy objective, we too must define
our goals in Viet Nam. Our military commitment has increased. Now the
President must detail the vital interests we are fighting for in that
part of the world.
With the one exception of Korea, the United States has fought
every war with clear objectives. These goals served to guide and
sustain our fighting men and our people. The national frustration suffered
during the Korean war resulted from our lack of clear objectives
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
-10-
It is not enough to tell a free people that they are fighting
a war only to achieve a stalemate. It will not be enough to gain
in Viet Nam the same kind of negotiated settlement reachwin Laos.
The negotiation in Laos opened the borders of South Viet Nam
to Communist aggression. We cannot fight in Viet Nam to negotiate
a settlement that will simply open the rest of Southeast Asia to
aggression and subversion.
We do not choose to be in Viet Name We would not be in Viet Nam
if the Communists would only leave their neighbors alone. But it is
not in the Communist nature to leave their neighbors alone. The
fate of the captive peoples throughout the Communist world proves
this fact. To believe otherwise is to believe in a myth-not reality.
It is a myth which might lead the world to the darkness of tyranny---
or the horrors of a global holocaust.
-more-
GERALD LIGARA
Ford. Captive Nations
-11-
John Ruskin said:
"You may either win your peace or buy it; win it, by
resistance to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil. You may buy
your peace with silenced consciences; you may buy it with broken
VOWS buy it with lying words---buy it with base connivances--
buy it with the blood of the slain, and the cry of the captive, and
the silence of lost souls over hemispheres of the earth, while you
sit smiling at your serene hearths, lisping comfortable prayers
morning and evening, and so mutter continually to yourselves,
'Peace, peace", when there is no peace; but only captivity and death
for you as well as for those you leave unsaved; and yours darker
than theirs."
We will win our peace by resistance to evil. We will not buy
it by compromise with evil. That will remain our purpose in Viet Nam
and throughout the world -wherever brave men resist tyranny and
long for freedom.
RALD
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
BEFORE THE CAPTIVE NATIONS ASSEMBLY
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
July 21, 1965
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
OF SPEECH 7:30 P.M.
JULY 21, 1965
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: NEW MYTHS AND OLD REALITIES
I am honored to be here tonight and to receive this Captive Nations
Award. Your organization has a great mission. You help keep alive the hope
of freedom for the captive peoples under Communism. With a deep sense of
humility, I thank you -- and salute your efforts.
Tonight I would like to discuss new myths and old realities affecting
United States foreign policy. American fighting men are at this moment in a
are
hot war in Viet Nam. They there to help roll back the tide of
Communist aggression.
they are to succeed,
here at home we must face
up to the true nature of
enemy COMMUNISM.
The theory has grown in recent years that this enemy is changing and
mellowing. We are told that the Communist world is splitting up. We are ad-
vised by so-called experts that the Soviet Union wants peaceful coexistence.
These experts say that we should encourage such change by a more tolerant
attitude toward Communism.
This has been a dominant theme in recent American foreign policy.
But unfortunately, it is a theme based on hope, not evidence -- on myth, not
reality.
For example, there has been an effort to pull down a verbal Iron
Curtain on any discussion of the captive nations under Communist rule. Some
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
insut
That is the myth -- but what is the reality ? The truth
can be learned by studying this Nation's policy toward Hungary. We are
being told now that the Communist rulers of Hungary are changing. We are
being told that they too are mellowing. We are being advised by the so-
called' "experts" that the United States should consider a large-scale trade
and aid program to Communist Hungary. The theory is that we can help liberalize
Hungary's domestic and foreign policies.
That is the theory. But what is the rulia reality ? The
reality the people D is that Hungary today remain#/s brutal Communist dictatorship The
under
plasse regime there was brought to power through bloody repression of the
Hungarian people -- and it remains in power by the threat of and coercion.
We will pay dearly for such mistaken theories.
this decare
We have paid dearly for them in years past. Three times in the past five
years the old realities of Communism have fomented major world crises.
Ford - 2.
misguided spokesmen have even opposed Kremlin the idea of having a Captive Nations
Week. They claim that it rubs the Union the wrong way and therefore
blocks American-Soviet understanding.
That is the myth --- but what is the reality ? It is that in Eastern
Europe tens of millions of people live under Communist repression. No demo-
cratic elections are permitted in these countries. The principle of national
self-determination is ruthlessly denied.
The myth says that the United States should furnish trade and aid
to help the economies of these captive nations. We are told that in this
way the Communist monolith will break up.
That is the myth but what is the reality The touth can be
THE
learned by studying the example of Iugoslavia. For nearly twenty years now
we have poured aid into Yugoslavia. We have hoped to lure Tito away from
Indian
his totalitarian system. Billions of U.S. dollars have been spent in the
effort to liberalize Yugoslavian government and to break Tito's ties to
international Communism.
With what success ? The old reality remains 8 Tito today is still
a Communist dictator who answers political criticism with prison terms. And
although he has been kept going by American aid, he is closer to Moscow today
than ever before.
heories.
delly
Yet the mongers of the coexistence Nine cling to their mythe. After
all, they have an investment in their own past mistakes. They have ready
answers to explain away their foreign policy failures. And if these answers
don't satisfy their crities -- why, they just denounce those critics as war
?
hawks !
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Ford - 3.
major times INSERD world in Nevertheless, the crises. past five we years have the paid old dearly realities for of these Communism past mistakes. have fomented Three
There was the reality of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Today, four years
later, the Wall stands as a symbol of Communist aggression. The outrage of
Western statesmen has been forgotten -- as the Communists knew it would. But
the Wall remains. As with the captive nations, we are not supposed to men-
tion the Berlin Wall anymore. To do so, we are told, is an unnecessary irri-
tation of the Soviets.
Thus does the spirit of false coexistence march on. It callously
ignores all proof of Communist aggression. It deceives its followers -- and
it betrays the cause of freedom.
Then, in 1962, came the reality of the Cuban missile crisis. That
crisis should have upset the theories of our myth-makers. Communist deceit
and aggression were made plain for all to see. Despite this fact, the reality
of the Cuban missile crisis soon gave way to myth.
Again, the apostles of ccexistence-at-any-price did not admit their
mistake. Instead, they began arguing that the missile crisis advanced the
cause of American-Soviet understanding. Why ? Because, they said, it
proved to the Russians that the United States will stand firm when our vital
interests
are at stake.
But we might ask why Khrushchev and his military advisers ever be-
lieved otherwise ? What led them to think that the United States would ever
tolerate Soviet missiles in the Caribbean ?
The answer is that the Communists concluded -- as the late Robert
GERALD
Ford - 4.
Frost quoted Khruschev -- that America had become too liberal to fight.
Our lesson in Cuba ought to guide us during the third great crisis
of this decade -- in Viet Nam. In Cuba, our early vacillation encouraged
the Communists to bolder-and-belder aggression.
We cannot --- we dare not --- lead them to repeat that mistake in Viet
Nam.
The Communist leaders in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi must fully under-
stand that the United States considers the freedom of SouthViet Nam vital to
our interests. And they must know that we are not bluffing in our determina-
tion to defend those interests.
Mao has said that America will soon tire of the war in Viet Nam.
It is President Johnson's grave responsibility to convince Mao and his
Communist allies otherwise.
Our power is known to the enemy. The enemy must be convinced of the
fact that we will use that power to meet the threat of aggression.
Toward this end I recommended a short time ago that we remove
antersity our an
states timest against Seviet significant military target in north Vit diseator. Nam, Predictably,
I
was denounced by armchair theorists I Many of these
same spokesmen have given the President only half-hearted support in his
(the Presidents firmess
Viet Nam policy. Many have openly attacked thir policy --- and called for
a retreat out of Viet Nam.
My purpose was -- is -- and will continue to be -- to strengthen
the President's effort to convince the enemy of our firmness. But many of
his ostensible political allies are in fact weakening his hand in this crisis.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Ford - 5.
Let me repeat what I have said before : Here at home, President
Johnson need not fear that the opposition party will ever undercut his ef-
forts to defmat Communism in Viet Nam. We have backed these efforts -- and
b6 prom against anyworn or
we will always put national interest above narrow partisan interest.
But the President's worst opponents here at home are those crities
within his own party who are undercutting his credibility in enemy capitals.
Before the Cuban crisis, Khruschev was misled into believing America
would not stand firm. Today, Mao is being misled by the cut-and-run speeches
buing made by members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears the clamor for negotiation-at-any-price --- from members of
the President's own political party.
Mao hears the clamor to retreat to high ground -- or to Saigon - or
even to Waikiki -- from members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears vague talk of " political solutions If and de-escalation -
a U.S. semator
from who not long ago occupied a powerful policy-making posi-
tion in our Government. And he too is a member of the President's own poli-
tical family.
Along with the President, we wonder what some of these recommendations
mean. But Mao believes he knows their meaning. To him and his allies, they
mean America is divided.
They mean that the President is being pressured by
To mas his alles
his own politioni family to getout of Southeast Asiao
They mean that this
country will abandon its policy of firmness in Viet Nam.
These then are the irresponsible critics of the President's Viet
Nam policy. Not those of us -- Democrat and Republican alike - who want it
known that the United States will defend our vital interests.
These then are the irresponsible crities. Not those of us who urge
Ford - 6.
that the President act to convince the Communists of our resolve.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Many of the same irreso-
lute voices led us to near-disaster in Cuba. Now they argue that our fight
in Viet Nam is the wrong battlegment war in the wrong place -- at the wrong time.
But the vast majority of Americans know that the defense of freedom
is the highest calling of a great Nation. Responsibilities And we at believe the that we help
protect a free people we are from meeting Communist our aggression right time way in the right
place. at
it does
This does not mean -- as some cynical spokesmen claim/- that we MUS t
undertake a " holy war n against Communism. But it does mean that we must res-
pond to Communism's own " unholy war " against human freedom.
What then are the vital interests we must defend in Viet Nam ?
the public dialogue has Gun concerned with
Up to now, we have escalated means. Perhaps the time
the President of those of us who support
has arrived when A must escalate not means alone -- but the ends for which
we fight.
Is it enough to say that we are fighting to get the enemy to come
to a conference table ? The enemy himself is fighting for well-defined ob-
jectives s He wants to drive us out of Viet Nam consuler over The people entire of Communate
The land,
If we are to defeat this enemy objective, we too must define our
goals in Viet Nam. Our military commitment has increased. Now the Presi-
dent must detail the vital interests we are fighting for in that part of
the world.
With the one exception of Korwa,
-
the United States
every WAR
has fought Sound with clear objectives. These goals served to guide and
sustain our fighting men and our people. The national frustration suffered
DERALD FORD LIBRARY
Ford - 7.
during the Korean war resulted from our lack of clear objectives.
It is not enough to tell a free people that they are fighting a
war only to achieve a stalemate. It will not be enough to gain in Viet Nam
the same kind of negotiated settlement reached in Laos.
The negotiation in Laos opened the borders of South Viet Nam to
Communist aggression. We cannot fight in Viet Nam to negotiate a settlement
that will simply open the rest of Southeast Asia * to aggression and sub-
version.
We do not choose to be in Viet Nam. We would not be in Viet Nam
if the Communists would only leave their neighbors alone. But it is not in
the Communist nature to leave their neighbors done. The fate of the cap-
tive peoples throughout the Communist world proves this fact. To believe
otherwise is to believe in a myth -- not reality. It is a myth which might
a global holocaust
lead the world to the darkness of tyranny -- or the horrors of
John Ruskin said :
" You may either win your peace or buy it; win it, by resistance to
evil; buy it, by compromise with evil. You may buy your peace with silenced
consciences; you may buy it with broken VOWS --- buy it with lying words --
buy it with base connivances -- buy it with the blood of the slain, and the
cry of the captive, and the silence of lost souls over hemispheres of the
earth, while you sit smiling at your serene hearths, lisping comfortable
prayers morning and evening, and so mutter continually to yourselves,
1 Peace, peace ', when there is no peace; but only captivity and death for
you as well as for those you leave unsaved; and yours darker than theirs. "
Ford - 8.
We will win our peace by resistance to evil. We will not buy
it by compromise with evil. That will remain our purpose in Viet Nam
and throughout the world -- wherever brave men resist tyranny and long
for freedom.
#
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
BEFORE THE CAPTIVE NATIONS ASSEMBLY
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
July 21, 1965
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
OF SPEECH 7#30 P.M.
JULY 21, 1965
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: NEW MYTHS AND OLD REALITIES
I am honoredd to be here tonight and to receive this Captive
Nations Award. Your organisation has a great mission. You help keep
alive the hope of freedom for the captive peoples under Communism.
With a deep sense of humility, I thank you---and salute your efforts.
Tonight I would like to discuss new myths and old realities affecting
United States foreign policy. American fighting men are at this moment
in a hot war in Viet Nam. They are there to help roll back the tide of
Communist aggression. If they are to succeed, here at home we must face
up to the true nature of the energe===Communism.
The theory has grown in recent years that this enemy is changing
and mellowing. We are told that the Communist world is splitting up.
We are advised by so-called experts that the Soviet Union wants peaceful
coexistence. These experts say that we should encourage such change by a
more tolerant attitude toward Communism.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
This has been a dominant theme in recent American foreign policy.
Unfortunately, it is a theme based on hope, not evidence----------------- myth,
not reality.
For example, there has been an effort to pull down a verbal
Iron Curtain on any discussion of the captive nations under Communist
rule. Some misguided spokesmen have even opposed the idea of having a
Captive Nations Week. They claim it rubs the Kremlin the wrong way and
therefore blocks American-Soviet understanding.
That is the myth-but what is the reality? It is that in Eastern
Europe tens of millions of people live under Communist repression.
No democratic elections are permitted in these countries. The principle
of national self-determination is ruthlessly denied.
The myth says that the United States should furnish trade and
aid to help the economics of these captive nations. We are told that
in this way the Communist monolith will break up.
-more-
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Ford..Captive Nations
-3-
That is the myth=--but what is the reality The truth can be
learned by studying this Nation's policy toward Hungary. We are
being told now that the Communist rulers of Hungary are changing.
We are being told now that they too are mellowing. We are being
advised by the so-called "experts" that the United States should
consider a large-scale trade and aid program to Communist Hungary.
The theory is that we can help liberalise Hungary's domestic and
foreign policies.
That is the theory. But what is the reality? The reality is
that the people of Hungary today remain under a brutal Communist
dictatorship. The regime there was brought to power through bloody
repression of the Hungarian people****nd it remains in power by
threat and coercion.
We will pay dearly for such mistaken theories. We have paid
dearly for them in years past. Three times in this decade the old
realities of Communism have fomented major world crises.
*8.20%
R.10RD is LIBRARY GERALD
Ford..Captive Nations
die
There was the reality of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Today, four years
later, the Wall stands as a symbol of Communist aggression. The outrage
of Western statesmen has been forgotten---as the Communists knew it would.
But the Wall remainds. As with the captive nations, we are not supposed
to mention the Berlin Wall anymore. To do so, we are told, is an
unnecessary irritation of the Soviets.
Thus does the spirit of false coexistence march one It callously
ignores all proof of Communist aggression. It deceives its followers---
and it betrays the cause of freedom.
Then, in 1962, came the reality of the Cuban missile crisis. That
crisis should have upset the theories of our nyth-makers. Communist
deceit and aggression were made plain for all to see. Despite this fact,
the reality of the Cuban missile crisis soon gave way to myth.
Again, the apostles of cosxistence=at=sny-price did not admit their
mistake. Instead, they began arguing that the missile crisis advanced
the cause of American-Soviet understanding. Why? Because, they said, it
proved to the Russians that the United States will stand firm when our
FORD & LIBRARY GERA
vital interests are at stake.
-more-
Ford..Captive Nations
5-
But we might ask why Kinrushchev and his military advisers ever
believed otherwise? What led them to think that the United States
would ever tolerate Soviet missiles in the Caribbean?
The answer is that the Communists concluded--as the late Robert
Frost quoted Khruschev---------------- that America had become too liberal to fight.
Our lesson in Cuba ought to guide us during the third great crisis
of this decade---in Viet Name In Cuba, our early vacillation encouraged
the Communists to bolder-and=bolder aggression.
We cannot--- we dare lead them to repeat that mistake in
Viet Name
The Communist leaders in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi must fully
understand that the United States considers the freedom of South
Viet Nam vital to our interests. And they must know that we are not
bluffing in our determination to defend those interests.
Mao has said that America will soon tire of the war in Viet Name
It is President Johnson's grave responsibility to convince Mao and his
Communist allies otherwise.
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
******
Ford.,Captive Nations
Our power is known to the enemy. The enemy must be convinced of
the fact that we will use that power to meet the threat of aggression.
Toward this end I recommended a short time ago that we intensify
our air strikes against significant military targets in North Viet Nam.
Predictably, I was denounced by armchair theorists. Many of these same
spokesmen have given the President only half-hearted support in his
Viet Nam policy. Many have openly attacked the President's firmess---
and called for a retreat out of Viet Name
My purpose was---is----and will continue to benuato strengthen the
President's effort to convince the enemy of our firmness. But many of
his ostensible political allies are in fact weakening his hand in this
crimis.
Let me repeat what I have said before Here at home, President
Johnson need not fear that the opposition party will ever underent
his efforts to be firm against Communist aggression in Viet Man, or
elsewhere. We have backed these efforts---and we will always put national
interest above narrow partisan interest.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-more-
Ford.. Captive Nations
-7-
But the President's worst opponents here at home are those critics
within his own party who are undercutting his credibility in enemy capitals.
Before the Cuban crisis, Khruschev was misled into believidge
America would not stand firm. Today, Mao is being misled by the
out-and-run speeches made by members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears the clamor for negotiation-at-any-price-=-frow members of
the President's own political party.
Mao hears the clamor to retreat to high ground--or to Saigon--
or even to Waikiki---from members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears vague talk of "political solutions" and de-escalation--
from a U.S. Seantor who not long ago occupied a powerful policy-making
position in our Government. And, he too is a member of the President's
political family.
Along with the President, we wonder what some of these recommendations
mean. But Mao believes he knows their meaning. To him and his allies,
they mean America is divided. To Mao and his allies they mean that this
country will abandon its policy of firmness in Viet Nam.
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
«more»
Ford..Captive Nations
-8-
These then are the irresponsible critics of the President's
Viet Nam policy. Not those of us--Democrat and Republican alike--
who want it known that the United States will defend our vital interests.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Not those of us who urge
that the President act to convince the Communists of our resolve.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Many of the same
irresolute voices led us to near-disaster in Cuba. Now they argue that
our fight in Viet Nam is the wrong battleground--in the wrong place---
at the wrong time.
But the vast majority of Americans know that the defense of
freedom is the highest calling of a great Nation. And we believe that the
time we help protect a free people from Communist aggression we are
meeting our responsibilities at the right tim---in the right place.
This does not mean---as some cynical spokesmen claim it does---
that we must undertake a "holy war" against Communism. But it does mean
that we must respond to Communishim's own "unholy war" against humand
freedom.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-more-
Ford. Captive Nations
-9-
What then are the vital interests we must defend in Viet Nam?
Up to now, the public dialogue has been concerned with escalated
means. Perhaps the time has arrived when the President,and those of us
who support him, must escalate not means alone--but the ends for which
we fight.
Is it enough to say that we are fighting to get the enemy to come
to a conference table? The enemy himself 1s fighting for well-defined
objectives. He wants to drive us out of Viet Nam, conquer the people
and dominate the land.
If we are to defeat this enemy objective, we too must define
our goals in Viet Nam. Our military commitment has increased. Now the
President must detail the vital interests we are fighting for in that
part of the world.
With the one exception of Korea, the United States has fought
every war with clear objectives. These goals served to guide and
sustain our fighting men and our people. The national frustration suffered
during the Korean war resulted from our lack of clear objectives.
GERALD APPERIT R. R.FORD
-more-
Ford..Captive Nations
-10-
It is not enough to tell a free people that they are fighting
a war only to achieve a stalemate. It will not be enough to gain
in Viet Nam the same kind of negotiated settlement reachdin Laos.
The negotiation in Laos opened the borders of South Viet Nam
to Communist aggression. We cannot fight in Viet Nam to negotiate
a settlement that will simply open the rest of Southeast Asia to
aggression and subversion.
We do not choose to be in Viet Name We would not be in Viet Nam
if the Communists would only leave their neighbors alone. But it is
not in the Communist nature to leave their neighbors alone. The
fate of the captive peoples throughout the Communist world proves
this fact. To believe otherwise is to believe in a myth--not reality.
It is a myth which might lead the world to the darkness of tyranny---
or the horrors of a global holocaust.
-more-
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Ford..Captive Nations
-11-
John Ruskin saids
"You may either win your peace or buy its win it, by
resistance to evils buy it, by compromise with evil. You may buy
your peace with silenced consciences; you may buy it with broken
vows---buy it with lying words---buy it with base connivances--
buy it with the blood of the slain, and the cry of the captive, and
the silence of lost souls over hemispheres of the earth, while you
sit smiling at your serene hearths, lisping comfortable prayers
morning and evening, and so mutter continually to yourselves,
'Peace, peace", when there is no peace; but only captivity and death
for you as well as for those you leave unsaved; and yours darker
than theirs."
We will win our peace by resistance to evil. We will not buy
it by compromise with evil. That will remain our purpose in Viet Nam
and throughout the world--wherever brave men resist tyranny and
long for freedom.
#
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
BEFORE THE CAPTIVE NATIONS ASSEMBLY
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
July 21, 1965
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
OF SPEECH 7:30 P.M.
JULY 21, 1965
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: NEW MYTHS AND OLD REALITIES
I am honored to be here tonight and to receive this Captive Nations
Award. Your organization has a great mission. You help keep alive the
hope of freedom for the captive peoples under Communism. With a deep
sense of humility, I thank you---and salute your efforts.
Tonight I would like to discuss new myths and old realities affecting
United States foreign policy. American fighting men are at this moment in
a hot war in Viet Nam. They are there to help roll back the tide of Com-
munist aggression. If they are to succeed, here at home we must face up
to the true nature of the enemy--Communism.
The theory has grown in recent years that this enemy is changing and
mellowing. We are told that the Communist world is splitting up. We are
advised by so-called experts that the Soviet Union wants peaceful co-
existence. These experts say that we should encourage such change by a
more tolerant attitude toward Communism.
This has been a dominant theme in recent American foreign policy. Un-
fortunately, it is a theme based on hope, not evidence---on myth, not
reality.
For example, there has been an effort to pull down a verbal Iron Cur-
tain on any discussion of the captive nations under Communist rule. Some
misguided spokesmen have even opposed the idea of having a Captive Nations
Week. They claim it rubs the Kremlin the wrong way and therefore blocks
American-Soviet understanding.
That is the myth--but what is the reality? It is that in Eastern
Europe tens of millions of people live under Communist repression. No
democratic elections are permitted in these countries. The principle of
national self-determination is ruthlessly denied.
The myth says that the United States should furnish trade and aid
to help the economics of these captive nations. We are told that in this
way the Communist monolith will break up.
That is the myth---but what is the reality? The truth can be learned
by studying this Nation's policy toward Hungary, We are being told now
Ford. Captive Nations
-2-
that the Communist rulers of Hungary are changing. We are being told
now that they too are mellowing. We are being advised by the so-called
"experts" that the United States should consider a large-scale trade
and aid program to Communist Hungary. The theory is that we can help
liberalize Hungary's domestic and foreign policies.
That is the theory. But what is the reality? The reality is that
the people of Hungary today remain under a brutal Communist dictator-
ship. The regime there was brought to power through bloody repression
of the Hungarian people---and it remains in power by threat and co-
ercion.
We will pay dearly for such mistaken theories. We have paid dearly
for them in years past. Three times in this decade the old realities of
Communism have fomented major world crises.
There was the reality of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Today, four years
later, the Wall stands as a symbol of Communist aggression, The outrage
of Western statesmen has been forgotten---as the Communists knew it
would. But the Wall remains. As with the captive nations, we are not
supposed to mention the Berlin Wall anymore. To do so, we are told, is
an unnecessary irritation of the Soviets,
Thus does the spirit of false coexistence march on. It callously
ignores all proof of Communist aggression. It deceives its followers---
and it betrays the cause of freedom.
Thus, in 1962, came the reality of the Cuban missile crisis. That
crisis should have upset the theories of our myth-makers. Communist
deceit and aggression were made plain for all to see. Despite this fact,
the reality of the Cuban missile crisis soon gave way to myth.
Again, the apostles of coexistence-at-any-price did not admit their
mistake. Instead, they begain arguing that the missile crisis advanced
the cause of American-Soviet understanding. Why? Because, they said, it
proved to the Russians that the United States will stand firm when our
vital interests are at stake.
But we might ask why Khrushchev and his military advisers ever be-
lieved otherwise? What led them to think that the United States would
ever tolerate Soviet missiles in the Caribbean?
The answer is that the Communists concluded--as the late Robert
Frost quoted Khrushchev--that America had become too liberal to fight.
Ford. Captive Nations
-3-
Our lesson in Cuba ought to guide us during the third great crisis
of this decade in Viet Nam. In Cuba, our early vacillation encouraged
the Communists to bolder-and-bolder aggression.
We cannot we dare not---lead them to repeat that mistake in
Viet Nam.
The Communist leaders in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi must fully
understand that the United States considers the freedom of South Viet
Nam vital to our interests. And they must know that we are not bluffing
in our determination to defend those interests.
Mao has said that America will soon tire of the war in Viet Nam.
It is President Johnson's grave responsibility to convince Mao and his
Communist allies otherwise.
Our power is known to the enemy. The enemy must be convinced of
the fact that we will use that power to meet the threat of aggression.
Toward this end I recommended a short time ago that we intensify
our air strikes against significant military targets in North Viet Nam.
Predictably, I was denounced by armchair theorists. Many of these same
spokesmen have given the President only half-hearted support in his
Viet Nam policy. Many have openly attacked the President's firmness
and called for a retreat out of Viet Nam.
My purpose was is and will continue to be to strengthen the
President's effort to convince the enery of our firmness. But many of
his ostensible political allies are in fact weakening his hand in this
crisis.
Let me repeat what I have said before: Here at home, President
Johnson need not fear that the opposition party will ever undercut
his efforts to be firm against Communist aggression in Viet Nam, or
elsewhere. We have backed these efforts and we will always put
national interest above narrow partisan interest.
But the President's worst opponents here at home are those critics
within his own party who are undercutting his credibility in enemy
capitals.
Before the Cuban crisis, Khrushchev was misled into believing
America would not stand firm. Today, Mac is being misled by the cut-
and-run speeches made by members of the President's own political
family.
Ford. Captive Nations
-4-
Mao hears the clamor for negotiation-at-any-price---from members
of the President's own political party.
Mao hears the clamor to retreat to high ground--or to Saigon--or
even to Waikiki---from members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears vague talk of "political solutions" and de-escalation---
from a U.S. Senator who not long ago occupied a powerful policy-making
position in our Government. And, he too is a member of the President's
political family.
Along with the President, we wonder what some of these recommenda-
tions mean. But Mao believes he knows their meaning. To him and his
allies, they mean America is divided. To Mao and his allies they mean
that this country will abandon its policy of firmness in Viet Nam.
These then are the irresponsible critics of the President's Viet
Nam policy. Not those of us--Democrat and Republican alike--who want
it known that the United States will defend our vital interests.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Not those of us who urge
that the President act to convince the Communists of our resolve.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Many of the same ir-
resolute voices led us to near-disaster in Cuba. Now they argue that
our fight in Viet Nam is the wrong battleground--: the wrong place--
at the wrong time.
But the vast majority of Americans know that the defense of freedom
is the highest calling of a great Nation. And we believe that the time
we help protect a free people from Communist aggression we are meeting
our responsibilities at the right time---in the right place.
This does not mean---as some cynical spokesmen claim it does---
that we must undertake a "holy war" against Communism. But it does mean
that we must respond to Communism's own "unholy war" against human free-
dom.
What then are the vital interests we must defend in Viet Nam?
Up to now, the public dialogue has been concerned with escalated
means. Perhaps the time has arrived when the President, and those of us
who support him, must escalate not means alone---but the ends for which
we fight.
Is it enough to say that we are fighting to get the enemy to come
to a conference table? The enemy himself is fighting for well-defined
Ford. Captive Nations
-5-
objectives. He wants to drive us out of Viet Nam, conquer the people
and dominate the land.
If we are to defeat this enemy objective, we too must define our
goals in Viet Nam. Our military commitment has increased. Now the
President must detail the vital interests we are fighting for in that
part of the world.
With the one exception of Korea, the United States has fought
every war with clear objectives, These goals served to guide and
sustain our fighting men and our people. The national frustration suf-
fered during the Korean war resulted from our lack of clear objectives.
It is not enough to tell a free people that they are fighting a
war only to achieve a stalemate. It will not be enough to gain in Viet
Nam the same kind of negotiated settlement reached in Laos.
The negotiation in Laos opened the borders of South Viet Nam to
Communist aggression. We cannot fight in Viet Nam to negotiate a set-
tlement that will simply open the rest of Southeast Asia to aggression
and subversion.
We do not choose to be in Viet Nam. We would not be in Viet Nam if
the Communists would only leave their neighbors alone. But it is not
in the Communist nature to leave their neighbors alone. The fate of
the captive peoples throughout the Communist world proves this fact.
To believe otherwise is to believe a myth--not reality. It is a myth
which might lead the world to the darkness of tyranny or the horrors
of a global holocaust.
John Ruskin said:
"You may either win your peace or buy it; win it, by resistance
to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil. You may buy your peace with
silenced consciences; you may buy it with broken vows--buy it with
lying words--buy it with base connivances- buy it with the blood of
the slain, and the cry of the captive, and the silence of lost souls
over hemispheres of the earth, while you sit smiling at your serene
hearths, lisping comfortable prayers morning and evening, and so
mutter continually to yourselves, 'Peace,peace', when there is no
peace; but only captivity and death for you as well as for those
you leave unsaved; and yours darker than theirs."
-more-
Ford . Captive Nations
-6-
We will win our peace by resistance to evil. We will not buy
it by compromise with evil. That will remain our purpose in Viet
Nam and throughout the world - wherever brave men resist tyranny
and long for freedom.
#
#
#
ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
BEFORE THE CAPTIVE NATIONS ASSEMBLY
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
July 21, 1965
FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY
OF SPEECH 7:30 P.M.
JULY 21, 1965
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: NEW MYTHS AND OLD REALITIES
I am honored to be here tonight and to receive this Captive Nations
Award. Your organization has a great mission. You help keep alive the
hope of freedom for the captive peoples under Communism. With a deep
sense of humility, I thank you---and salute your efforts.
Tonight I would like to discuss new myths and old realities affecting
United States foreign policy. American fighting men are at this moment in
a hot war in Viet Nam. They are there to help roll back the tide of Com-
munist aggression. If they are to succeed, here at home we must face up
to the true nature of the enemy--Communism.
The theory has grown in recent years that this enemy is changing and
mellowing. We are told that the Communist world is splitting up, We are
advised by so-called experts that the Soviet Union wants peaceful co-
existence. These experts say that we should encourage such change by a
more tolerant attitude toward Communism.
This has been a dominant theme in recent American foreign policy. Un-
fortunately, it is a theme based on hope, not evidence--on myth, not
reality.
For example, there has been an effort to pull down a verbal Iron Cur-
tain on any discussion of the captive nations under Communist rule. Some
misguided spokesmen have even opposed the idea of having a Captive Nations
Week. They claim it rubs the Kremlin the wrong way and therefore blocks
American-Soviet understanding.
That is the myth--but what is the reality? It is that in Eastern
Europe tens of millions of people live under Communist repression. No
democratic elections are permitted in these countries. The principle of
national self-determination is ruthlessly denied.
The myth says that the United States should furnish trade and aid
to help the economics of these captive nations. We are told that in this
way the Communist monolith will break up.
That is the myth--but what is the reality? The truth can be learned
by studying this Nation's policy toward Hungary. We are being told now
Ford. Captive Nations
-2-
that the Communist rulers of Hungary are changing, We are being told
now that they too are mellowing. We are being advised by the so-called
"experts" that the United States should consider a large-scale trade
and aid program to Communist Hungary. The theory is that we can help
liberalize Hungary's domestic and foreign policies.
That is the theory. But what is the reality? The reality is that
the people of Hungary today remain under a brutal Communist dictator-
ship. The regime there was brought to power through bloody repression
of the Hungarian people---and it remains in power by threat and co-
ercion.
We will pay dearly for such mistaken theories. We have paid dearly
for them in years past. Three times in this decade the old realities of
Communism have fomented major world crises.
There was the reality of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Today, four years
later, the Wall stands as a symbol of Communist aggression, The outrage
of Western statesmen has been forgotten---as the Communists knew it
would. But the Wall remains. As with the captive nations, we are not
supposed to mention the Berlin Wall anymore. To do so, we are told, is
an unnecessary irritation of the Soviets.
Thus does the spirit of false coexistence march on. It callously
ignores all proof of Communist aggression. It deceives its followers---
and it betrays the cause of freedom.
Thus, in 1962, came the reality of the Cuban missile crisis. That
crisis should have upset the theories of our myth-makers. Communist
deceit and aggression were made plain for all to see. Despite this fact,
the reality of the Cuban missile crisis soon gave way to myth.
Again, the apostles of coexistence-at-any-price did not admit their
mistake. Instead, they begain arguing that the missile crisis advanced
the cause of American-Soviet understanding. Why? Because, they said, it
proved to the Russians that the United States will stand firm when our
vital interests are at stake,
But we might ask why Khrushchev and his military advisers ever be-
lieved otherwise? What led them to think that the United States would
ever tolerate Soviet missiles in the Caribbean?
The answer is that the Communists concluded--as the late Robert
Frost quoted Khrushchev--that America had become too liberal to fight.
Ford. Captive Nations
-3-
Our lesson in Cuba ought to guide us during the third great crisis
of this decade in Viet Nam. In Cuba, our early vacillation encouraged
the Communists to bolder-and-bolder aggression.
We cannot we dare not---lead them to repeat that mistake in
Viet Nam.
The Communist leaders in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi must fully
understand that the United States considers the freedom of South Viet
Nam vital to our interests. And they must know that we are not bluffing
in our determination to defend those interests.
Mao has said that America will soon tire of the war in Viet Nam.
It is President Johnson's grave responsibility to convince Mao and his
Communist allies otherwise.
Our power is known to the enemy. The enemy must be convinced of
the fact that we will use that power to meet the threat of aggression.
Toward this end I recommended a short time ago that we intensify
our air strikes against significant military targets in North Viet Nam.
Predictably, I was denounced by armchair theorists. Many of these same
spokesmen have given the President only half-hearted support in his
Viet Nam policy. Many have openly attacked the President's firmness
and called for a retreat out of Viet Nam.
My purpose was is and will continue to be to strengthen the
President's effort to convince the enemy of our firmness. But many of
his ostensible political allies are in fact weakening his hand in this
crisis.
Let me repeat what I have said before: Here at home, President
Johnson need not fear that the opposition party will ever undercut
his efforts to be firm against Communist aggression in Viet Nam, or
elsewhere. We have backed these efforts and we will always put
national interest above narrow partisan interest.
But the President's worst opponents here at home are those critics
within his own party who are undercutting his credibility in enemy
capitals.
Before the Cuban crisis, Khrushchev was misled into believing
America would not stand firm. Today, Mao is being misled by the cut-
and-run speeches made by members of the President's own political
family.
Ford. Captive Nations
-4-
Mao hears the clamor for negotiation-at-any-price---from members
of the President's own political party.
Mao hears the clamor to retreat to high ground--or to Saigon--or
even to Waikiki--from members of the President's own political family.
Mao hears vague talk of "political solutions" and de-escalation---
from a U.S. Senator who not long ago occupied a powerful policy-making
position in our Government. And, he too is a member of the President's
political family.
Along with the President, we wonder what some of these recommenda-
tions mean. But Mao believes he knows their meaning, To him and his
allies, they mean America is divided. To Mao and his allies they mean
that this country will abandon its policy of firmness in Viet Nam.
These then are the irresponsible critics of the President's Viet
Nam policy. Not those of s--Democrat and Republican alike--who want
it known that the United States will defend our vital interests.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Not those of us who urge
that the President act to convince the Communists of our resolve.
These then are the irresponsible critics. Many of the same ir-
resolute voices led us to near-disaster in Cuba. Now they argue that
our fight in Viet Nam is the wrong battleground--in the wrong place--
at the wrong time.
But the vast majority of Americans know that the defense of freedom
is the highest calling of a great Nation. And we believe that the time
we help protect a free people from Communist aggression we are meeting
our responsibilities at the right time---in the right place.
This does not mean---as some cynical spokesmen claim it does---
that we must undertake a "holy war" against Communism. But it does mean
that we must respond to Communism's own "unholy war" against human free-
dom.
What then are the vital interests we must defend in Viet Nam?
Up to now, the public dialogue has been concerned with escalated
means. Perhaps the time has arrived when the President, and those of us
who support him, must escalate not means alone---but the ends for which
we fight.
Is it enough to say that we are fighting to get the enemy to come
to a conference table? The enemy himself is fighting for well-defined
Ford Captive Nations
-5-
objectives. He wants to drive us cut of Viet Nam, conquer the people
and dominate the land.
If we are to defeat this enemy objective, we too must define our
goals in Viet Nam. Our military commitment has increased. Now the
President must detail the vital interests we are fighting for in that
part of the world.
With the one exception of Korea, the United States has fought
every war with clear objectives. These goals served to guide and
sustain our fighting men and our people. The national frustration suf-
fered during the Korean war resulted from our lack of clear objectives.
It is not enough to tell a free people that they are fighting a
war only to achieve a stalemate. It will not be enough to gain in Viet
Nam the same kind of negotiated settlement reached in Laos.
The negotiation in Laos opened the borders of South Viet Nam to
Communist aggression. We cannot fight in Viet Nam to negotiate a set-
tlement that will simply open the rest of Southeast Asia to aggression
and subversion.
We do not choose to be in Viet Nam. We would not be in Viet Nam if
the Communists would only leave their neighbors alone. But it is not
in the Communist nature to leave their neighbors alone. The fate of
the captive peoples throughout the Communist world proves this fact.
To believe otherwise is to believe a myth--not reality. It is a myth
which might lead the world to the darkness of tyranny or the horrors
of a global holocaust.
John Ruskin said:
"You may either win your peace or buy it; win it, by resistance
to evil; buy it, by compromise with evil. You may buy your peace with
silenced consciences; you may buy it with broken vows--buy it with
lying words--buy it with base connivances buy it with the blood of
the slain, and the cry of the captive, and the silence of lost souls
over hemispheres of the earth, while you sit smiling at your serene
hearths, lisping comfortable prayers morning and evening, and so
mutter continually to yourselves, 'Peace, peace', when there is no
peace; but only captivity and death for you as well as for those
you leave unsaved; and yours darker than theirs."
-more-
Ford. . Captive Nations
-6-
We will win our peace by resistance to evil. We will not buy
it by compromise with evil. That will remain our purpose in Viet
Nam and throughout the world wherever brave men resist tyranny
and long for freedom.
#
#
#