recent surveys do disagree with them. However, unlike Women Strike for Peace, they have not said in public and on the radio that the United States is the aggressor, that American soldiers are committing the atrocities, that we are in the wrong through our "imperialistic binge," and, by insinuation, that the Vietcong is "providing a service of liberation" which we are impeding by our action, and that the Communists can do no wrong. Women Strike for Peace, by these statements and by this stand is not only distorting the truth, is not only ignoring reality, but is condemning the United States and its Government as alien to peace and freedom and international law. All facts refute this, and to paraphrase Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, these women are, with the propaganda of Hanoi, Moscow, and Peiping, creating myths and destroying reality. The New York Times, in fact, in describing the organization's position against present U.S. policy in Vietnam, stated categorically that "The denunciation, framed as an appeal to American women, echoed Hanoi's propaganda line." Senator DANIEL BREWSTER of Maryland, along with the vast majority of Congressmen and Senators, has denounced the Women Strike for Peace position as "against the best interests of the United States and the free world in general."

2

In dealing with the background of Women Strike for Peace, shedding some important light on the actual makeup of the group and the ideological probabilities inherent in this makeup, I realize as a college student that I have far from fulfilled the responsibilities that I assumed when I undertook to challenge this organization for its Vietnamese position. To fulfill this part of my task, I think it important to review the criticism that has been leveled at present U.S. posture re Vietnam, and to counter it with fact in lieu of fantasy, which is so much a part of the Women Strike for Peace argument.

I think that there is no better statement of this sort in the brief, easy-to-understand context that it assumes, than that which was delivered by former Vice President Richard Nixon to the 87th, 88th, and 89th Clubs in

New York on March 15, 1965. It includes a

summary of many statements that have been made by such knowledgeable proponents of our position in Vietnam as Senator THOMAS J. DODD, of Connecticut, McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to President Johnson, and Marguerite Higgins, whose reports of the situation in Vietnam are considered the finest of the war. I think it important enough to present in its entirety. It is entitled "The Choice in Vietnam": 3

"THE CHOICE IN VIETNAM "(By Richard Nixon, Mar. 15, 1965) "The opposition to American policy in Vietnam has reached formidable proportions at home and abroad.

"Newsweek reported on March 1 that 45 Democratic Senators have publicly or privately expressed serious doubts about the wisdom of our present policy in Vietnam.

"The New York Times, Walter Lippmann, and many other papers and pundits have added their influential voices to the chorus of opposition.

"Full page ads by university students and teachers have called for a halt to American air attacks on North Vietnam and for a negotiation now.

"The World Council of Churches takes a similar position.

"Abroad, the French and Russians publicly and the British privately are urging negotiation now.

"In the United Nations U Thant has added his influential voice in support of this position.

"Criticism of this magnitude cannot be brushed aside by resorting to the usual platitudes and generalities such as 'We seek no wider war' and 'Our objective is the cause of freedom.'

"I believe that a majority of the American people support the President in the strong policy he is presently following. But as James Reston wrote recently "There is an uneasy fatalism in the country because no one knows the answers. Major issues have not been debated in an orderly manner.'

"The case for getting out of Vietnam has been stated forcibly and in depth by the critics of the policy. It is time that the case for staying in Vietnam be stated with equal force and detail.

"The American people are entitled to know why we are there, what is at stake, the risks that are involved and the goals we seek.

"There are four major objections to the present policy.

"1. America has no legal right to intervene in a civil war.

"2. Vietnam can't be saved because the Vietnamese aren't willing to save themselves. "3. The risk of spreading the war is too great.

"4. Seeking a negotiated settlement now is a better course of action than stepping up our attacks on North Vietnam.

"To answer these objections it is first necessary to set the record straight as to who is responsible for the war in Vietnam. "Not a civil war

"This is not a civil war. There would be no war in Vietnam today were it not for the support the guerrillas in South Vietnam are receiving from Communist North Vietnam. And the North Vietnamese could not have provided this assistance without the support they have received from the

Chinese Communists.

"The confrontation in Vietnam is in the final analysis not between the Vietnamese

and the Vietcong guerrillas nor between the United States and North Vietnam but be

China. A U.S. defeat in Vietnam means a Chinese Communist victory.

tween the United States and Communist

"Our legal rights

"The argument that the United States has no legal right to be in Vietnam is exactly the opposite of the truth.

"The 1954 Geneva Convention, which was signed by both North Vietnam and Communist China, guaranteed the independence of South Vietnam against foreign aggression. The North Vietnamese, supported by the Communist Chinese, have invaded Vietnam in violation of that treaty. The United States on the other hand is in Vietnam by the invitation of the South Vietnamese Government for the express purpose of enforcing the treaty. The North Vietnamese are the lawbreakers; we are the law enforcers. "The stakes

"At stake in this struggle is the fate of the 15 million people who live in South Vietnam. The great majority of them do not want to come under Communist domination because they know what a mess communism has made of North Vietnam. It is claimed that they will not fight for their freedom. But 200,000 casualties suffered in the battle against communism proves otherwise.

"It could be contended that 15 million people in a relatively small country are not worth the risk of a major war particularly

"The Choice in Vietnam," a speech by Richard M. Nixon of Mar. 15, 1965, delivered at a meeting of the 87th, 88th, and 89th Clubs, 10 pp.

themselves.

"But the stakes are much higher. What is involved in this war is not just the fate of Vietnam but the fate of all of southeast Asia.

"If Vietnam is lost, Laos which is already practically gone because of our gullibility in attempting to neutralize it in 1962, would certainly go down the drain.

"Cambodia is leaning so far in the direction of communism that the loss of Vietnam would push it over the brink.

"Thailand wants to be on our side. But it is a nation that has survived for a thousand years only by being on the winning side and a Communist victory in South Vietnam would be a devastating argument as to who will win in Asia.

"Socialist Burma is an economic basket case and the Red tide, once rolling, would have little difficulty in engulfing it.

"Malaysia, its 10 million people surrounded by a sea of communism, could not

survive.

"Then there is the biggest prize in southeast Asia, Indonesia. Indonesia will go the way Sukarno goes. A reporter from The New York Times on January 8 wrote: 'Diplomats think Sukarno is heading toward alinement with Communist China. Communist successes in Vietnam have convinced him that Chinese communism is the wave of the future in Asia.' Already far down the road toward alinement with Communist China, Indonesia would certainly fall and this means that the Communists would have control over 90 million people with the richest natural resources of the area.

"The battle for Vietnam then is not just about Vietnam. It is about all of southeast Asia. It is not about just 15 million people but about 200 million people and an area which produces over half the world's tin, half the world's rubber and untapped natural resources of immense value to a

hungry, developing power like Communist

China.

"In summary we cannot ignore these inevitable conclusions: The battle for Vietnam is the battle for Asia. If the United States gives up on Vietnam, Asia will give up on the United States and the Pacific will become a Red sea.

"But the effect of the loss of Vietnam would not be limited to Asia. There is a great debate going on in the Communist world today between the hard liners in Peiping and the so-called soft liners in Moscow. The hard liners contend that world communism must continue to seek its ultimate objective of world domination through support of revolution throughout the world. For them the war in Vietnam is only a prolog for similar wars of liberation in the rest of Asia, the Near East, Africa and Latin America.

"The soft liners in Moscow presently oppose this course of action. They do not wish to risk another confrontation such as occurred in the Cuban missile crisis. They say

the way to achieve the goal of a Communist world is through temporary coexistence with the West and peaceful competition.

"If the Communists win in Vietnam this will be an immense victory for the hard liners. They will then be able to argue that if the hard line worked in Vietnam it will work elsewhere. They will contend that the free world has no effective answer to Communist conquest by support of revolution.

"A Communist victory in Vietnam would be the green light for Communist instigation and support of Vietnam type wars of liberation all over the world.

"By fighting the Korean war we put a stop to Communist conquest by direct aggression. Since Korea the Communists have not attempted to take over a country through the traditional method of marching men across a border. They knew we would react and they considered the risk too great. The issue in Vietnam is whether we are going to put a stop to Communist conquest by indirect aggression, just as the issue in Korea was whether we were to stop Communist conquest by direct aggression.

"Our choices-Get out

"In view of the stakes involved the suggestion that we wash our hands of this miserable conflict and get out of Vietnam is unthinkable.

"Our choices-Negotiation

"But why don't we negotiate now? This is the question which is being increasingly raised by critics of the present policy.

"The best answer to this question is to pose another question-What do we negotiate at this time?

"Vietnam has already been negotiated once. In 1954 the country was partitioned and the Communists took the north half of it. Do we now negotiate it again and give the Communists half of what is left of free Vietnam?

"Our choices-Neutralization "Why not then negotiate the neutralization of Vietnam? Laos proved the stupidity of this course of action. An agreement with the Communists to neutralize a country is simply surrender on the installment plan. It means just three things. We get out. They stay in. They take over.

"When we negotiate with the Communists we must recognize that our motives are different from theirs. We go to the conference table to promote peace. They go there to win victory. Communist tactics in negotiation can be summed up in four sentences.

"First, they demand something to which they are not entitled.

"Second, they threaten war if they are not given what they demand.

"Third, they insist we negotiate to avoid

war.

"Fourth, if we do negotiate, their price for peace is half of what they were not entitled to in the first place.

"This does not mean that we should never negotiate. All wars are eventually ended by negotiation. It does mean that we should determine now what our goals are and not negotiate until the time comes when we can achieve those goals at the conference table.

"We can never negotiate surrender, retreat, neutralization, or partition of Vietnam. "We must insist on one absolute condition in any negotiations-guaranteed freedom for Vietnam from Communist aggression. Until we are in a position to demand that the Communists accept that condition, we should not negotiate.

"Our choices-Turn it over to the UN. "U Thant's recommendation that this controversy be settled by the United Nations must also be rejected. The United Nations can serve a very useful purpose in working

out peaceful solutions for some international problems. But where the ultimate security

of the United States and the free world is involved, policy must be made by the United States and not by the United Nations.

"The United States as the strongest of the free nations must not have its policies in defense of freedom watered down to what only the weak and timid among the so-called neutral nations will approve. We must recognize that no nation in the world could afford the luxury of neutrality today if it were not for the power of the United States. "The only choice

"The only acceptable course of action is to end the war by winning it in South Vietnam. To accomplish this objective it will be necessary to quarantine South Vietnam by cutting off the flow of arms and men from North Vietnam. Strikes on selected targets in North Vietnam should be made on a continuing and increasing basis until the North Vietnamese completely discontinue their assistance to the guerrilla forces in South Vietnam.

"Prospects for success

"Will carrying out such a policy assure victory in South Vietnam? Critics of the policy often raise this question: If 300,000 French troops could not win victory in 1954 in Vietnam when they were actually doing the ground fighting themselves how can we expect 21,000 Americans who are in Vietnam only as advisers to accomplish this objective?

"There is a fundamental difference. In 1954 the French were fighting to stay in Vietnam. Our objective is to get out of Vietnam just as soon as Vietnam's independence is secure. The South Vietnamese naturally had little interest in fighting for French colonialism. They have a very vital interest in fighting against Communist colonialism.

"The risks-Soviet intervention "What are the risks of this policy? Most

observers agree that the possibility of Soviet intervention is relatively small. tion in Vietnam is very different than the

The situa

one we confronted at the time of the Korean war. Then Russia and China were allies and from a logistical and geographical standpoint Korea was very close to Russia. Any action on our part which threatened China might conceivably bring Russia to China's assistance.

"Today the Soviet Union and Red China are enemies engaged in a life and death struggle for power in the Communist world. Rather than wanting to see the Red Chinese succeed in their conquest of Asia the Russians would like nothing better than to see

them fail. Furthermore from a logistical standpoint transporting men and arms from Russia to Vietnam-thousands of miles away is infinitely more difficult than it was to deliver them to nearby Korea.

"The risks-Chinese intervention "The widely held assumption that Communist China would inevitably intervene in the event the war began to go badly for the North Vietnamese is not well founded. China without the support of Russia is a fourth-rate military power. If the Chinese decided to enter the war in Vietnam they would be no match for the awesome air and sea power the United States could bring to bear on the Chinese mainland. For them to take such a risk would be rash and foolhardy, and the Chinese by nature are basically cautious in their foreign policy decisions.

"But in making a decision of this magnitude we must not gloss over the fact that there is some risk that the Communist Chinese might intervene in order to save the North Vietnamese from defeat. But taking this risk into account our policy decision should be the same. As is usually the case in making decisions, the choice is not between one policy involving some risk and another involving none, but between one

policy involving some risk and another policy involving an even greater risk.

"In the final analysis we must recognize that the risk involved in ending the war in Vietnam by winning it is far less than the risk involved in losing it. If Vietnam is lost either by our withdrawal or by our negotiating now-which would lead to its loss the Chinese Communists would gain a great victory and the Red tide would sweep irresistibly over the rest of southeast Asia. Four or five years later we would then be confronted with the necessity of facing up to Chinese Communist aggression in the Philippines or in Australia.

"The risk then would be infinitely greater than it is now. Time is not on our side but on Red China's side. Every day that passes the Chinese nuclear capability increases and their industrial and military productivity becomes far more formidable than it is today. Five or ten years from now we might not be able to take a stand against this power without running a massive risk of nuclear war.

"If Chinese Communist aggression is to be stopped in Asia it must be stopped now or it may be too late to do so later.

"One of the major arguments against our present policy is that it will spread the war. Exactly the opposite is the case. The cause of the war in Vietnam is aggressive international communism. If communism spreads, the war will spread. The way to keep the war from spreading is to keep communism from spreading.

"The lessons of Vietnam

"The only purpose of pointing up some of the mistakes that have been made in the past is to avoid making those same mistakes in the future.

"Diem's murder

"Our greatest mistake was in putting political reform before military victory in deal

ing with the Diem regime. Diem, and more particularly some members of his family, were without question at times hard crosses for America to bear in Vietnam. But when the United States supported a coup d'etat which led to his murder we set in motion a violent chain reaction not only in Vietnam

but throughout southeast Asia.

"The musical chairs routine in Vietnam with one coup following another was stimulated and encouraged by our conduct in the Diem affair. And our refusal to stand by a friend when he got into trouble had repereussions in other Asian countries as well. I was talking to one of America's best friends in Asia shortly after Diem's death. He said that to him and others in similar leadership positions Diem's death meant just three things: It is dangerous to be a friend of the United States. It pays to be a neutral, and it sometimes helps to be an enemy.

"In the final analysis we must recognize that while it has worked reasonably well in our country, U.S. style democracy will not work and should not be imposed in countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

"Economic aid not the answer "Another lesson from the past in Vietnam is that economic aid alone will not stop Communist aggression. We have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Vietnam in economic assistance with the result that conditions in South Vietnam are infinitely better than in Communist North Vietnam.

But a conversation I had with a village chief near Saigon last spring pinpoints the inadequacy of economic aid alone as an answer to communism. I asked him what he would prefer if he had his choice of anything the United States could provide for him. He could have answered-a new school, a new road, a new well, more food." But he said simply, "What we need is security." And small wonder-just the week before the village next to his had been overrun by the

"Political reform and economic assistance in countries that are the target of indirect Communist aggression are important adjuncts to any overall policy. But when the enemy is waging an all-out war against the existing government, military victory must be given priority over everything else.

"Need for a new Asian policy

“The greatest lesson we can learn from our experience in Vietnam is that U.S.-Asian policy needs have a complete reappraisal. The spectacle of the United States having to intervene virtually alone to save the freedom of Vietnam is not a pretty one.

"The battle for Vietnam is the battle for

free Asia and those who have the greatest stake in the outcome of that battle are those who live in Asia. But because the United States has assumed so much of the responsibility for defending Vietnam, other Asian nations are either openly neutral or quietly acquiescent as far as our policy is concerned.

"It is time for the United States to take the initiative in urging the calling of a conference of free Asian nations with the express objective of stopping Communist aggression in Asia. Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand are the countries which would probably have the greatest common interest in participating in such a conference. From this conference could come long range programs for military and economic cooperation. But above all an agreement should be reached that if any one of the free Asian nations is threatened directly or indirectly by Communist aggression all would join together to supply the forces necessary to resist that aggression.

"The future of Asia must and should be determined in the final analysis by Asians and not by Americans or Europeans. The Chinese Communists have left no doubt as to what they plan for Asia's future. The time has come for free Asian nations to counter this awesome threat with a plan and purpose of their own.

"Those words are as true about Vietnam today as they were true about Czechoslovakia in 1938. In this year 1965 when we honor Churchill's memory, let us also honor his principles. * * *”

Well, there it is. A very articulate statement by Richard Nixon, one of the truly great foreign policy Vice Presidents of American history. It honestly does offer "a choice in Vietnam"-as opposed to the capitulation advocated by Women Strike for Peace.

The words of Winston Churchill bear re

peating, because they have a direct bearing on the attitude maintained by Women Strike for Peace: "The belief that security can be obtained by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

Women Strike for Peace would have us believe that the United States is the wolf, and that its "horrendous atrocities" in Vietnam are fatal to the cause of world peace and freedom for all men. The statement is simply made by Mrs. Frances Herring, spokesman for the group, in her analysis of the trip to Djakarta, that "the so-called aggression from the North is a myth."

No

+ The statement was made in the program of Women Strike for Peace on "Kaleidescope," and also appeared in a mimeographed state

ment of fact, and the evidence offered on the other side flies in the face of the intellectual dishonesty that this distortion implies.

Department of State Publication 7839,5 "Aggression From the North: The Record of North Vietnam's Campaign To Conquer South Vietnam," offers conclusive proof as an alternative to Mrs. Herring's fallacious remark. Documentation that Women Strike for Peace conveniently neglect is available for all to conveniently neglect is available for all to survey.

Guy Richards, recognized as one of the top journalistic experts on international communism, has reported for the New York Journal-American Vietcong atrocities in such abundance as to place in the realm of ridiculous and absolutely false the claim of the women's delegation to Indonesia: "

"VIETCONG ATROCITIES REVEALED

"(By Guy Richards)

"A wife who had complied with a Vietcong demand for food but refused to divulge the whereabouts of her husband was obliged to hold out her arm and see her hand chopped off.

"A lesson to widows and survivors, the bodies of 30 South Vietnamese militiamen were dragged to the outskirts of their village and, in the presence of their families, disemboweled and mutilated.

"The bodies of three American GI's killed in an ambush, were disemboweled and unspeakably mutilated.

"A village chief was not only beheaded by the Vietcong for refusing to carry out an order, but his 12-year-old daughter had her arm hacked off."

These are random samples of the several thousand grisly atrocities recently committed by the Communist Vietcong in South Vietnam.

Little by little, in a kind of delayed realization that their spreading pattern is a weapon in itself, Defense Department teams are verifying and documenting the guerrilla's atrocities. And added together they are telling the story of a disturbing reversion to the Dark Ages, in this year of grace 1965, by an enemy which claims to be an advanced and progressive member of the family of humans.

The Defense Department has been understandably slow in publicizing atrocity angles in southeast Asia. Gunfire and aerial bombardment are not pleasant for anyone on the receiving end. Even warfare that adheres to the rules of the Geneva Conven

tion can produce horrible wounds and suffering.

Furthermore, attempts to prove that one combatant has stooped to the use of barbarism to create terror have more or less boom

eranged even since the days of World War I.

ment of the organization entitled "Statement of Frances Herring to some Members of Parliament, London, July 1965, by 10 American and 9 Vietnamese Women," (p. 2).

5 "Aggression From the North: The Record of North Vietnam's Campaign To Conquer South Vietnam," Department of State Publication 7839, Far Eastern Series 130, released February 1965, 64 pp.

The report of Mr. Richards, "Vietcong Atrocities Revealed," was reprinted from the New York Journal-American in the newsletter published by Young Americans for Freedom, Report on the Left, vol. 2, No. 5, June, 1965, p 4.

Most of the alleged German atrocities in Belgium in World War I were later proved to be untrue. That very fact worked against the publicity which should have been-but wasn't-directed against the horrors committed by Adolf Hitler's regime in the Nazi extermination camps.

The Communist's effort to pin the brand of germ warfare on the United Nations forces in Korea likewise fizzled.

So it has probably been an unseemly diffidence which has restrained the Pentagon from getting very excited about the bloodcurdling cases which have come to the attention of the U.S. military assistance headquarters in Saigon.

Several months ago, however, the broadening pattern of tortures, mutilations and bestialities convinced U.S. staff officers that it was a definite weapon which not only had to be coped with "as an utterly new kind of war," but had a unique value in showing the world precisely what kind of threat and what kind of culture opposed us.

Provided the cases were precisely documented, they decided, the acts themselves would give irrefutable testimony that the war in South Vietnam was, in fact, a war to save that nation from a scourge every bit as bestial and primordial as the horde of Attila the Hun.

Then, while the Defense Department teams were busy on a new compilation, they received an unexpected lift from Vice President HUBERT H. HUMPHREY.

In a recent interrogation session, following a speech at the University of Pittsburgh, Mr. HUMPHREY was queried about those "ghastly, barbarous American attacks in North Vietnam."

Obviously aroused, Mr. HUMPHREY snapped

back:

"I'm glad you asked about that. I'm really going to tear into you. Only the Vietcong have committed atrocities in Vietnam. The Vietcong have committed the most unbelievable acts of terrorism that the world has ever known."

Data collected by the Pentagon confirms the spirit of the Vice President's rejoinder, if not the full import. Man's cruelty to man is an old story, and there's little new in the Vietcong atrocities that wasn't once practiced by medieval armies, by the Turks in 1570 when they massacred 10,000 in Cyprus and by the Nazis two decades ago in the gas chambers.

What's new is the ever-widening proof that the Asian Reds have embraced barbarism as a weapon by which they hope to seize the world.

According to the facts collected by the Pentagon, Communist terrorists assassinated or kidnapped more than 8,400 civilians last year.

Deaths came by pistol, knife, axe, bombs, beatings and torture.

The victims included 1,536 village chiefs Definitely or other government officials. murdered were 1,359 other civilians. This represents an enormous step-up of the terror campaign which accounted for 3,000 killed or kidnapped in 1960.

Also among the victims of the Vietcong were those trying to improve the health of the populace. As a result of terrorist acts, 12 malaria eradication workers died, 58 are missing and two permanently disabled.

In one sense the barbarism of the Vietcong has provided a new bond between the Americans and the people of free Vietnam. The Pentagon has a touching story from the reports of one of the many U.S. medical teams which try to patch up the wounds and repair the damage inflicted by the Reds on the villagers.

Take the case of Mrs. Le Thi Dap, resident of a village 50 miles south of Saigon. She's the woman referred to earlier who had her hand chopped off when she refused to say

where her husband was. The climax of her story came on May 14.

She had learned to live with the stump of her arm. A U.S. medical team under Dr. Orlan C. Oestereich heard about her plight and visited her.

They asked Walter Reed Hospital in Washington to send out a couple of sample artificial hands. Dr. Oestereich visited her again, made a cast with the help of a hand nearest her size; sent the cast back to the States; had a proper size hand made and went back to give it to her.

This is the sort of thing the United States is doing in Vietnam, as opposed to the horrendous atrocities of the Vietcong, despite the distortions bandied as the truth by Women Strike for Peace.

In my presentation thus far, I have given a brief background of the Women Strike for Peace, which explains for a large part their ideological basis for opposing present U.S. policy in Vietnam. I have given a summary of statements by former Vice President Richard Nixon refuting common opposition to that policy and our reason for pursuing it. And I have given a lengthy refutation of the Women Strike for Peace allegation that it is the United States, rather than the Vietcong, which is responsible for barbarous and inhumane atrocities in Vietnam.

Now let's take a short look at the reasons cited by Women Strike for Peace themselves for traveling to Djakarta to meet with the Vietcong women and the delegation of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam, those who sympathize with the Communist aim in that country.

On July 20, 1965, Women Strike for Peace sent from its Washington headquarters on P Street NW., a release entitled "Why American Women Went Half Way Around the World To Meet With Vietnamese Women." 7 The first reason cited in this release is: "To seek areas of possible agreement rather than to place blame."

Suffice it to say that Women Strike for Peace has done nothing but blame the United States for the war in Vietnam, citing us as the aggressor, and I have yet to hear them blame the Communists for any wrongdoing on their part. As to "seeking areas of possible agreement," it is not hard for Women Strike for Peace to find agreement when the only persons they bothered to consult for the "facts" of the situation were the Vietcong, the National Liberation Front, and the prominent opponents of American policy in Vietnam in the United States.

The second reason given by the women for going is: "To act upon their conviction that honorable coexistence will be better devel

oped by face-to-face meetings than through military force."

The premise in the first place, that "coexistence" with the Communists is "honorable" (and due to the name of WSP, I assume that they also mean "peaceful"), is

According to Dr. Charles H. Malik, former university professor at the American University, where I am speaking from now, and former President of the United Nations General Assembly, in a speech delivered at Williamsburg, Va., on June 11, 1960, entitled "Can the Future Redeem the Past?": 8 "The Communists never tire of assuring the rest of the world that peaceful coexist

"Why American Women Went Half Way Around the World To Meet With Vietnamese Women," a statement released by Women Strike for Peace, 2016 P Street NW., Washington, D.C., on July 20, 1965.

8"Will the Future Redeem the Past?" an address delivered by Dr. Charles H. Malik at Williamsburg, Va., on June 11, 1960. printed and distributed as a public service by the Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, Travelers Building, Richmond, Va., 20 pp.

ence means only that they will realize their unalterable aim of communizing the world without war, and that where they do not succeed in this, they will keep in mind the possibility of nonpeaceful means. They are therefore absolutely determined to dominate the world with or without war. What they are saying behind all this jargon is that the international Communist movement wants to overthrow every existing government, regime, system, outlook, religion, philosophy, and bring the whole world, all human thought, aspiration, action, and organization under its absolute control. This is their declared, unchanged, and unchanging objective."

Assuming that Women Strike for Peace is totally in favor of freedom as experienced in this country, and totally opposed to communism, which is doubtful when the findings presented in this report are considered, then the falsity and foolishness of "peaceful coexistence" with communism is realized. Dr. Malik goes on to say:

"I have yet to hear one Western leader (remember that this was said in 1960) who, assured to his face that he is doomed and will be 'buried,' can muster enough courage and conviction, if not to use the vulgar phrase 'bury' with respect to communism itself, at least to use some such civilized expression as that the days of communism are numbered and that communism will one day be completely forgotten. When Mr. Khrushchev assures Western leaders that their children or at most their grandchildren will all be Communist, I have yet to hear one Western leader who assures Mr. Khrushchev with the same gusto that his children or at least his grandchildren will live to regret and be thoroughly ashamed of the fact that their fathers or grandfathers were ever Communist. And whereas international communism believes and acts on the belief the days of everything non-Communist are numbered, my deepest fear is that Western leadership believes no such thing with respect to communism. My fear is that the softening-up process has reached such an advanced state that all now believe that communism is here to stay and that therefore the utmost they can do is to manage somehow to 'coexist' with it. The deepest crisis of the West is the crisis of faith in its own values. Whereas communism believes that non-Communist values must be eliminated from the face of the earth, and acts on this belief, the West no longer believes that Communist values themselves are doomed to utter destruction and oblivion and therefore no longer acts on this belief. I am yet to meet (in 1960, remember) or know of one important Western leader who entertains a dynamic vision for the Communist realm which includes the certainty that the children of present-day Communists will have completely repudiated communism and will have adopted the fundamental values of freedom. Let the West face up to this advanced state of decay in its own soul."

In 1960, this was true. In 1965, President Johnson is facing up to "this advanced state of decay" in our soul, and has started by at least preventing another Communist takeover of a non-Communist state in Viet

nam.

He may go further, which will be to his credit and to the extension of freedom, a word which Women Strike for Peace seem to have forgotten.

As to the second part of the second reason, that of meeting face-to-face with Communist leaders to settle differences, instead of resorting to military measures, this has been tried and is being tried at this moment by our Government in Geneva, but has always failed due to the dynamic vision that communism has in store for us, as mentioned above that is, the destruction of Western values, values of freedom, throughout the world.

The third reason for this mission of peace by Women Strike for Peace, and the final one, is: "To seek an alternative to Secretary McNamara's testimony (to the House Defense Appropriations Committee) that the United States stands ready to use any weapons in its great arsenal * * 'when we believe it is desirable in our own interest.'"

First, let me say that I stand firmly behind Secretary McNamara's statement to uphold this country's best interests through military means when it is deemed necessary by our country's leaders. This is the position that has prevailed throughout American history since George Washington went to war against the British in the struggle which created the United States of America. If the use of weapons serves the best interests of the United States, and thus the best interests of all freedom in this world, then the use of weapons, historically as it has been, is justifiable and proper.

The Women Strikers for Peace obviously, by their statement, do not agree with this principle, and obviously have not agreed with the actions of the leaders of America since the inception of this great country. This is their privilege, but not necessarily a valid opinion.

It is obvious that Women Strike for Peace want peace, whatever their definition of it might be. Their proposed objective of arriving at eternal "world peace" seems not to rid ourselves of all aggression aimed at destroying freedom, but to simply rid ourselves of military hostilities, arms, and arms buildup throughout the world-the United States to start the ball rolling by pulling out of Vietnam and unilaterally disarming. Russia, Red China, etc., in the name of "dignity" and "humaneness" would, of course, follow. How ridiculous. The proposal that if the United States disarms, the rest of the world will also disarm in the name of "peace" is not one to be viewed intellectually, balancing the pros and cons. It is to be viewed as one would consider a comedian's sick joke, for its naivete renders it completely ridiculous.

It is not arms that create a state of nonpeace in the first place, but aggression. And if Women Strike for Peace could convince the Communists, which no one has yet been able to do, that their aim of communizing the world and destroying freedom should be abandoned in favor of true peace, their proposal might have some merit. However, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine will not be abandoned by the Communists in favor of overtures toward true peace, and they will not disarm as long as that doctrine plays an important part of their foreign policy. For us to disarm, then, unilaterally, would be to turn in the cards before some benefit had been obtained from the hand.

Peace in Vietnam is a worthy objective. The United States is working toward this very end at this moment. However, the type of peace that is to be instrumented is a necessary consideration. Let us, then, view once more the words of Dr. Charles Malik:

"It is interesting to note the sort of qualifications that responsible leaders sometimes use for 'peace.' The Communist spokesmen employ peace without qualification; by which they mean that they should be allowed to carry out their international proletarian revolution 'in peace.' But the spokesmen of the West speak of peace 'with justice and freedom.' This is a correct qualification from the Western point of view: peace without justice and freedom is no peace. But which of the two qualifications do they drop when they wish to use only one? They usually drop freedom and leave justice. This to me is wrong. It could betray an unconscious readiness to sacrifice freedom for what is sentimentally called justice. Both are certainly necessary, but freedom is more fundamental. Freedom creates justice, but not conversely; for justice could be something mechanical without the ultimate free

dom of the spirit which demands and creates and recognizes and enforces justice. West can only be true to itself if it says, 'I am prepared to settle for peace with freedom and justice,' and, if it wants to use only one of the two, 'I am prepared to settle for peace with freedom"."

Therefore, if we are to be true to ourselves, we must settle for peace in Vietnam only so long as it promises for the people of all Vietnam freedom and justice-freedom from Communist tyranny and of the common heritage which we in the United States enjoy and which is enjoyed throughout what little of the world remains free, and justice, which will ensue from that freedom. As the situation stands now, an American capitulation would result in exactly what Mr. Nixon foresaw: a Communist takeover of Vietnam, and increased activity to communize the entire Asian Continent. We must fight until communism is gone from Asia forever, and freedom and justice is secured for all of its people. Only then will peace be truly the condition of Asia, and only then can we lay down our arms.

It is a tribute to Sir Winston Churchill

and to Douglas MacArthur that those policies which they advocated from 1935 to 1955 are now part of U.S. policy in Vietnam. Greatness has as its consequence the fact that other men, not so great, fail to see the wisdom of a policy that is good when it is first presented. It has taken us this long to achieve a realistic policy in Asia, and let us not forsake it now for a sentimental and unrealistic call to peace, which, unlike an achievement of true peace, would be capitulation to the Communist enemy.

Churchill said in 1941 to the boys at Harrow, and would say now, were he able, to the leaders of the United States:

"Never give in. Never, never, never, never. Never yield to force and the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Never yield in any way, great or small, large or petty, except to convictions of honor and good sense."

Let us think of this while we achieve true peace through our policy today in Vietnam. Let us ignore the pacifists and Olympians in such as Women Strike for Peace.

COMMUNISTS MISREAD U.S. WILL

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, one of the most profound problems facing the President of the United States as he leads this Nation through the thicket of events in Vietnam is that of convincing our adversaries of the seriousness of our purpose while still exercising restraints against a total and atomic war.

This is not a new problem; it has always been difficult to persuade our enemies that we, despite our dislike for war and our propensity for lively domestic debate, will fight to the finish to defend our Nation's interest-and to defend the principles of individual liberty and national self-determination.

Those principles are under heavy attack now in South Vietnam. Despite the President's clear, consistent, and forceful statements of our resolve, however, the leaders of Communist aggression in Asia persist in believing, it seems, that the United States is divided and unable to pursue its policy consistently. This is by no means true. A significant A significant statement on this subject is contained in an editorial which appeared on August 25 in the Chicago Sun-Times, entitled "Communists Misread U.S. Will." I offer this editorial today for entry in the CXI-1436

RECORD, and I encourage all my colleagues and all citizens interested in this problem to read this excellent statement carefully.

[From the Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 25, 1965]

COMMUNISTS MISREAD U.S. WILL

The mounting U.S. military pressures against the Communist Vietcong forces in South Vietnam and the continuing air raids against military and civilian targets in North Vietnam apparently are beginning to show some results. Rumors out of Moscow quoting the North Vietnam ambassador to Russia that his nation might be willing to make some concessions in approaching the conference table have been vehemently denied by North Vietnam.

The denial of the rumors, which took some time, might mean the Hanoi Government is beginning to realize that it misread the United States resolve to resist Communist aggression in South Vietnam no matter what the cost. They have surely misread, if transcripts of radio broadcasts from Hanoi and Peiping are any indication, the determination of the American people to bear the bitter price of war. The Communist broadcasts give great weight and emphasis to campus protests and other demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. The Communists exult in the fact that all America is against the war in Vietnam.

They are wrong, of course. But it is not the first time dictators and Communists have been wrong about the U.S. resolve to stand back of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Hitler made the same mistake. So did Stalin. So did Khrushchev in the Cuban crisis until he realized the extent of the cold resolution of the United States to face his rockets.

Eventually the Asian Communists must realize, as Khrushchev did, that the American people unite behind their Presidents. The demonstrated unity of Congress in backing President Johnson's actions, the white paper just published by the administration which details the reasons for the U.S. presence in Vietnam and the efforts for peace already made, cannot be ignored. It is a hard lesson for Communists to learn, that free men will pay the price necessary to resist a threat to liberty. The Hanoi and Peiping Governments will learn it, as others have. The amount of damage and destruction to North Vietnam and the losses their troops must suffer will be measured by how soon they learn and how soon they indicate a willingness to come to the conference table.

FORESTRY AS A PROFESSION

Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, as a Senator from the State which leads the timber industry of this Nation in the annual value of forest products, I am particularly pleased to bring to the attention of the Senate today an article from the September issue of American Forests which describes the rewards of and opportunities for becoming a forester.

Oregon has a special interest in encouraging young people to go into forestry since half its total land area is classified as forest and more than half of its industrial employees find labor in the forest products industry. Management by competent foresters is an integral part of Oregon's program of conservation and sustained use of its timber resources.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a portion of the article from American Forests, "So You Want To Be a Forester."

There being no objection, the excerpt from the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SO YOU WANT TO BE A FORESTER

(By Charles Edgar Randall) "Next month I will be 17. My father and I have been going on hunting and fishing trips for several years and we have talked about my becoming a forester. The idea appeals to me but how does one decide? I enjoy camping. I like people. My marks in high school are pretty good-a B average and I could probably make more 'A's' except that I also like to participate in school affairs. Of my school subjects, I like biology and mathematics best. From what I have read, I think I would enjoy being a forest ranger but I would like to learn more about it first. Can you give me some advice on this? (signed) Robert S. * * *"

Good for you, Bob. Forestry is a wonderful field of work. And there is need for more good foresters. We will tell you what kind of work a forester does, how you can prepare for a career in forestry, and what the opportunities are in this field.

Bob's letter is more or less typical of hundreds that come to the American Forestry Association. Most of these come from young people of high school age, or from their parents. Some of them are from persons evidently well informed; others indicate that the writer knows little about what a forester really is or does. Nearly all of them express a strong interest in outdoor activities and a love for the woods.

Certainly a liking for the outdoors is an important requisite for a forest worker who may be called upon to spend much time in the woods. A forester may have to live and work in back-country areas far from urban centers; perhaps at times he may even have to be all alone in a remote wilderness area. Anyone who would be unhappy or uncomfortable in such an environment or would be uninterested in his forest surroundings, should not, of course, be a forester.

But it takes more than a liking for the woods to make a forester. It takes more than Bob's skill with rod and gun. Some experience in hunting and fishing may prove useful in some lines of forestry work, but it is not essential.

What is essential is a good background knowledge of the arts and sciences involved in forestry: knowledge first in the basic fields of language, communication, and culture that enable a forester to deal on equal terms with other knowledgeable men; and, secondly, specialized knowledge in the biological and physical sciences and engineering skills he will use in his work.

In addition to knowledge, the other essentials for success in a career in forestry are the same elements of good character and temperament that make for success in any reliability, ability to get along with other enterprise-intelligence, industry, honesty,

people.