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
4525855
label
District of Columbia Young Republicans, Washington, DC, June 28, 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525855
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
District of Columbia Young Republicans, Washington, DC, June 28, 1965
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525855
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-06-30
month
6
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-06-01
month
6
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
85ba3a94d15c1ba6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D18, folder "District of Columbia Young
Republicans, Washington, DC, June 28, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D18 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Address by Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
District of Columbia Young Republicans
Washington, D. C.
June 28, 1965
"Why are we in Viet Nam?" the critics ask.
As they question, a United States Ambassador, four other
American and South Vietnamese leaders are put at the head of a "death
list" prepared by the blood-stained hands of Communist aggressors.
"Why are we in Viet Nam?" is the cry.
An American Army Sergeant defending freedom is murdered by the
Communists. Harold Bennett, the Viet Cong say, "has paid for his crimes."
And they executed him, telling the world of the murder with a brazen,
inhuman arrogance.
"Why are we in Viet Nam?"
Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, General William C. Westmoreland, Commander
of our forces in Viet Nam, the leader of the new Vietnamese military
junta, and the new premier of the nation fighting for freedom, are
described by the Communists as "blood-thirsty devils," with a warning
they face murder.
REFURD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
"Why are we in Viet Nam?"
I answer by asking why were we on the beaches of Normandy, at
Two Jima, on Guadalcanal, at Midway, crossing the Rhine, in North Africa?
We were there on the side of freedom, fighting the good fight, seeking
peace on earth.
We are in Viet Nam because:
*The security of the United States and the entire
free world demands an invincible wall of security
to hall the advance of Communist imperialism
in
Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe --- at home.
*Our moral duty lies where we are asked to help a
nation defend itself against Communist subversion,
infiltration and aggression.
*Our assistance was invited by the legitimate government
of that Southeast Asian country.
-3-
*Chinese Communist hostility to the United States
threatens the entire structure of free world security
in the Pacific.
*The independence and freedom of 240 million people in
Southeast Asia and the future of the entire Western
Pacific are at stake.
*An incorrigible Communist aggressor is fanatically
committed to the destruction of the free world.
Recently, I recommended that the Administration order devastating
air power against all significant military targets in North Viet Nam.
And, I advocated that President Johnson toughen our attitude by establishing
a naval quarantine to cut off delivery of war materiel that fattens the
aggressor's war arsenal.
While there are some proponents of a diplomatic solution that
would at this time amount to our surrender, there are others who apparently
BERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
-4-
quite honestly believe we can arrive at a settlement that would both
end the war and preserve the freedom of the South Vietnamese people.
Unfortunately, those who urge a diplomatic solution now for the
sake of preventing more conflict may see our Nation compelled to fight
the very war they seek to avoid, on a broader and bloodier scale, and
from a much more difficult and far more dangerous line of defense.
No loyal American wants our Nation to stand by indifferently
watching Communism take over the rest of the world.
I take it for granted that everyone agrees on drawing a line against
Communist expansion somewhere, somehow. The question separating us is:
exactly where and how such a line should be drawn.
Many times I have reaffirmed my position that President Johnson is
right in affirmatively acting on behalf of freedom and against aggression.
I do so now, even though the situation would be more hopeful and less
perilous today if we had acted differently a year ago. It is appropriate,
however, in light of recent developments the past few days, to question
GERALES FORD VIBRARY
-5-
whether the United States is using its air and sea power as effectively
as our superiority justifies, and whether the White House is making
a maximum effort to recruit military assistance in Viet Nam from
Southeast Asian allies who have a vital stake in preventing a Chinese-
Communist take-over. Why can't the Administration order that more be
done faster in the air and on the sea against the enemy?
The situation in Viet Nam today bears many resemblances to the
situation just before Munich. Then, too, there were student protests for
peace. Senators and Representatives sponsored resolutions for negotiations.
The President campaigned on the premise America would never go to war.
Chamberlain wanted peace by one approach. Churchill wanted peace by
another route.
GERALD
-6-
Churchill said that if the free world failed to draw a line against
Hitler at an early stage, it would be compelled to draw the line under
much more difficult circumstances at a later date.
Chamberlain held that a confrontation with Hitler might result in war,
and that the interests of peace demanded some concessions to the Nazi
ruler. Czechoslovakia, he said, was a faraway land about which he knew
very little.
Chamberlain held that a durable agreement would be negotiated with
Hitler to guarantee "peace in our time."
Churchill held that the appeasement of a compulsive aggressor simply
whetted the enemy's appetite for further expansion and made war more likely.
Churchill explained his policy this way:
"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win
without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory can be sure
and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to
fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
-more-
FORD sig LIBRARY GERALD
-7-
"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there
is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than live as
slaves."
Chamberlain's policy won out because nobody wanted war. When he
came back from Munich, he was hailed not only by the Tories but by the
Liberals and the Labor Party.
But, who was right-=-Churchill or Chamberlain?
Who was the true man of peace?
In Viet Nam today we are again confronted by an incorrigible
aggressor fanatically committed to the destruction of the free world
whose agreements are as worthless as Hitler's. Indeed, even while the
Communist propaganda apparatus is pulling out all the stops to pressure
us into a diplomatic surrender in Viet Nam, the Chinese Communists are
openly encouraging a new Huk insurgency in the Philippines. They have
taken the first step in opening a Viet Cong type of insurgency in
Thailand through the creation of their quisling Thai patriotic front.
-more-
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-8-
In signing the Munich agreement, it was not Chamberlain's intention
to surrender all of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The agreement was limited
to the transfer of the German-speaking Sudentenland to German sovereignty.
And, no one was more indignant than Chamberlain when Hitler, having
deprived Czechoslovakia of her mountain defenses, proceeded to take over
the entire country.
Now in 1965, we are reminded that three times in this century the
United States has gone to war and each time our enemies were surprised
that we had the courage, the will and the ability to join as one to meet
the challenge of ruthless dictators.
The Imperial German government carefully studied public statements by
our Nation's leaders, our student strikes for peace, our signs of
irresponsible dissent, and concluded we were afraid of battle. Our ships
were sent to the bottom, a revolution was fomented in Mexico on our border,
our citizens abroad were killed, the forces of aggression flaunted their
strength until finally we took action.
-more-
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-9-
Just 23 years later, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese
militarists repeated the mistakes....their governments vanished and
peace returned.
In 1950, the North Koreans and Chinese Communists tested our
were
will and doubted our resolve. They ti rted thwarted in their
drive for more territory and greater power.
-more-
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-10-
I believe the President should remind the leadership of North
Viet Nam and the strong-arm masterminds in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi
that history proves our intentions and our capabilities.
America knows the enemy's appetite for tyranny would be whetted
by any show of weakness, uncertainty or faltering on the part of the
United States.
The power-hungry Communist leaders will continue to dodge the
negotiation table until they are convinced the United States will stay in
Viet Nam until peace with both honor and meaning is achieved.
Although Congressional Republican leadership today stands firmly
with the President in this critical hour, we and the American people
must be kept fully informed within the limits of national security.
In the best tradition of the bi-partisan foreign policy championed
by the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republicans will continue to support
the President, providing we are given all the facts and given the opportunity
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-11-
to raise appropriate questions.
It is appropriate at this point to reiterate that Republicans
in the past have opposed massive ground war in Southeast Asia. The
Eisenhower-Dulles policy saw the pitfalls of being over-committed in
large-scale jungle warfare. To engage in this type of combat is to
fight a war on the terms of the enemy. Experience and logic prove
there is a better way to impress the enemy with our power, which is
in the air and on the sea in these circumstances. By timely and
forceful sea and air action against the Communist power in North Viet Nam
we can convince the aggressors that their invasion against South Viet Nam
too costly.
The swift sword for freedom must deal mightier blows now from the
air and sea in Southeast Asia. They must be struck quickly. They must
be unleashed to prevent a costly and possibly never-ending land war in
the steaming jungles and swamps of Viet Nam.
#
GERALD FORD NIBRARY
Address by Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
District of Columbia Young Republicans
Washington, D. C.
June 28, 1965
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?" the critics ask.
As they question, a United States Ambassador, four other American and
South Vietnamese leaders are put at the head of a "death list" prepared by the
blood-stained hands of Communist aggressors.
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?" is the cry.
An American Army Sergeant defending freedom is murdered by the Communists.
Harold Bennett, the Viet Cong say, "has paid for his crimes." And they executed him
telling the world of the murder with a brazen, inhuman arrogance.
'Why are we in Viet-Nam?"
Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, General William C. Westmoreland, commander of our
forces in Viet-Nam; the leader of the new Vietnamese military junta and the new
premier of the nation fighting for
freedom are described by the Communists as
"blood-thirsty devils," with a warning they face murder.
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?"
I answer by asking why were we on the beaches of Normandy, at Iwo Jima, on
Guadalcanal, at Midway, crossing the Rhine, in North Africa? We were there on the
side of freedom, fighting the good fight, seeking peace on earth.
We are in Viet-Nam because:
*
The security of the United States and the entire free world demands an
invincible wall of security to halt the advance of Communist imperialism.
in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe --- at home.
*
Our moral duty lies where we are asked to help a nation defend itself
against Communist subversion, infiltration and aggression.
Our assistance was invited by the legitimate government of that Southeast
Asian country.
Chinese Communist hostility to the United States threatens the entire
structure of free world security in the Pacific.
*
The independence and freedom of 240 million people in Southeast Asia and the
future of the entire Western Pacific are at stake.
*
An incorrigible Communist aggressor is fanatically committed to the
destruction of the free world.
Recently, I recommended that the Administration order devastating air power
against all significant military targets in North Viet-Nam. And, I advocated that
President Johnson toughen our attitude by establishing a naval quarantine to cut off
delivery of war material that fattens the aggressor's war arsenal.
While there are some proponents of a diplomatic solution that would at this
time amount to our surrender, there are others who apparently quite honestly believe
we can arrive at a settlement that would both end the war and preserve the freedom of
the South Vietnamese peoplè.
2
Unfortunately, those who urge a diplomatic solution now for the sake of
preventing more conflict may see our Nation compelled to fight the very war they
seek to avoid, on a broader and bloodier scale, and from a much more difficult
and far more dangerous line of defense.
No loyal American wants our Nation to stand by indifferently watching
Communism take over the rest of the world.
I take it for granted that everyone agrees on drawing a line against
Communist expansion somewhere, somehow. The question separating us is exactly
where and how such a line should be drawn.
Many times I have reaffirmed my position that President Johnson is right in
affirmatively acting on behalf of freedom and against aggression. I do so now
even though the situation would be more hopeful and less perilous today if we
had acted differently a year ago. It is appropriate, however, in light of recent
developments the past few days, to question whether the United States is using
its air and sea power as effectively as our superiority justifies, and whether
the White House is making a maximum effort to recruit military assistance in
Viet Nam from Southeast Asian allies, who have a vital stake in preventing a
Chinese-Communist take-over. Wy can't the Administration order that more be
done faster in the air and on the sea against the enemy?
The situation in Viet Nam today bears many resemblances to the situation
just before Munich. Then too there were students protests for peace. Senators
and Representatives sponsored resolutions for negotiations. The President
campaigned on the premise America would never go to War. Chamberlain wanted
peace by one approach. Churchill wanted peace by another route.
Churchill said that if the free world failed to draw a line against Hitler
at an early stage, it would be compelled to draw the line under much more
difficult circumstances at a later date.
Chamberlain held that confrontation with Hitler might result in war, and
that the interests of peace demanded some concessions to the Nazi ruler.
Czechoslovakia, he said, was a faraway land about which he knew very little.
Chamberlain held that a durable agreement would be negotiated with Hitler
to guarantee "peace in our time."
Churchill held that the appeasement of a compulsive aggressor simply
whetted his appetite for further expansion and made war more likely.
Churchill explained his policy this way. "STill if you will not fight for
the right when you can easily win without bioodshed; if you will not fight when
your victory can be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you
will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of
survival.
3.
"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no
hope of victory because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
Chamberlain's policy won out because nobody wanted war. When he came
back from Munich, he was hailed not only by the Tories but by the Liberals
and the Labor Party.
But, who was right Churchill or Chamberlain?
Who was the true man of peace.
In Viet Nam today we are again confronted by an incorrigible aggressor,
fenatically committed to the destruction of the free world, whose agreements
are as worthless as Hitler's. Indeed, even while the Communist propaganda
apparatus is pulling out all the stops to pressure us into a diplomatic
surrender in Viet Nam, the Chinese Communists are openly encouraging a new
Huk insurgency in the Philippines. They have taken the first step in opening
a Viet Cong type of insurgency in Thailand through the creation of their
quisling Thai patriotic front.
In signing the Munich agreement, it was not Chamberlains intention to
surrender all of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The agreement was limited to the
transfer of the German-speaking Sudetenland to German sovereignty. And no one
was more indignant than Chamberlain when Hitler, having deprived Czechoslovakia
of her mountain defenses, proceeded to take over the entire country.
Now in 1965, we are reminded that three times in this century the United
States has gone to war and each time our enemies were surprised that we had
the courage, the will and the ability to join as one to meet the challenge of
ruthless dictators.
The Imperial German government carefully studied public statements by our
Nation's leaders, our student strikes for peace, our signe of irresponsible
dissent, and concluded we were afraid of battle. Our ships were sent to the
bottom, a revolution was fomented in Mexico on our border, our citizens abroad
were killed, the forces of aggression flaunted their strength until finally we
took action.
Just 23 years later, Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarist repeat-
ed the mistakes
their governments vanished and peace returned.
In 1950, the North Koreans and Chinese Communists tested our will and
doubted our resolve. They were thwareed in their drive for more territory and
greater power.
I believe the President should remind the leadership of North Viet Nam
and the strong-arm masterminds in Moscow, Peiping and Hanoi that history proves
our intentions and our capabilities.
-4-
America knows the enemy's appetite for tyranny would be whetted by any show
of weakness, uncertainty or faltering on the part of the United States.
The power-hungry Communist leaders will continue to dodge the negotiation
table until they are convinced the United States will stay in Viet-Nam until peace
with both honor and meaning is achieved.
Although Congressional Republican leadership today stands firmly with the
President in this critical hour, we and the American people must be kept fully
informed within the limits of national security.
In the best tradition of the bi-partisan foreign policy championed by the late
Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republicans will continue to support the President, pro-
viding we are given all the facts and given the opportunity to raise appropriate
questions.
It is appropriate at this point to reiterate that Republicans in the past have
opposed massive ground war in Southeast Asia. The Eisenhower-Dulles policy saw the
pitfalls of being over-committed in large-scale jungle warfare. To engage in this
type of combat is to fight a war on the terms of the enemy. Experience and logic
prove there is a better way to impress the enemy with our power, which is in the air
and on the sea in these circumstances. By timely and forceful sea and air action
against the Communist power in North Viet-Nam we can convince the aggressors that
their invasion against South Viet-Nam is too costly.
The swift sword for freedom must deal mightier blows now from the air and sea
in Southeast Asia. They must be struck quickly. They must be unleashed to prevent a
costly and possibly never-ending land war in the steaming jungles and swamps of
Viet-Nam.
######
Address by Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich)
District of Columbia Young Republicans
Washington, D. C.
June 28, 1965
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?" the critics ask.
As they question, a United States Ambassador, four other American and
South Vietnamese leaders are put at the head of a "death list" prepared by the
blood-stained hands of Communist aggressors.
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?" is the cry.
An American Army Sergeant defending freedom is murdered by the Communists.
Harold Bennett, the Viet Cong say, "has paid for his crimes." And they executed him
telling the world of the murder with a brazen, inhuman arrogance.
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?"
Ambassador Maxwell Taylor, General William C. Westmoreland, commander of our
forces in Viet-Nam; the leader of the new Vietnamese military junta and the new
premier of the nation fighting for freedom are described by the Communists as
"blood-thirsty devils," with a warning the face murder.
"Why are we in Viet-Nam?"
I answer by asking why were we on the beaches of Normandy, at Iwo Jima, on
Guadalcanal, at Midway, crossing the Rhine, in North Africa? We were there on the
side of freedom, fighting the good fight, seeking peace on earth.
We are in Viet-Nam because:
*
The security of the United States and the entire free world demands an
invincible wall of security to halt the advance of Communist imperialism.
in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe at home.
* Our moral duty lies where we are asked to help a nation defend itself
against Communist subversion, infiltration and aggression.
*
Our assistance was invited by the legitimate government of that Southeast
Asian country.
*
Chinese Communist hostility to the United States threatens the entire
structure of free world security in the Pacific.
*
The independence and freedom of 240 million people in Southeast Asia and the
future of the entire Western Pacific are at stake.
*
An incorrigible Communist aggressor is fanatically committed to the
destruction of the free world.
Recently, I recommended that the Administration order devastating air power
against all significant military targets in North Viet-Nam. And, I advocated that
President Johnson toughen our attitude by establishing a naval quarantine to cut off
delivery of war material that fattens the aggressor's war arsenal.
While there are some proponents of a diplomatic solution that would at this
GERALD
time amount to our surrender, there are others who apparently quite honestly believe
we can arrive at a settlement that would both end the war and preserve the freedom of
the South Vietnamese peoplè.
2
Unfortunately, those who urge a diplomatic solution now for the sake of
preventing more conflict may see our Nation compelled to fight the very war they
seek to avoid, on a broader and bloodier scale, and from a much more difficult
and far more dangerous line of defense.
No loyal American wants our Nation to stand by indifferently watching
Communism take over the rest of the world.
I take it for granted that everyone agrees on drawing a line against
Communist expansion somewhere, somehow. The question separating us is exactly
where and how such a line should be drawn.
Many times I have reaffirmed my position that President Johnson is right in
affirmatively acting on behalf of freedom and against aggression. I do so now
even though the situation would be more hopeful and less perilous today if we
had acted differently a year ago. It is appropriate, however, in light of recent
developments the past few days, to question whether the United States is using
its air and sea power as effectively as our superiority justifies, and whether
the White House is making a maximum effort to recruit military assistance in
Viet Nam from Southeast Asian allies, who have a vital stake in preventing a
Chinese-Communist take-over. Wy can't the Administration order that more be
done faster in the air and on the sea against the enemy?
The situation in Viet Nam today bears many resemblances to the situation
just before Munich. Then too there were students protests for peace. Senators
and Representatives sponsored resolutions for negotiations. The President
campaigned on the premise America would never go to War. Chamberlain wanted
peace by one approach. Churchill wanted peace by another route.
Churchill said that if the free world failed to draw a line against Hitler
at an early stage, it would be compelled to draw the line under much more
difficult circumstances at a later date.
Chamberlain held that confrontation with Hitler might result in war, and
that the interests of peace demanded some concessions to the Nazi ruler.
Czechoslovakia, he said, was a faraway land about which he knew very little.
Chamberlain held that a durable agreement would be negotiated with Hitler
to guarantee "peace in our time."
Churchill held that the appeasement of a compulsive aggressor simply
whetted his appetite for further expansion and made war more likely.
Churchill explained his policy this way. "STill if you will not fight for
the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when
your victory can be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you
will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of
survival.
-4-
America knows the enemy's appetite for tyranny would be whetted by any show
of weakness, uncertainty or faltering on the part of the United States.
The power-hungry Communist leaders will continue to dodge the negotiation
table until they are convinced the United States will stay in Viet-Nam until peace
with both honor and meaning is achieved.
Although Congressional Republican leadership today stands firmly with the
President in this critical hour, we and the American people must be kept fully
informed within the limits of national security.
In the best tradition of the bi-partisan foreign policy championed by the late
Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republicans will continue to support the President, pro-
viding we are given all the facts and given the opportunity to raise appropriate
questions.
It is appropriate at this point to reiterate that Republicans in the past have
opposed massive ground war in Southeast Asia. The Eisenhower-Dulles policy saw the
pitfalls of being over-committed in large-scale jungle warfare. To engage in this
type of combat is to fight a war on the terms of the enemy. Experience and logic
prove there is a better way to impress the enemy with our power, which is in the air
and on the sea in these circumstances. By timely and forceful sea and air action
against the Communist power in North Viet-Nam we can convince the aggressors that
their invasion against South Viet-Nam is too costly.
The swift sword for freedom must deal mightier blows now from the air and sea
in Southeast Asia. They must be struck quickly. They must be unleashed to prevent a
costly and possibly never-ending land war in the steaming jungles and swamps of
Viet-Nam.
######