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.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526286
label
New Jersey Bankers Association, Atlantic City, NJ, May 21, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526286
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
New Jersey Bankers Association, Atlantic City, NJ, May 21, 1970
description
This file contains material relating to Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Cambodia
Peace movements
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
War protests
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526286
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-05-31
month
5
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-05-01
month
5
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5d83ba12a771413d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D29, folder "New Jersey Bankers Association,
Atlantic City, NJ, May 21, 1970" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Distribution 10 copies to The Ford
m affice Capy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE NEW JERSEY BANKERS ASSOCIATION
AT HADDON HALL HOTEL, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
11:30 A.M. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1970
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
These seem to be dark hours, but I see them as the beginning of the dawn.
These are confusing days, "for now we see through a glass, darkly," but
the time will soon come when we will know the situation not only in part but in
whole.
That is how I view the explosive developments which have occurred since
President Nixon on Thursday, April 30, ordered the Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia
cleaned out by South Vietnamese and U.S. troops.
The President's announcement amazed many Americans. It took them by
surprise. It was only 10 days earlier that Mr. Nixon had announced we would be
pulling an additional 150,000 G.I.'s out of Vietnam over the next 12 months.
The result has been over-reaction on the part of thousands of our people.
Emotion has completely overwhelmed reason, both in the Senate of the United States
and on college campuses throughout the country.
Fevered imaginations have fuzzed up the facts and created a series of
confrontations in this country.
The crisis will cool -- I am certain of it. The country will come out all
right in the end, and that is all that matters.
But let me in the meantime give you my view of the President's Cambodian
decision.
In his book, "Profiles in Courage," the late President John F. Kennedy said:
"A man does what he must -- in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures."
That is what President Nixon did when he ordered our troops into Cambodia.
He did what he felt he must do, what he felt was right.
This was truly an act of courage. It required more courageous leadership
than that demanded of Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt during the darkest days of
World Wars I and II because those chief executives knew the American people were
behind them.
President Nixon, on Cambodia, made the loneliest of decisions. He did
what he believed was right even though he knew it would bring the antiwar forces
(more)
Digitized from Box D29 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
on the campuses springing to the barricades once again and his opponents in the
Senate shouting that constitutional power had been abused.
Abraham Lincoln once said: "If the end brings me out all right, what is
said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten
angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
It was in that light that President Nixon ordered U.S. forces to join in
the Cambodian Operation.
He knew very well he was destroying the calm he had created in the Nation
with his steady troop withdrawals from Vietnam and his announcement that 150,000
more men would be withdrawn. He realized fully that he would be triggering a new
round of antiwar demonstrations. But he did what he had to do.
I think the end will bring President Nixon and the Nation out all right.
There is reason to believe that the Cambodian decision has dealt the enemy a hard
if not staggering blow in the Vietnam conflict. The Cambodian action might well
mark a turning point in the war. It could prove to be a masterstroke. I feel sure
it will shorten the war.
As for the public reaction to the President's move, let us keep it in
perspective.
The U.S. House of Representatives has firmly rejected all attempts by those
who oppose the Cambodian decision to emasculate the President's powers as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces.
And, speaking only for my own congressional district in Michigan, I can tell
you that the sentiment of many older Americans is running strongly against the
sometimes obscene and sometimes violent ways in which some college students are
expressing their reaction to the President's decision.
There have always been differences between age groups. The split we are
witnessing today is probably more severe than we have ever seen. But I am
convinced that the kind of dissent we have seen at Kent State University and
Jackson (Miss.) State College -- dissent that erupts into bloodshed and killing --
will not become a part of the American way of life.
President Nixon has made a special effort to open up lines of communication
with our young people. His early dawn visit to talk with a group of college
students at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington is evidence of that. He also
instructed members of his White House staff to engage in dialogues with college
students.
(more)
-3-
Our young people must be made to realize that violence is not the way to
resolve issues in America. They must realize that throwing rocks at national
guardsmen is not the answer, either. And they should realize they are being
misled by militant radicals when they are urged to kill or to destroy buildings and
other property.
I believe that for those who engage in violence on the campus, the only
redress is for the college authorities to administer stern discipline. We must
not, we cannot, tolerate violence and expect our society to bear the strain.
Bloodshed stemming from the actions of an irrational few must be avoided
on college campuses and city streets.
I am pleased that the massive antiwar gathering in the Nation's capital on
Saturday, May 9, was peaceful for the most part. I think this was a tribute both
to a majority of the young people who journeyed to Washington for the demonstration
and also to the Washington Metropolitan Police Department which exhibited great
restraint in handling the mammoth crowd.
The demonstration in Washington offered a sharp contrast to what happened
at Kent State and Jackson State. What transpired at Kent and Jackson, where
students were shot and killed, can only be described as senseless tragedy.
We must ,and I pray that we will, find a balance of reason and moderation in
the days ahead. It is my deep hope that the American people will find it possible
to join in support of the President as tempers cool and passions fade.
I ask those who disagree with the President to give peace a chance by giving
him a chance.
He has said all of our troops will be out of Cambodia by the end of next
month. I do not think that is too long a time to allow for a public decision on
the rightness of the President's action.
As for me, I think the President is profoundly right in what he has done.
And I am most disturbed by what I feel is an irrational wave of
neo-isolationism in this country -- not only on our college campuses but in the
United States Senate.
There are strange parallels -- but I think unmistaken parallels -- between
the anti-militarists and neo-isolationists of today and the pacifists and
isolationists of the 1930s.
Many of you remember the 1930s. You recall when Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf,"
was first published. Few people in this country took that book seriously.
(more)
-4-
The United States had engaged in unilateral disarmanent after World War I,
in the period leading into the Thirties. We were living in a dream world. We
said war just couldn't happen. And if it did happen to somebody else we would just
not become involved. The mentality of the entire country was attuned to what
became known as the "Fortress America" concept.
It was a Republican, Sen. Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, who led the
Fortress America forces in the 30s. Today isolationism is being preached by
leading Democrats in the Senate, together with a few Republicans.
Nye blamed war on the international bankers and the arms manufacturers.
Today we see militant youths burning down or damaging bank buildings, looting
the files of a napalm manufacturer, preventing college campus appearances by
recruiters for defense industries, fighting any and all military research and new
weapons developments.
There were protests in the 30s against compulsory military training, and
so a number of land grant colleges made military drill optional. Today we find
students burning down ROTC buildings or forcing college administrations to drop
ROTC from the curriculum. And today, too, we have draft card burning and the
pouring of blood on draft card files.
As a result of antiwar hearings in the early 30s by a committee Sen. Nye
haeded, the Congress in 1935 approved what became known as the Neutrality Act.
That legislation was similar to a recently-enacted Senate resolution limiting the
use of U.S. ground troops in Laos, and it was similar to the amendments aimed at
cutting off the use of U.S. troops in Cambodia.
Throughout the Thirties the antiwar sentiment waxed strong, and it is
growing today.
In the Thirties Hitler built a tremendous war machine and grabbed off
larger and larger pieces of territory adjoining Germany.
Today the Soviet Union feeds the Communist war effort in Vietnam, fuels the
Arab military forces in the Middle East even to the point of sending Soviet pilots
there, and continues amassing the most horrible and threatening array of
armaments.
In the 30s America slept. And so did England. Those of you of my
generation remember a gaunt-looking Britisher who journeyed to Munich to meet
with Adolf Hitler and agreed that part of Czechoslovakia should go to Nazi
Germany.
(more)
-5-
It was nearly 32 years ago that the British prime minister with the wing
collar, moustache and umbrella returned to England declaring he had achieved
"peace with honor peace for our time." You remember he stepped off a plane
at Heston Airdrome outside of London and waved his "peace for our time" memorandum
signed by Adolf Hitler.
Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" lasted less than one year. It
culminated in a war which engulfed the world and resulted in 1,078,162 American
casualties, with 292,131 G.I. combat deaths and 115,185 American deaths due to
non-combat causes.
Chamberlain was well-intentioned. Yet all who cheered him when he waved
his memo from Hitler on Sept. 30, 1938, declared years later: "We should have
stopped Hitler at Munich. 11
There are curious parallels between 1938 and 1970. The pacifists and
neo-isolationists of 1970 are well-intentioned too.
I am not advocating revival of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. I would
be the last person in the world to urge that. But I say we must not abandon
principle in pursuit of peace. I believe that is the surest road to disaster.
I believe we should seek a detente with the Soviet Union whatever happens
in Vietnam. I was most pleased to hear the President predict that an agreement
will come out of the SALT talks. At the same time, I am sure we will not scrap
our principles in order to achieve that agreement -- and neither should we scrap
our principles in Vietnam.
Winston Churchill in 1938 called Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time"
agreement a matter of taking "the line of least resistance." He said as much
in a thoroughly ignored speech in the British House of Commons. But Churchill
was right.
Does any American today really believe that the line of least resistance is
the path to lasting peace?
Let us not make the same mistakes today we made in the Thirties.
Churchill called the appeasement of Hitler at Munich "a disaster of the
first magnitude.' 11
In my view, the present antiwar movement in this country is a tragedy of
immense proportions because it has produced some of the most irrational attitudes
ever expressed in America.
I mentioned at the outset of my comments that these appear to be dark days.
(more)
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE LIONS OF MICHIGAN GOLDEN PRESIDENTS BANQUET
AT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
6:30 P.M. FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1970
[Same speech as May 21]
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
These seem to be dark hours, but I see them as the beginning of the dawn.
These are confusing days, "for now we see through a glass, darkly," but
the time will soon come when we will know the situation not only in part but in
whole.
That is how I view the explosive developments which have occurred since
President Nixon on Thursday, April 30, ordered the Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia
cleaned out by South Vietnamese and U.S. troops.
The President's announcement amazed many Americans. It took them by
surprise. It was only 10 days earlier that Mr. Nixon had announced we would be
pulling an additional 150,000 G.I.'s out of Vietnam over the next 12 months.
The result has been over-reaction on the part of thousands of our people.
Emotion has completely overwhelmed reason, both in the Senate of the United States
and on college campuses throughout the country.
Fevered imaginations have fuzzed up the facts and created a series of
confrontations in this country.
The crisis will cool -- I am certain of it. The country will come out all
right in the end, and that is all that matters.
But let me in the meantime give you my view of the President's Cambodian
decision.
In his book, "Profiles in Courage," the late President John F. Kennedy said:
"A man does what he must -- in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures."
That is what President Nixon did when he ordered our troops into Cambodia.
He did what he felt he must do, what he felt was right.
This was truly an act of courage. It required more courageous leadership
than that demanded of Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt during the darkest days of
World Wars I and II because those chief executives knew the American people were
behind them.
President Nixon, on Cambodia, made the loneliest of decisions. He did
what he believed was right even though he knew it would bring the antiwar forces
(more)
-2-
on the campuses springing to the barricades once again and his opponents in the
Senate shouting that constitutional power had been abused.
Abraham Lincoln once said: "If the end brings me out all right, what is
said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten
angels swearing I was right would make no difference.'
It was in that light that President Nixon ordered U.S. forces to join in
the Cambodian Operation.
He knew very well he was destroying the calm he had created in the Nation
with his steady troop withdrawals from Vietnam and his announcement that 150,000
more men would be withdrawn. He realized fully that he would be triggering a new
round of antiwar demonstrations. But he did what he had to do.
I think the end will bring President Nixon and the Nation out all right.
There is reason to believe that the Cambodian decision has dealt the enemy a hard
if not staggering blow in the Vietnam conflict. The Cambodian action might well
mark a turning point in the war. It could prove to be a masterstroke. I feel sure
it will shorten the war.
As for the public reaction to the President's move, let us keep it in
perspective.
The U.S. House of Representatives has firmly rejected all attempts by those
who oppose the Cambodian decision to emasculate the President's powers as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces.
And, speaking only for my own congressional district in Michigan, I can tell
you that the sentiment of many older Americans is running strongly against the
sometimes obscene and sometimes violent ways in which some college students are
expressing their reaction to the President's decision.
There have always been differences between age groups. The split we are
witnessing today is probably more severe than we have ever seen. But I am
convinced that the kind of dissent we have seen at Kent State University and
Jackson (Miss.) State College -- dissent that erupts into bloodshed and killing --
will not become a part of the American way of life.
President Nixon has made a special effort to open up lines of communication
with our young people. His early dawn visit to talk with a group of college
students at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington is evidence of that. He also
instructed members of his White House staff to engage in dialogues with college
students.
(more)
-2-
on the campuses springing to the barricades once again and his opponents in the
Senate shouting that constitutional power had been abused.
Abraham Lincoln once said: "If the end brings me out all right, what is
said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten
angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
It was in that light that President Nixon ordered U.S. forces to join in
the Cambodian Operation.
He knew very well he was destroying the calm he had created in the Nation
with his steady troop withdrawals from Vietnam and his announcement that 150,000
more men would be withdrawn. He realized fully that he would be triggering a new
round of antiwar demonstrations. But he did what he had to do.
I think the end will bring President Nixon and the Nation out all right.
There is reason to believe that the Cambodian decision has dealt the enemy a hard
if not staggering blow in the Vietnam conflict. The Cambodian action might well
mark a turning point in the war. It could prove to be a masterstroke. I feel sure
it will shorten the war.
As for the public reaction to the President's move, let us keep it in
perspective.
The U.S. House of Representatives has firmly rejected all attempts by those
who oppose the Cambodian decision to emasculate the President's powers as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces.
And, speaking only for my own congressional district in Michigan, I can tell
you that the sentiment of many older Americans is running strongly against the
sometimes obscene and sometimes violent ways in which some college students are
expressing their reaction to the President's decision.
There have always been differences between age groups. The split we are
witnessing today is probably more severe than we have ever seen. But I am
convinced that the kind of dissent we have seen at Kent State University and
Jackson (Miss.) State College -- dissent that erupts into bloodshed and killing --
will not become a part of the American way of life.
President Nixon has made a special effort to open up lines of communication
with our young people. His early dawn visit to talk with a group of college
students at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington is evidence of that. He also
instructed members of his White House staff to engage in dialogues with college
students.
(more)
-3-
Our young people must be made to realize that violence is not the way to
resolve issues in America. They must realize that throwing rocks at national
guardsmen is not the answer, either. And they should realize they are being
misled by militant radicals when they are urged to kill or to destroy buildings and
other property.
I believe that for those who engage in violence on the campus, the only
redress is for the college authorities to administer stern discipline. We must
not, we cannot, tolerate violence and expect our society to bear the strain.
Bloodshed stemming from the actions of an irrational few must be avoided
on college campuses and city streets.
I am pleased that the massive antiwar gathering in the Nation's capital on
Saturday, May 9, was peaceful for the most part. I think this was a tribute both
to a majority of the young people who journeyed to Washington for the demonstration
and also to the Washington Metropolitan Police Department which exhibited great
restraint in handling the mammoth crowd.
The demonstration in Washington offered a sharp contrast to what happened
at Kent State and Jackson State. What transpired at Kent and Jackson, where
students were shot and killed, can only be described as senseless tragedy.
We must ,and I pray that we will, find a balance of reason and moderation in
the days ahead. It is my deep hope that the American people will find it possible
to join in support of the President as tempers cool and passions fade.
I ask those who disagree with the President to give peace a chance by giving
him a chance.
He has said all of our troops will be out of Cambodia by the end of next
month. I do not think that is too long a time to allow for a public decision on
the rightness of the President's action.
As for me, I think the President is profoundly right in what he has done.
And I am most disturbed by what I feel is an irrational wave of
neo-isolationism in this country -- not only on our college campuses but in the
United States Senate.
There are strange parallels -- but I think unmistaken parallels -- between
the anti-militarists and neo-isolationists of today and the pacifists and
isolationists of the 1930s.
Many of you remember the 1930s. You recall when Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf,"
was first published. Few people in this country took that book seriously.
(more)
-4-
The United States had engaged in unilateral disarmanent after World War I,
in the period leading into the Thirties. We were living in a dream world. We
said war just couldn't happen. And if it did happen to somebody else we would just
not become involved. The mentality of the entire country was attuned to what
became known as the "Fortress America" concept.
It was a Republican, Sen. Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, who led the
Fortress America forces in the 30s. Today isolationism is being preached by
leading Democrats in the Senate, together with a few Republicans.
Nye blamed war on the international bankers and the arms manufacturers.
Today we see militant youths burning down or damaging bank buildings, looting
the files of a napalm manufacturer, preventing college campus appearances by
recruiters for defense industries, fighting any and all military research and new
weapons developments.
There were protests in the 30s against compulsory military training, and
so a number of land grant colleges made military drill optional. Today we find
students burning down ROTC buildings or forcing college administrations to drop
ROTC from the curriculum. And today, too, we have draft card burning and the
pouring of blood on draft card files.
As a result of antiwar hearings in the early 30s by a committee Sen. Nye
haeded, the Congress in 1935 approved what became known as the Neutrality Act.
That legislation was similar to a recently-enacted Senate resolution limiting the
use of U.S. ground troops in Laos, and it was similar to the amendments aimed at
cutting off the use of U.S. troops in Cambodia.
Throughout the Thirties the antiwar sentiment waxed strong, and it is
growing today.
In the Thirties Hitler built a tremendous war machine and grabbed off
larger and larger pieces of territory adjoining Germany.
Today the Soviet Union feeds the Communist war effort in Vietnam, fuels the
Arab military forces in the Middle East even to the point of sending Soviet pilots
there, and continues amassing the most horrible and threatening array of
armaments.
In the 30s America slept. And so did England. Those of you of my
generation remember a gaunt-looking Britisher who journeyed to Munich to meet
with Adolf Hitler and agreed that part of Czechoslovakia should go to Nazi
Germany.
(more)
-5-
It was nearly 32 years ago that the British prime minister with the wing
collar, moustache and umbrella returned to England declaring he had achieved
"peace with honor peace for our time." You remember he stepped off a plane
at Heston Airdrome outside of London and waved his "peace for our time" memorandum
signed by Adolf Hitler.
Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" lasted less than one year. It
culminated in a war which engulfed the world and resulted in 1,078,162 American
casualties, with 292,131 G.I. combat deaths and 115,185 American deaths due to
non-combat causes.
Chamberlain was well-intentioned. Yet all who cheered him when he waved
his memo from Hitler on Sept. 30, 1938, declared years later: "We should have
stopped Hitler at Munich."
There are curious parallels between 1938 and 1970. The pacifists and
neo-isolationists of 1970 are well-intentioned too.
I am not advocating revival of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. I would
be the last person in the world to urge that. But I say we must not abandon
principle in pursuit of peace. I believe that is the surest road to disaster.
I believe we should seek a detente with the Soviet Union whatever happens
in Vietnam. I was most pleased to hear the President predict that an agreement
will come out of the SALT talks. At the same time, I am sure we will not scrap
our principles in order to achieve that agreement -- and neither should we scrap
our principles in Vietnam.
Winston Churchill in 1938 called Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time"
agreement a matter of taking "the line of least resistance.' He said as much
in a thoroughly ignored speech in the British House of Commons. But Churchill
was right.
Does any American today really believe that the line of least resistance is
the path to lasting peace?
Let us not make the same mistakes today we made in the Thirties.
Churchill called the appeasement of Hitler at Munich "a disaster of the
first magnitude."
In my view, the present antiwar movement in this country is a tragedy of
immense proportions because it has produced some of the most irrational attitudes
ever expressed in America.
I mentioned at the outset of my comments that these appear to be dark days.
(more)
-6--
Let me say this is only the seeming and not the actuality. In truth, we all have
reason to be cautiously optimistic about the immediate future in this country.
Whatever the outcry over the offensive in Cambodia, the fact remains we have
reversed the course of the Vietnam War. We have been withdrawing troops from
Vietnam instead of putting more in, and we are making Vietnamization work.
We are embarked on strategic armaments limitation talks with the Soviet
Union, and there is cause to have real hope for strategic arms control.
We have achieved major draft reform and we are moving steadily toward an
end to the draft.
We have reordered our national priorities so that for the first time in two
decades we will be spending more Federal funds on human resources than on military
programs.
We have cut taxes and reformed the Federal tax structure.
We are near the point of reforming the scandalous welfare system inherited
from a previous era.
We will be reforming the postal service despite a general belief that this
was not politically possible.
We are making progress in fighting the inflation inherited by the present
Administration, and I look for a moderate upswing in the economy before the end
of the year without a revival of strong inflationary pressures.
Congress last week passed an ambitious airport construction bill which puts
the national airport construction program on a pay-as-you-go basis for the first
time in our history.
We are improving mass transportation and have proposed the most far-reaching
mass transit program ever.
We are protecting the national health and safety and have written into law
the most effective coal mine safety bill in the history of American labor.
We could do much more. We will do much more.
Looking at the record I have just cited, I do not see how anyone who is not
blind to America's aims and accomplishments can sell this country short.
I do not see how anyone can fail to perceive the great surge of progress
that lies just ahead of us.
I, for one, am not given to feelings of gloom and doom. I believe in the
greatness of America and its people.
I believe, to paraphrase the words of Abraham Lincoln, that the end will
bring us out all right.
###