No Substitute for Victory (1971) - full transcript
John Wayne hosts this video which was produced during the Vietnam War when the Communist threat was at its height.
[helicopters flying]
[weapon firing]
[explosions]
[gun firing]
Ladies and
gentlemen, a long time
ago Abraham Lincoln
made a statement.
To stand by silence when
you should speak out
makes cowards of men.
It's time we spoke out about
Vietnam and the most obvious,
yet the most ignored threat
ever faced by free people
in the history of the world.
The street demonstrators
demand that we
get out of Southeast Asia
so that there will be peace.
Where do they get the
idea that there will
be peace just because we quit?
We can't stop the
war by giving up,
and we sure can't
settle anything
by trying to bargain
with a winning
enemy at the peace table.
As for the war that was going
on a long time before Vietnam
and will go on whether
we pull out or not,
we can't stop the
war by giving up.
And the way it is now we're
not programmed to win because
of the politicians and
civilians that we've
let stick our nose in it.
Listen to this young fellow.
I'm flying helicopters
commercially in Alaska now.
Not long ago, I was
flying them in Vietnam.
I was there to fight the
communists and try to win
but our politicians
wouldn't let us.
What kind of a war is this
that we're not supposed to win?
Truth of the matter is it's
not a separate war at all.
It's only one
battle in a bigger,
long drawn out
attack that's been
going on for over 50 years.
And it's a war we're loading
not only on the battlefields
but out on street
corners, college campuses,
in the offices of some
of our most influential
so-called statesmen.
Now all men of good will
certainly want peace,
but do we want peace at any
price, peace without freedom?
We all know that this
country has, with good will
has stumbled a few times
and made a mistake or two,
can't go back and do
anything about that.
But as Mr. Lincoln once said,
"I wish I had been there when
the horse was stole,
but I reckon I can find
the tracks when I do get there.
Seems to me the horse
is already stolen,
so we better get back
and pick up the tracks."
To give you that background we
have a man who really knows.
Someone who was there when
all the important history was
being made since World War I.
He has the facts firsthand
from leaders and the generals
themselves.
Here he is.
A great newspaper man,
Mr. Lowell Thomas.
Hello everybody,
this is Lowell Thomas,
to chat with you for a moment
about what we all seem to agree
is just about the most
important subject of our time.
And to those of you who
are fairly young perhaps
it is more important to
you, than to the rest of us.
I'm sure you all remember
the words of the father of
our country, George Washington.
He was a fairly wise man.
He said, "the best way
to prepare for peace
is to be ready for war.
NARRATOR: World War I
with the beginning of what
the whole of mankind
hoped would lead
to a permanent world peace.
LOWELL THOMAS [VOICEOVER]: It
seems like the height of folly
now, hard for us to
understand, impossible,
in fact to comprehend.
But after the war
was over, the Allies
began to disband their
armies, break up their navies,
and melt down their guns!
NARRATOR: In the confusion
at the end of World War I,
a group of dedicated men
came to power in Russia.
The leader of the group, Nikolai
Lenin, head of the Bolshevik,
or Majority Communist
Party, he knew
the free nations of the world
desperately wanted peace.
He also knew his ideology,
Communism, could use
this as a tool against them.
Part of his plan to achieve
world wide supremacy
was to instruct communist
followers in all countries
to protest for peace.
A disarmed nation then
would be ripe for plucking.
As soon as hostilities ceased
at the end of World War
I, the Allies who had stopped
the Kaiser's war machine,
stopped it cold, alas
they began to disband
their armies and navies.
After all, Germany had
been the only nation
with ambitions to expand, and
Germany was smashed for good.
Or was it?
No one at the peace tables had
ever heard of a lance corporal
in one of the Bavarian
regiments, a chap
known as Adolf
Schicklgruber, later
to be known as Adolf Hitler.
It's hard to believe
that a lowly lance
corporal with a funny
mustache could ever get far.
But in less than
15 years, there he
was, head of a re-armed
Germany, with plans
to conquer the world.
Distinguished men like the lone
eagle, Charles Lindbergh and
the fabulous Jimmy Doolittle--
Told us what was going
on in Central Europe,
told us what Hitler
was doing, and we
paid little or no attention.
NARRATOR: Ah, but life was
too dear and peace too sweet
to rock the boat,
so few raised a hand
to do anything at that time.
So in 1938, with the
most powerful war
machine in the world
up to that time,
Hitler marched on Austria.
The next year, 1939, he
marched on Czechoslovakia.
Now, England began
to get the message.
We all know how Chamberlain
went from London to Munich
with his umbrella,
and came back saying,
"this means peace in our time."
But no sooner had this
conference been concluded,
then Hitler made a
pact with Russia.
And then they both
attacked Poland.
The next step was the
blitz on the west.
[explosions]
With the Nazis and the
Communists in collusion,
their representatives
here in America
stepped up their propaganda
and began shouting to us,
disarm, disarm!
No harm will ever
come to America.
NARRATOR: Meanwhile, peace
talks had so reduced US power
that when the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor,
you all remember that some
of our old battleships
lined up there either
were sunk or beached.
And we had, for all
practical purposes,
lost our Pacific fleet.
It appeared as though
it was almost too late,
but we did get down to
the agonizing business
of rebuilding for
a counter-attack.
And the history books show
that in spite of all obstacles
we finally, we finally did win.
After that, followed those usual
negotiations between the winner
and the loser.
But even while we were winning,
certain American leaders,
perhaps fooled by
Stalin, they arranged
things so we lost nearly as much
as we gained, possibly more.
As our troops rushed in
triumph through Germany
they got the word to
slow down, slow down.
Let the Russians move in.
Let the Russians take
over East Germany,
take over the great
city of Berlin.
Today, a nation of
people who love communism
so well that they
have to be walled in
and kept in with guns,
they are a tragic monument
to those people who seek
to appease the enemy.
[weapons fired]
In meetings at Yalta with
Lenin's cunning successor,
Stalin, the Russians managed
to take over all of Eastern
Europe, much of Asia.
We know what happened
in the Far East,
and how they put
it over on China.
And so the stage was set
for Korea, and a little later
on for Vietnam.
In 1945, everybody
thought the war was over,
but our real enemy was
still going strong.
This was the so-called
ally that we had let
take East Germany and Berlin.
Now I'm not speaking
of the Russian people,
and I won't speak of
the Chinese people.
I'm speaking of the
communist conspiracy.
So many of the great Americans
of the last generation
are no longer with us to give
us the firsthand account of what
happened behind the scenes,
behind the false front
of communist cooperation
after the war.
We are fortunate that one of the
greatest leaders, a conqueror
of the Nazis in
Italy, is here and can
tell it like it was when it came
to getting along with the Reds.
This is General Mark Clark.
After the end of World War
II, when the fighting stopped
in Italy, and I took the
surrender of the German forces
there, I went into Austria
as the American occupation
commander and High Commissioner.
Russian armies were
there in Austria as well,
and I sat on a quadri-apartheid
meeting with the Russians
and the British, the
French and ourselves
in order to implement the
agreement that the nations had
made at Potsdam,
which was to bring
about free and independent and
democratic Austria once more.
Saw firsthand the duplicity of
the Soviets, how they looted,
killed, murdered, and that
they couldn't be believed.
I found that every
constructive move
and suggestion we
made to help Austria
was vetoed by the Soviets.
When I went with Burns to the
conference of foreign ministers
in England, and then
with Marshal into Moscow,
and there again I saw the
difficulty, the almost
impossibility of doing business
with the Russians and that
you should do it from a
position of extreme force,
and you never compromise,
and you never show weakness.
Or they see weakness, they
despise it, and exploit it.
And when they see strength
and determination,
that's when they sit
up and take notice.
In the aftermath
of the war, the Reds
managed to grab off
East Germany and all
the countries that are now
on the wrong side of the Iron
Curtain.
And for the next big
move to encircle a world,
they looked to east to Asia.
There a lot of garbled
accounts of what
really happened when the
East began to go Red,
but we have the number
one authority with us,
who can give it to us straight.
This is a man who is more
familiar with Asian communism
than anyone else
in America today.
He is General Albert
C. Wedemeyer, former US
commander in the Far East.
He sat and listened to Mao
Tse-tung tell how they,
the Reds were going
to take over China.
The general warned the State
Department at that time
that we should support Chiang
Kai-Shek if we didn't want
the biggest country in the
world with 700 million people
to be lost to communism.
Unfortunately,
nobody was listening.
We'll listen to him now,
General Albert C. Wedemeyer.
I have spent 10 years
in the Orient living
in China, the
Philippines, and in India.
Experiences and
observations in those areas
provide the basis for
my ideas and suggestions
about the Vietnam war.
At the close of World
War II, the Soviet Union
accelerated plans for the
conquest of the Far East.
In 1946, the Republic of
China, Japan, and Thailand
were the only independent
nations in that area.
Moscow planned to exploit the
industrial know-how of Japan,
the vast pool of
manpower in China,
and the natural
resources in Southeast
Asia, the Philippines,
Indonesia,
and the Melanesian islands.
During General MacArthur's wise
and courageous administration,
Communist efforts
to communize Japan
were successfully blocked.
The Soviet Union then turned
its attention to mainland China.
With the connivance of
the Red Chinese leaders,
Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai,
mainland China, an area greater
in extent than the United
States, and 700 million people
were drawn within the orbit
of the Soviet Union in 1949.
The loss of China to
the tyranny of communism
was a black mark
on the escutcheon
of the United States.
Instead of supporting our
loyal World War II ally, Chiang
Kai-Shek, the United States
government adopted a hands
off policy which was dramatized
by the then Secretary
of State's announcement quote,
we will let the dust settle out
there," end of quote.
You and I know that the
dust was settled in Korea
and is now being settled in
Vietnam with American blood.
Chiang Kai-Shek,
and his government
were compelled to
withdraw to Formosa
where they maintained
a strong bastion
against communists advance.
I believe then, and do now,
that we should have continued
our support of the strongly
anti-Communist government
of Nationalist China.
Had we done so, the United
States would not today
experience an uneasy
peace in Korea
and a costly war in Vietnam.
Of course the next communist
move in their continuous war
on the free world was Korea.
And after General MacArthur was
pulled out for being too tough
on the commies, General
Mark Clark was ordered
to Korea to pick up the pieces.
He soon found out
he was faced again
with the same ol'
problems when it
came to dealing with the reds.
General Mark Clark.
President Truman sent
me out to the Far East
to take command
during the Korean
War the last year and a half.
And there I saw them
again, I saw them this time
on the field of battle.
I saw how treacherous they were,
how they murder our prisoners
of war, and how they could not
be relied upon to carry out any
of their promises or
live up to the rules
of the Geneva
Convention concerning
prisoners or conduct of war.
The so-called Korean War
was the first evidence
since the pullback from
Berlin of a no-win policy.
Apparently Hitler was the
last enemy we were supposed
to put up a fight against.
General Clark found
out that he had
to try to wage war with one,
or maybe both hands, tied.
The fighting was
severe at that time
the Chinese had entered
the war, and there
were many limitations
that were placed upon me
as the commander-in-chief.
I could not hit, for
example, the bridges
over the Yellow River over
which the killers came
with their paraphernalia,
their ammunition, their tanks,
and whatnot to kill our men.
It seemed to me that that was
completely wrong that we should
not take out those bridges.
And that would make it more
difficult for the enemy
to maintain his
position on the field.
We were not able to hit
the city of Pyongyang
because there were
ammunition plants
that were hidden within it.
We did not hit certain power
plants that provided power
for North China and Manchuria.
But in spite of all the
difficulties, a kind of peace
was finally arranged in Korea.
At that time we never heard of a
place called Vietnam, which was
to be the next Red
battle in their long war
against the free world.
Vietnam was in a part of the
French colonial possession
known as Indochina.
The reports were
that the Indochinese
were fighting for
independence from the French.
[explosions]
This may have been so, but
it was also a good excuse
for a communist takeover
to switch the ruling
powers from France to the Reds.
The so-called
revolution was headed
by a character with a funny
beard and an unfunny reputation
as a terrorist.
His name was Ho Chi Minh.
He was what the historians
call a dedicated revolutionary.
Ho was born in 1890 and was a
communist even as a young man.
He was so active that he helped
form the French Communist
Party in 1920.
All during the '30s, the Kremlin
used him to foment trouble
in the Orient, and aided him in
building up a fanatic follower.
When he died in 1969, the
London Daily Telegraph
debunked the picture of
Ho as a simple patriot.
I quote, "there are always men
who, for one reason or another,
will rhapsodize on the qualities
of even the worst tyrant.
Ho Chi Minh's record
for cold-blooded,
and often bestial murder of
men, women, and children,
ranks him beside Hitler and
Stalin for shear atrocity,"
unquote.
Now during Ho's
career, he was paraded
around the communist
world, where
the masses were trotted out
to give him a big reception
wherever he went.
He was feted by such Red liners
as India's Krishna Menon,
and of course, by, the then
big boss of communism, Nikita
Khrushchev, as well as
all the secondary world
wields of the party.
Ho made his biggest
effort at a place
called Dien Bien Phu where
he beseeched the French army.
The United States was asked
to bring an air strike
in against Red positions.
The United States refused.
In any event, the French
cause was probably
doomed because the leftist
French government forced
their army to fight a no-win
war as General Clark had been
forced to fight in
Korea, So Ho was
able to inflict a humiliating
defeat on the French.
NARRATOR: At the Geneva Peace
Conference, which followed,
it was agreed that Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam
would be independent nations.
However, Vietnam was
partitioned temporarily,
and the two areas divided
by the 17th parallel--
the north area to
be under the control
of the communist stooge,
Ho Chi Minh, and the south
to be under the former
French puppet, Bao Dai.
Immediately after the
Geneva Conference,
Ho Chi Minh and his
Viet Cong followers
launched an extensive and
brutal campaign of subversion
and guerrilla action.
More than 50,000 South
Vietnamese, including village
officials, teachers, merchants,
and law enforcement officers
were kidnapped,
mutilated, or killed
by the Viet Cong Guerrillas.
Too often our own
information media, TV, radio,
and the press, are responsible
for a wide-held impression
that the North Vietnamese
and the Viet Cong
are the good guys,
and we, the South
Vietnamese, the South
Koreans, and Americans,
are the bad guys.
The Red liners of all
countries had a ball castigating
the United States,
but no one ever
complained about the
almost daily Viet
Cong mortaring of towns and
the killing of civilians.
Well, anyway, to give you
an idea of how popular
Ho and his crowd were after
they kicked out the French,
the Geneva Conference
gave all Vietnamese
300 days to go
either north or south
to the Red or non-Red area.
Word of this opportunity
to make a choice
was supposed to be
circulated in every village
and town in the land.
While Ho understandably
made no effort
to broadcast this information,
over 1,200 thousand people who
found themselves in
the Communist North
streamed south to freedom
below the 17th parallel.
This rush was still in progress
when the 300 days were up,
and Ho dropped the
bamboo curtain.
But in spite of the fact that
he lowered the boom on them,
officially, the continual
defection of North Vietnamese
and defection from the
supposedly dedicated Viet Cong
goes on to this day.
From before 1960,
US advisers were
aiding the South Vietnamese.
We had in the area what
was known as the Military
Assistance Command.
We are fortunate
to be able to hear
from the man who was in charge
almost from the beginning,
General Paul Harkin.
From February 8,
1962 until June 1964,
I was the commander of
the United States Military
Assistance Command in Vietnam.
And at capacity, I commanded
all the United States
forces in South Vietnam,
the army, the Navy,
the Air Force, and the Marines.
We had no American combat
troops in Vietnam at that time.
Our role was strictly advisory.
In that capacity, we trained
the Army, Navy, and Air Force
of the Vietnamese armed forces.
You have probably heard people
say that the United States
shouldn't be over there in
the first place, that's it
an immoral war, that
we are there illegally.
The record shows that after
the partition of Vietnam,
President Eisenhower promised
the government of South
Vietnam, all possible aid.
At the Geneva Conference,
the North Vietnamese
agreed not to molest people
south of the 17th parallel,
but when the Viet Cong started
infiltrating and slaughtering
village leaders, administrators,
and school teachers,
the president of South
Vietnam asked for our help.
He didn't ask Russia.
He didn't ask communist China.
He asked the United
States of America
if we could assist in
stopping communist aggression
and helping build up the
resources of his country.
This was when my headquarters,
the Military Assistance Command
was established.
The South Vietnamese didn't have
quite enough forces to protect
all the villages at once.
And we started in 1961, what
we call the Strategic Hamlet
Program, which simply
meant a trained
local force to protect
the local people
from communist infiltration.
By the American
advisors, the situation
was frustrating in the extreme.
They would aid a village
in building a school
and on the first dark night,
the Viet Cong guerrillas
would destroy it by mortar
fire with mortars made
in Russia or Communist China.
In the back country,
other Americans
were helping to distribute food,
medicine, and needed supplies.
Special forces
played an active part
in training the South
Vietnamese soldiers,
as well as the Montagnard
people in the highland.
The special forces, a
new unit in our services,
is called the Green Berets.
One of the best known of these
is Sergeant Barry Sadler.
We have a big job in Vietnam.
The villagers on both the
Mekong and the Highland
are constantly threatened
by the Viet Cong
and their North
Vietnamese allies,
and often recruited
into their armed forces,
sometimes with use of
propaganda, promises, lies.
When that fails,
they don't hesitate
to use force, terrorism, even
to butchering entire villages
as an example to
those who won't listen
to their friendly persuasion.
And when they use force, they
use these, modern weapons made
in Communist China
and the Soviet
Union, their communist allies.
I spent a great deal of
my time in the Vietnam
working as a medic.
I work in the villages with the
people, and they needed help.
And over a period of years,
the health of these people
has been greatly improved by
the US medics in the field.
You can't get to really
know the people of Vietnam
by staying around Saigon.
Saigon's a big city with 4
and 1/2 million people in it,
and with worst traffic than
you'll find in New York.
The marketplaces are crowded and
filled with black market goods,
everything from American
coffee to opium.
And like all cities
in a war zone,
the profiteers are
after the buck.
But south of Saigon
lies the delta,
28,000 square miles of the
richest rice land in the world,
rice land the communist won.
Here's a housewife out catching
poisonous snakes for the family
dinner, and glad to get them.
Where the Viet Cong mortared
or burned a village,
we came in to collect refugees
and ferry them to a new, more
secure area, one that was
safe from the guerrillas,
at least for the time being.
Of course, the roads were
mined or under possible mortar
attack, and the villagers had to
be moved in airborne operation.
And everything went, including
burial urns which contained
the ashes of their ancestors,
because these people always
carry their dead with them.
More and more
aircraft were needed.
But as we seem to be
getting somewhere,
it so infuriated the
communists that they
stepped up their attacks on
these unarmed innocent people.
Whole villages were
burned to the ground.
Farmers were
mortared and machine
gunned in their rice
paddies while trying
to gather their crops.
The attacks became more and
more vicious and fanatical.
It seems incredible,
but the knowledge
of these terror tactics
didn't inflame the free world
against the communists.
But unbelievably criticism of
our operations began to mount.
It was frustrating for a
soldier halfway around the world
fighting a war, and it
seemed like the enemy was
the good guy in the white hats.
It was as if the
American public were
only getting the information
the Reds wanted them to.
In fact, I'd say the Press had
been more help to the enemy
than a fresh division.
To the Americans in the
mid 60s the situation
really became explosive.
All the troops were
told to avoid combat.
We were losing more and
more advisors all the time.
In the summer of '64,
some of our destroyers
were patrolling in the Gulf
of Concord, and two of them
were fired upon by North
Vietnamese gunboats.
A man who was in
the unique position
to see the whole thing
develop is Admiral
US Grant Sharp, former Commander
in Chief of Pacific operations.
Admiral Sharp.
In early 1965,
President Johnson
decided that US combat troops
were necessary in South Vietnam
to keep the country from being
overrun by the communists,
so that is how it started.
Our objectives are
clear and honorable.
They are simply to prevent
the success of North
Vietnamese aggression, to
prevent Viet Cong terror,
and to allow the country to
live in peace and freedom.
While our objectives
are correct,
the methods we have
used to achieve them
leave much to be desired.
We inserted our
forces piecemeal,
and then, worst of all, we
never used our tremendous air
and Naval power effectively.
Before the admiral
goes on, notice
that just as with the Berlin
pullback in World War II,
and the hamstringing
of the military
during the Korean
mess, the no-win policy
dictated by behind the
scenes powers in Washington
is again in force
and has been ever
since President
Kennedy committed
us to this no-win conflict.
From the beginning, we
should have closed the harbor
of Haiphong and prevented
all the vital imports
from reaching that area.
Instead, we permitted them
to import all the necessities
of war without any difficulties
whatsoever despite the fact
that we control the seas.
This was a great
mistake of course,
and immeasurably
increased the casualties
that our side incurred.
One of the best features
of a Naval blockade,
or a blockade by mining, is that
there are very few casualties
involved.
The country which is
blockaded against simply
doesn't get the
supplies they need,
and thus their capacity to
fight is greatly reduced.
Whenever we fight
the communists,
they seem to have help
from somebody on our side.
Somebody always
wants to bend over
backwards to avoid
getting tough with them,
doing them any damage.
I can't figure this as
a innocent attitude,
especially since the
Reds tell us continually
exactly what
they're going to do.
Now Lenin said war is
simply continuation
of politics by other means.
He's admitting that if
they can't convert you
by peaceful means, they'll
just switch to violence
and pull a gun on you.
He also said something
else in that book.
He said that the assistance
of the Soviet Republic
side by side with the United
States is unthinkable.
One or the other must
triumph in the end.
Now Lenin's school of
poetical warfare in Moscow
teaches that, "war is to
the hilt between communism
and the free world.
It is inevitable."
Now don't take my word for it,
just get one of these books
and read it for yourself.
If you want to know how
they're doing so far,
let's take a look.
They have East Europe.
They're around big
Cuba on one side
and getting ready to break
out in Korea on the other,
and about to wear us
to a nub in Vietnam.
Well, the patience of a
nation or the fighting men
will wear out.
If your own side won't let
you win since that's what
the Reds want, it
makes you wonder
who's controlling our destiny.
The boys on the firing line
are the most frustrated of all.
Listen to a man who
not long ago was
flying a gunship in Vietnam.
We were never really allowed
to go on the offensive.
We were constantly
clearing out areas,
only to let the Viet
Cong go back in as soon
as we had moved out.
On the search and
destroy missions
we would burn up
an area with lead,
or lay down a base of
fire as the term is.
Then the troops were lifted in.
The boys would be landed
and take off into the brush
after the Viet Cong.
When the guys on the
ground were at work,
the expression,
smoking them out,
was an appropriate description
of how they operated.
Later, after they
had swept the area,
we'd come back and pick them up,
and fly them back to the base.
It would be anywhere from
two days to two months.
One thing great
about the chopper,
we would be able to get
the wounded to the hospital
in a matter of minutes.
We arranged the delta
looking for infiltrators,
but the trouble was justice in
the city streets, the markets,
or on the water front, the
North Vietnamese and the
South Vietnamese look alike.
And you can't tell them
apart until it's too late.
The sand-pans below
contain concealed
guerrilla terrorists
armed to the teeth
and loaded down with grenades.
Our night photo planes told
us that during the night
they had slipped
in from Cambodia,
but due to the
political restrictions
we couldn't hit them.
One thing bad about the
war, we couldn't shoot
until they fired at us first.
A lot of my buddies never
got a chance to fire back.
It's tough when
a politician gets
a hold of your trigger finger.
Sometimes we found their boats
hidden in marsh areas covered
with reeds, these, we destroyed
because the area was off limits
to the local populace.
Once the troops uncovered
an ammunition assembly
plant that was actually
below the surface
of the swampy terrain.
The troops found a lot of
grenades and explosives
with Chinese markings, the
products of munitions factories
in Red China.
When an area became heavily
overrun with Viet Cong,
we would pinpoint them
and call in the Air Force.
With our let the enemy
shoot first policy
we saved a lot of American
lives by not having
to drop our ground soldiers
into the hot spots,
but the bearded, bleeding hearts
at home and lefty politicians
soon put a stop to this.
I guess we weren't
supposed to hurt the enemy.
The kind of war we
were forced to fight
was bound to get us nowhere.
But worst of all, the
guys on the ground
might take an area or
a hill with great loss
of blood and life.
They would have to
withdraw and might
have to take it all over
again three months later.
We all felt more and more
frustrated as time went by.
Now I can understand why so
many of the people at home
wanted us to call it quits
and bring the troops home.
Most Americans at home
are honestly concerned.
But unlike any other war that
we were ever involved in,
we have a
communist-inspired front
in our streets working
on the civilities
of a lot of honest people.
They claim they are simply going
all out for peace, while a lot
of them burn the American
flag, stamp it into the ground
while waving the flag
of the Viet Cong,
who have tortured and
killed tens of thousands
of innocent civilians whose only
crime was that they resisted
joining the Red ranks.
Would you call a
person who backed
the enemy, a peace advocate or
a member of the enemy's forces?
Well, someone who backs our
forces, who has traveled
to Vietnam many times, who has
gone to all the combat zones
to entertain the
fighting men, and one
of the best loved stars
of the American public,
is Martha Raye.
She can tell it like
is, Martha Raye.
Thank you, Duke, from one
green beret to another.
I've just returned
from my eighth trip
overseas with our
troops, and I'm now
returning from my ninth trip.
I take it and my gear together
to go back home with my family,
and they're also
your family too.
Our troops are shocked at the
attitude of college officials
and others who stoutly maintain
there is no organized direction
to the [inaudible], that
all the demonstrations are
spontaneous and unorganized.
We may rest assure these
servicemen are not deceived.
The Reds have declared
in no uncertain terms
that they are going to destroy
the moral character of a
generation of young Americans.
And when they have
finished, there
will be nothing left to
defend ourselves against them.
And they're doing a
pretty thorough job
on some of our kids.
And while this is
happening, they
won't let us defend
ourselves in the manner
that all great military
minds advocate, to attack,
strike the enemy in
his own territory.
We keep coming back to this as
a central problem in our war
on communism.
Let Admiral Sharp tell it
to you the way he saw it.
The major problem was that we
were restricted in the targets
that we could hit.
We started in the southern
part of North Vietnam
and gradually worked north.
Will the result that the North
Vietnamese with the Soviet's
assistance were permitted
to build up their defenses
around Hanoi and Hai Phong.
So that when our
planes eventually
got into the
Hanoi-Hai Phong area,
they were met by the most
concentrated and accurate air
defenses that any
country has ever faced.
Even so, with their
very heavy defenses
and with the restrictions
are on our air attacks,
we were still able to damage
North Vietnam to the extent
that in the fall of 1967,
they were in great difficulty.
Had we been allowed
to go in 1968,
and hit the targets
that needed to be hit,
and keep the targets down
that we had already hit,
the war would certainly had
been over by the end of 1968.
If you aren't sufficiently
convinced by the admiral,
listen to one of the
Navy bomber pilots.
I think I'm speaking for 99%
of all the men that have been
to Vietnam, whether
in a flying status
or on the ground, when I say
that it's one of the most
frustrating experiences a man,
particularly a fighting man,
could go through.
I think I can say that all
of us who went over there,
and I know all of us
that were together
in my particular
group, went over
there with a
exhilarating feeling
that they were going
to go into battle
and do the job that
had to be done.
They were going to be allowed
to get to the targets.
And of course, we always
go in with the feeling
that we want to help the men on
the ground as much as we can,
and we do this by bombing
the necessary targets.
The logistics lines,
the munitions dumps,
the petroleum stations that
prevent the enemy from getting
this stuff down
into South Vietnam
and using it against our men
and, our allies, the South
Vietnamese.
But it wasn't long until
we realized that because
of the political
restrictions that were placed
upon this particular
war, it was to be
similar to the Korean
War, only probably worse.
And that we were not allowed
to get to these targets
that we knew were necessary
targets and vital targets,
to destroy them and to prevent
these supplies, and enemy
equipment, and enemy
soldiers from getting
into South Vietnam.
We knew that they
were going down there.
And we knew how they
were getting down there.
We knew where the targets were.
But there was so much
frustration in there
that when they came back,
and we told the people back
on the carriers, the
air intelligence people,
the admiral's war room, that
these targets were there,
that we'd like to go bomb them,
they were just as frustrated
as we were because
they had to then send
a message back to
Washington to get permission
to bomb these targets.
And this permission never came.
I recall when they
were first setting up
the missiles sites over there.
Missiles, at that time, had been
used against American aircraft
flying over North Vietnam.
But we came back and told
the responsible people
on the carrier that these
missile sites were going up,
that we could see
them down there,
they were getting
prepared, that we
ought to go back and bomb them.
But once again, our
hands were tied,
the admiral's hands were tied.
They had to go
back to Washington
through channels
with a message, and
the message came
back, no, we could
not bomb the missile sites.
Until the time came
that two of our planes
were shot down on these
missiles on a night
mission or an early
evening mission.
And the whole thing was they
tried to give the indication
that they had not known ahead
of time that these missile
sites were there.
And of course, this is
frustrating to a man
to see his friends, roommate,
the people that he has gone
through training with, go
down in a situation knowing
full well that it
could have been
prevented long before had
the politicians allowed
you to do so.
Now, when I say
restrictions once again,
I say restrictions,
such as these.
We could fly over
enemy air fields
where the planes were
sitting on the airfield.
We knew what they were there
for but we couldn't harm them.
These same planes could
come up behind our aircraft,
and shoot them down, and
climb back down on the deck,
and we were not permitted
to go after them
once they got to that airfield.
There was even
such a restriction
at the particular time I was
there that you could not shoot
an enemy aircraft until he had
fired at you, which is to say
that, if he didn't
shoot you down first,
then you had a chance at him.
I wish that some of the
liberal senators taking
on a negative stand
in this situation
to promote their own
political ambitions
could be put in the
same spot as our boys
overseas with one
arm tied behind them,
or maybe two, face
this treacherous enemy.
One time, we
couldn't bomb convoys.
Finally, we were cleared to
bomb these particular targets
but only so long as
they were on a roadway.
It doesn't matter if you knew
that this particular convoy
was carrying
munitions, supplies,
going into South Vietnam.
We knew their routes.
We knew where they
were going down Route 1
through Mu Gia Pass.
And as far as bomb
shortages at that time,
Mr. McNamara, who was
Secretary of Defense,
was decrying that there was no
substance to the information
that we were experiencing a
shortage of bombs, aircraft,
or flyers in the Vietnam area.
And Congressman Mitchell
had been on the carrier
and had personally
seen these missions
where we were taking off.
Loading with maybe
1/5 a bomb load.
An aircraft that could carry 24
of this particular type bomb,
we were carrying maybe
four of these bombs.
On some days, instead
of carrying bombs
to a target that clearly
called for bombs,
we'd be carrying rockets.
And when you'd ask your deck
officer why we were doing this,
he would say because we don't
have enough bombs to last
the rest of the month if we
carry them on every load,
or if we load the planes fully.
So it was obvious to us that
we were sending out five planes
on a mission, or four planes,
that were loaded with maybe
a fourth or a fifth of a load of
bombs, when we could have sent
one or two planes
with a full load,
and gotten the same job done
with a minimum risk of lives
and equipment.
Of course, you're talking about
a $3.5 million aircraft in case
you're not interested
in the lives involves,
but this is a thing that was
frustrating to us, you see.
Our only concern was
that we could get in
and be allowed to do the job.
When you send men into war,
you should send them in there
with the idea they are
risking their lives,
and for risking
those lives, they
should be allowed to do the
job, to take the action that's
necessary to minimize
the risk of their lives
and to get to the enemy
and get the job done
in a minimum amount
of time and get
back their homes and their
families where they want to be.
And this hasn't been
done in Vietnam.
And the only way
that we're going
to come to a successful
conclusion over there
is to defeat the enemy.
Just as bad as a
no-win restriction,
maybe worse, is the
policy of helping
the enemy to get
goods and munitions
with which to defeat it.
Does that sound idiotic?
We'll listen to a
young green beret
named Peter Stark who lost
both legs below the knees
in Vietnam.
The only way to
break communist will
is to break the communist back.
To do this, you must eliminate
their access to that material
which they need to wage a war.
You must eliminate their means.
The United States had never
significantly attempted
to eliminate their
means of war with which
they kill American soldiers
in the South Vietnam.
We have assured their main
supplier of war goods,
the Soviet Union, and its
satellite nation, its colonies,
which supplies 80% of all the
North Vietnamese war material,
we have assured the Soviet
Bloc countries that we will not
interfere in their
shipment of war goods
to the North Vietnamese enemy.
At the same time that we
have assured them we will not
interfere with his shipment,
we have continued our policy
of trading with the Soviet Bloc,
of sending strategic materials
to the Soviet enemy.
For example, in 1966, the United
States sent the Soviet Union
the entire technical
specifications
which they needed to
build a glycerol plant.
Glycerol is used in the
manufacture of explosives.
I think everybody's
heard of nitroglycerin.
Specifically, in
Vietnam, glycerol is used
as a detonator in booby traps.
Over 50% of all American
casualties suffered in South
Vietnam have come
from booby traps.
I do not think it can be
satisfactorily explained
to a man who has lost
his eyesight because
of a booby trap-- or to the
parents of a man who has been
killed on a booby trap
in South Vietnam--
why the government that sent
this man to South Vietnam
refuses to interfere not
only with the enemy receiving
this type of
weapon, but actually
helped the enemy to produce it.
A screaming example, late 1969,
we loaned Sweden $50 million.
Early 1970, Sweden loans $45
million directly to Hanoi.
For those of us
who have been there,
Vietnam is not a phony war.
It was and is a very real war.
It is not a limited
war because there is
no such thing as limited death.
We're glad to have fought
in Vietnam for the United
States of America
and for freedom
of the South Vietnamese people.
Many of my friends, your sons,
your husbands, your brothers,
and in some cases, your
fathers, have died fighting
the communist enemy in Asia.
You should be very
proud of these men.
They were good men.
They died for the
freedom of others.
No more can be
asked from any man.
They were willing to fight
because they know that
on that day that Americans
are not willing to fight
for their freedom.
On that day, America will no
longer have its own freedom.
Many people have not
been informed of the fact
that Vietnam is more than
just an isolated burstfire
war halfway around the world.
It has a much deeper
meaning than that.
Vietnam is one battle
in a war for the world.
It is a battle we are losing
not on the field of battle
but here at home.
The Soviet empire is expanding.
The communists are definitely
serious about their stated
goal of world conquest.
They are as serious as Hitler
and his National Socialist
Party were about world conquest.
All Americans must remember
that the Soviet enemy is
only 20 minutes away by rocket.
Finally, there was a great
hue and cry to get the Reds
to the so-called peace table.
After all proof to the
contrary over the years
some people still believe
you could talk the Reds
out of taking over our country.
Now, to get the
enemy to talk peace,
you usually bear down hard on
him so that he's had enough
and wants to get out.
Not us, not our
state department,
not our defense department,
we did just the opposite.
We made it easy
on the communists
by stopping the
bombing altogether.
Let Admiral Sharp
comment on that.
Then, in March of 1968, it
was decided to halt the bombing
of the vital areas
of North Vietnam
in order to entice the enemies
to come to the conference table
to negotiate a peace.
Before the North Vietnamese
even got to the conference table
and started negotiating,
we had stopped
all bombing of North Vietnam.
So here was a country
with tremendous air
power allowing an adversary
to fight from a sanctuary.
Were the communists
going to negotiate
under those conditions?
Certainly not.
They were going to delay
meaningful negotiations,
hoping that our natural
impatience to end the war
would get the
better of us, and we
would make concessions to
them which would result
in victory for their side.
Indeed when our bombing was
cut back in March of 1968,
the communists
proclaimed it a victory,
and a victory it really was.
So now we have been negotiating
in Paris for over two years,
and what have the results been?
Absolutely nothing.
We have made concession
after concession,
and the North Vietnamese have
offered absolutely nothing
in return.
They have simply used the
Paris meetings as a propaganda
platform from which to declare
that the United States is
the aggressor in the war,
that we must pull out all
of our troops before
they will consider
any meaningful negotiations.
So this is what we face as a
result of our all out efforts
to bring them to the
conference table.
What do the men who have
to do the fighting think
about the so-called
peace negotiation?
Right now we have people
that think that you can
talk with the
commies, and I think
history proves that you cannot.
I've looked at this enough, and
I am sure that people that are
much more experienced
in the field
of negotiating
with the Communists
would tell you the same thing.
The only time the communists
come to the peace table
is when they feel that they
have something to gain there
or for stalling.
And this means that
they have more time
to build up their
troops in the field
and to get more ammunition,
more troops into the battle,
and play publicity and
propaganda, particularly when
you have a situation like
we have in this country now
where people are expressing
their opposition to the war.
And of course, I can understand
some of this opposition
because the way the
politicians have used it.
They left themselves
wide open for opposition.
But the fact remains
that the only way
to stop the communist
action in Southeast Asia
is from a position of
unassailable strength.
That's the only thing
they understand.
For those of us who
have fought in Vietnam,
the peace talks have always
been, at best, futile,
at worst, tragic.
Tragic for those soldiers in
South Vietnamese who had been
killed because of the
improper and incorrect
use of the combination of
military and diplomatic means.
Correct diplomacy,
correct negotiations,
are used to shorten the
war, not to prolong the war.
The great statesmen that our
nation has had in the past
have been those statesmen with
the courage and resolution
to allow their military
do that job for which
the military is established.
Great statesmen are not people
who hamstring the military
and prolong the decision.
Peace negotiation and
peace depend on two things.
One is the will of
the enemy, the other
is the means of the enemy.
You must either
destroy the enemy will
or destroy the
means the enemy has.
Now, the United States
has always had the means.
The men and material
successfully wage
the war in Vietnam and win.
However, at the
policy level, we have
never had the desire to win.
We have never had
the will to win.
The North Vietnamese
communists, on the other hand,
have never had the
material or manpower
to defeat the United
States soldiers
on the field of battle.
Their leadership, however,
has the will to win.
They have the will, the
desire, and the determination
to conquer South Vietnam.
Communists are determined men,
they are very serious men,
they are very brutal men.
At this point I think we
should let General Clark
tell us how he managed
to get the Reds
to the peace table in Korea.
So after being at
Panmunjom, being in charge
of the negotiations there,
and our people being insulted
almost daily, I finally
plead with my government
to let me break off
the negotiations
and place on the
conference table,
a reasonable American
position, one upon which
we could sign an armistice.
When finally Washington
permitted me to do so,
we walked out.
And then I called
in my commanders
of the Navy, the
Air, and the Army,
and we sat around for days.
How could we hurt the enemy
within the limitations
imposed upon us?
And one by one with the
exception of permission
to bomb the Yellow
River bridges,
I had these
limitations taken off.
Our hands were untied.
And we hit the dams, and
we took out their power.
We hit their dams and
inundated their fields.
We attacked Pyongyang,
the capital of North Korea
after notifying the people
that we were coming.
And we just pounded
them until it hurt them.
And then about three
months later, Kim Il-sung
sent me a message, and said,
let's go back to the conference
table, and let's trade
prisoners of war and our sick
and wounded.
That's something we had asked
to do many months before.
So then we got down
to business and began
to work on an armistice.
Then General Eisenhower,
my old West Point comrade,
came over as the
President-elect.
And we had our plans
to present to him,
and I presented
them to him, how we
could win the war by
the use of the Naval
and Air power primarily.
I'm not a believer in slugging
it out man for man on the field
of battle with communists
because the American GI
is a very precious commodity.
And the communists don't
care how many of their men
they kill.
So not having had the
determination to win that war,
we got busy, as I was directed,
and we signed an armistice.
Now, that armistice was violated
by the communists the next day,
and it's been violated
by them ever since.
And as I signed that Korean
armistice I was convinced that
had we step out
and had the courage
to win in our first test
of arms with communism,
and win decisively, we would
not be in the predicament
and the mess we find ourselves
in at the present time
in Vietnam.
What's the answer?
One political leader
who hasn't kept silent
is Alaskan Senator [inaudible].
He went to Vietnam
to see for himself.
Our liberal Press has not seen
fit to spotlight his remarks,
here they are.
Well, the most brilliant
military men in our country
have said that we must win
in Vietnam, General Mark
Clark, General Al
Wedemeyer, General
Paul Harkins, Admiral Sharp.
The military
commanders in the field
have all said that there can
be no satisfactory conclusion
to the war in Vietnam
without a military victory.
We have the ships,
we have the guns,
we have the planes,
what is lacking?
We have the men, we
have the courage, what
is lacking is a will to win.
Richard Nixon, himself, has
said what is needed in Vietnam
is a will to win, but
our State Department
does not have a will to win.
In fact, they have
said that they do
not intend to win in Vietnam.
One of our top advisers to
the president, Dr. Kissinger,
has said, that military
victory in Vietnam
is neither possible
nor desirable.
This fuzzy thinking,
this no-win thinking
has resulted in the loss
of more American lives
than either World
War I or Korea.
It's resulted in the longest
war in American history,
certainly, the most frustrating
war in American history.
The question is
this fuzzy thinking
or is it something else?
With Congress rests the
constitutional authority
to determine foreign policy.
Congress must
reassert its authority
and determine the
foreign policy.
It must require that
military decisions
be made by military men.
Our men on the battlefield must
be given the chance to win.
In war there must be victory.
Some people are demanding
an abrupt pull-out.
They seem to believe
that the Reds will stop
fighting and killing
at once and that there
will be instant peace.
Well, let's hear again
from General Harkins.
If we pull out
abruptly, the Reds
will have a free hand as
they had when they took Hue
in that infamous Tet Offensive.
They massacred and mutilated
thousands of civilians.
There will be a frightful
massacre of those who have
resisted communism
in South Vietnam,
and perhaps in the
rest of the countries
of Southeast Asia such as Laos,
and Cambodia, and Thailand.
It may further open
the way to infiltration
and maybe attacks from
some of the other countries
such as Malaysia,
Indonesia, Australia, New
Zealand, and the Philippines.
The communists haven't stopped
in their world defensive
so far.
I think it's tragic
and unfortunate
that the people of
the United States
must be constantly reminded
that the communists have said
they were going to surround this
and they were going to bury us.
They said they were going
to take over Eastern Europe
and they have.
They tried to come
down through Greece,
and we helped to stop them.
They tried to come
through North Korea,
and with the aid of
15 other free nations,
we stopped them again.
They've taken over Cuba.
They're very active
in Latin America.
And now they're trying to come
down through Southeast Asia.
I would say they're pretty
well surrounding us.
I think it's far
better to stop them
on some faraway distant shores
than wait for another Pearl
Harbor, or perhaps, to try
to stop them on the shores
of the United States.
Tom Hayden has been
called America's most
decorated civilian to
have served in Vietnam.
He was in Hue after
the Tet massacre.
Listen to his account of how
the communists exterminate those
who oppose them, Tom Hayden.
A North Vietnamese
regiment captured
the ancient capital of Hue
during the Tet Offensive
in January of 1968.
The North Vietnamese
asked the Hue citizens
to join them and oppose
the Saigon government.
The people of Hue said no,
then came the massacre.
Over 4,000 civilian graves
have been found, many of them
were buried alive.
Over 1,000 people
are still missing.
Those in America who say that
the people of South Vietnam
support the communists,
refused to remember Hue.
They have forgotten
[inaudible] where
over 100 Motagnards
were murdered,
men, women, and children.
Here is the latest example
of the popular support
the communists have
in South Vietnam.
Saigon, Viet Cong troops attack
a South Vietnamese village
south of Da Nang.
Over 75 civilians were
killed and 85 wounded.
The survivors of the Viet Cong
invaded by reading Hamlet,
stated that the enemy
ran through the streets,
shooting anyone
they found, throwing
grenades into their homes and
into their civilian bunkers.
But some of the
news media will tell
you that the South
Vietnamese are
not fighting for their freedom.
That is a lie.
I spent over two
years with the people
and they are
fighting for freedom.
The Hue massacre should
prove that many of them
are dieing for their freedom.
We can't get out.
We lead a vacuum and
years to come we've paid
ten times the amount of blood.
And if we get no
response whatsoever
to our stopping of the
bombing and our initiatives
towards peace, it may be
that we will have to step
up and intensify the war.
And then if we
do, I'm sure we'll
bring the communist to
the conference table,
and we'll bring him fast.
[weapons firing]
[explosions]
When it comes to the
question of our pulling out,
I think one of the most
significant comments
was made by General [inaudible],
field commander, whose
troops were
surrounded and forced
to surrender at Dien Bien Phu.
[non-english speech]
General [inaudible]
does not speak English,
but in French, he
made it clear to us
that if the United States
leaves Southeast Asia
in defeat, on that day
the whole free world will
begin to crumble.
Ezra Taft Benson
offered one solution
that hasn't been given
too much attention
up till now, Mr. Benson.
I recently returned
from two weeks
in war-threatened
and war-torn Asia.
The men of Vietnam who
are ready to give their
all in the defense of freedom,
who worry about reports
from home of rioters, draft
card burners, and other citizens
many times more numerous, who
seem oblivious to the threat
to our freedom as
they continue to enjoy
their comfortable complacency.
Regardless of any question of
our involvement in Vietnam,
we're there and we're
involved, so what do we do now?
We should concentrate on doing
whatever is necessary to bring
our boys home, but before
we bring them home,
we should let them finish
the job most of them
thought they were
sent there to do.
Let the communists
see what good-natured
Uncle Sam can still do when a
bully picks a fight with him.
Drop those suicidal,
limited political objects
and launch a massive
military campaign.
Topple the Hanoi regime
and dictate rather
than negotiate the peace terms.
Then bring our boys home.
Will this bring Red
China into the war?
Red China is already in the war.
The best way to
get her out of it
is to let Chiang Kai-Shek
join us as he has requested.
He stands ready with
600,000 well-trained men
who know how to fight
under Asian conditions.
Our no-win policy in Vietnam
instead of promoting peace,
only sets the stage for settling
the problem, for the time
being, with a coalition
government of communists
and non-communists, and this
virtually ensures continued
war.
You know our troops
overseas, they
ask for so very little,
and yet they give
and give so very, very much.
Nobody wants a war.
God knows that, and
especially our troops that
are fighting one over there.
But as long as they are
fighting a war over there,
the least we could
do back home here
is just to give them the
support, the love, the dignity,
and the respect that they, our
flags and our country deserves.
And that's all they ask of you.
Thank you.
So we come back to the
men who fight the battle,
or are we all involved
in the battle?
Listen to Captain Wilson.
I went to Vietnam
to fight communism.
And when you get
to the base of it,
that's what Vietnam is all
about, communist aggression.
Communist aggression,
not only in Vietnam
but in Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia, and all
the areas of Southeast Asia.
We have communist aggression
right here in America right
in the streets every day, and
it's evident in the newspapers
if you read them closely.
Wherever we can fight
communist aggression,
we owe it to our
country to do so.
Communism is America's
number one enemy.
It has been for years and it
will be for years to come.
The only way to solve
the problem in Vietnam
is to take it to the
base of the problem,
and that is into the cities
and towns of North Vietnam.
We do not need to send
troops into North Vietnam.
The job can be
done from the air.
We knew it when I was over there
and we know it still today.
You have to take your aircraft,
the munitions at hand,
and go to North Vietnam and bomb
the targets and the facilities
that they use to wage war
against the other bordering
countries.
This is the only thing that
the communists understand.
You do it from an unassailable
position of strength.
You let them know that
you mean business.
You bomb their facilities
that they use to wage war.
You make it so unpleasant for
them at home that they have
to keep their troops at home
to look after the business
at hand, and they cannot afford
to send them across other
country's borders, violating the
sovereignty of these countries.
This is the only thing that
the communists understand.
It's the only way
to deal with them.
It cannot be done at
the conference table.
This is the only way to
win the war in Vietnam.
A choice made for us nearly
200 years ago by our founding
fathers is now up for review
in Vietnam and everywhere else,
in the Mekong Delta
and in the halls
of the Congress of the
United States of America.
There are over 3
million Americans who
had been and fought in Vietnam.
We have seen
communism in action.
We have seen what might be
termed relevant communism.
We have seen Marx and Lenin
taken off the library shelf
and put on the
backs of the people.
We will never
surrender to communism
because we know what it is.
There will be no Viet Cong in
the United States of America.
We will fight.
We know that there is a
possibility that we may not
triumph, but it is not
inevitable that the enemy
triumph if he is opposed.
There is no fate that must
fall on them however they act.
There is, however,
a fate that falls
on men if they refuse that.
We should win in Vietnam.
We can win in Vietnam.
We must help to extend
freedom, not allow
it to be foreclosed on us.
This is a challenge that
our generation faces.
This must be our goal.
Certainly, we could
not stand by idly
and see the communists
grab off chunks
of the free world at will,
some place we had to stop him.
And when we decided
to go into Vietnam,
we should have decided to
go in with a determination
to win that war and to win
it with the might of America,
mostly air and Naval power, and
we had the capacity to do so.
Now in Vietnam, I feel in
this second test of arms,
having learned a
lesson in Korea,
if I had had the
decision to make,
I would have closed
the port of Haiphong.
I would have not permitted
the paraphernalia of war
from friend and foe alike
to be delivered to that port
to kill our men eventually.
I would have attacked
with air every
remunerative military target.
in North Vietnam.
I would knock out
their railroads,
and inundated their rice fields,
and taken their dams out.
And I have found that
when the communists come
to the conclusion that they
cannot win on the field
of battle what they
set out to get, they
run to the conference table.
It is an extension
of the war with them.
It should be obvious by now
that the predicament we're in
is not the fault
of the military.
We should have stopped
the Reds in Berlin,
we should have kept
them out of Cuba,
we should have won
the war in Korea,
but we didn't, so let's not
blame the men in uniform
for our political mistake.
Maybe we should listen
to them in time of war,
and this certainly is war.
They say there's no
substitute for victory.
Maybe we should also remember
the words of Winston Churchill,
after Chamberlain's appeasement
negotiations in Munich in 1939.
Quote, "The government had to
choose between shame and war.
They chose shame and
they'll get war, unquote."
They got war.
Now, let's take a
look at our country.
Today, in the newspapers,
on radio, on TV,
we read, hear, and see riots
on campuses and street corners.
Crime is at all time high.
We read about our American
flag being hauled down by mobs,
burned and stomped
into the ground.
We hear the names
of these same mob
leaders over and over
from city to city.
They wave the flag
of the communist Viet
Cong, the flag of the enemy
that we're fighting in Vietnam.
The enemy that kills
our boys from ambush
and fades away into
political sanctuary.
And at the same time
here in America,
the commies are allowed to
teach in our schools, parade
through our streets
and our capital
while those in high position
choose to remain silent.
With all these
problems, I wonder
what would happen in America if
we all chose to remain silent.
Would crime come to a halt
without preventative measures?
Would the communist underground
movement to take over America
cease?
Would the communists leave
the free nations of the world
alone without our help?
Will they pull back across
the 17th parallel in Vietnam
if we withdraw our troops?
The answer is no.
Mr. Lincoln was right when
he said that to remain silent
makes cowards of men.
I plead with each
of you to reflect
on these facts of history.
Then I'd like to
speak for myself.
I believe we must vote
out of office, regardless
of political party, those
politicians who seek to appease
tyranny and promote anarchy,
and to vote for men who are
responsible and who will put
the welfare of our country
above their own
political ambitions.
We must stop communist
rioting inside America.
We must enforce the laws
that make crime illegal.
And if there should be
another 17th parallel,
we should not plead
with the communists
to get back, but warn
them, and do it only once.
To hell with world opinion.
We must speak up
and take a stand,
only then will this great
nation of ours survive.
[MUSIC - "BALLAD OF THE GREEN
BERETS"]
[weapon firing]
[explosions]
[gun firing]
Ladies and
gentlemen, a long time
ago Abraham Lincoln
made a statement.
To stand by silence when
you should speak out
makes cowards of men.
It's time we spoke out about
Vietnam and the most obvious,
yet the most ignored threat
ever faced by free people
in the history of the world.
The street demonstrators
demand that we
get out of Southeast Asia
so that there will be peace.
Where do they get the
idea that there will
be peace just because we quit?
We can't stop the
war by giving up,
and we sure can't
settle anything
by trying to bargain
with a winning
enemy at the peace table.
As for the war that was going
on a long time before Vietnam
and will go on whether
we pull out or not,
we can't stop the
war by giving up.
And the way it is now we're
not programmed to win because
of the politicians and
civilians that we've
let stick our nose in it.
Listen to this young fellow.
I'm flying helicopters
commercially in Alaska now.
Not long ago, I was
flying them in Vietnam.
I was there to fight the
communists and try to win
but our politicians
wouldn't let us.
What kind of a war is this
that we're not supposed to win?
Truth of the matter is it's
not a separate war at all.
It's only one
battle in a bigger,
long drawn out
attack that's been
going on for over 50 years.
And it's a war we're loading
not only on the battlefields
but out on street
corners, college campuses,
in the offices of some
of our most influential
so-called statesmen.
Now all men of good will
certainly want peace,
but do we want peace at any
price, peace without freedom?
We all know that this
country has, with good will
has stumbled a few times
and made a mistake or two,
can't go back and do
anything about that.
But as Mr. Lincoln once said,
"I wish I had been there when
the horse was stole,
but I reckon I can find
the tracks when I do get there.
Seems to me the horse
is already stolen,
so we better get back
and pick up the tracks."
To give you that background we
have a man who really knows.
Someone who was there when
all the important history was
being made since World War I.
He has the facts firsthand
from leaders and the generals
themselves.
Here he is.
A great newspaper man,
Mr. Lowell Thomas.
Hello everybody,
this is Lowell Thomas,
to chat with you for a moment
about what we all seem to agree
is just about the most
important subject of our time.
And to those of you who
are fairly young perhaps
it is more important to
you, than to the rest of us.
I'm sure you all remember
the words of the father of
our country, George Washington.
He was a fairly wise man.
He said, "the best way
to prepare for peace
is to be ready for war.
NARRATOR: World War I
with the beginning of what
the whole of mankind
hoped would lead
to a permanent world peace.
LOWELL THOMAS [VOICEOVER]: It
seems like the height of folly
now, hard for us to
understand, impossible,
in fact to comprehend.
But after the war
was over, the Allies
began to disband their
armies, break up their navies,
and melt down their guns!
NARRATOR: In the confusion
at the end of World War I,
a group of dedicated men
came to power in Russia.
The leader of the group, Nikolai
Lenin, head of the Bolshevik,
or Majority Communist
Party, he knew
the free nations of the world
desperately wanted peace.
He also knew his ideology,
Communism, could use
this as a tool against them.
Part of his plan to achieve
world wide supremacy
was to instruct communist
followers in all countries
to protest for peace.
A disarmed nation then
would be ripe for plucking.
As soon as hostilities ceased
at the end of World War
I, the Allies who had stopped
the Kaiser's war machine,
stopped it cold, alas
they began to disband
their armies and navies.
After all, Germany had
been the only nation
with ambitions to expand, and
Germany was smashed for good.
Or was it?
No one at the peace tables had
ever heard of a lance corporal
in one of the Bavarian
regiments, a chap
known as Adolf
Schicklgruber, later
to be known as Adolf Hitler.
It's hard to believe
that a lowly lance
corporal with a funny
mustache could ever get far.
But in less than
15 years, there he
was, head of a re-armed
Germany, with plans
to conquer the world.
Distinguished men like the lone
eagle, Charles Lindbergh and
the fabulous Jimmy Doolittle--
Told us what was going
on in Central Europe,
told us what Hitler
was doing, and we
paid little or no attention.
NARRATOR: Ah, but life was
too dear and peace too sweet
to rock the boat,
so few raised a hand
to do anything at that time.
So in 1938, with the
most powerful war
machine in the world
up to that time,
Hitler marched on Austria.
The next year, 1939, he
marched on Czechoslovakia.
Now, England began
to get the message.
We all know how Chamberlain
went from London to Munich
with his umbrella,
and came back saying,
"this means peace in our time."
But no sooner had this
conference been concluded,
then Hitler made a
pact with Russia.
And then they both
attacked Poland.
The next step was the
blitz on the west.
[explosions]
With the Nazis and the
Communists in collusion,
their representatives
here in America
stepped up their propaganda
and began shouting to us,
disarm, disarm!
No harm will ever
come to America.
NARRATOR: Meanwhile, peace
talks had so reduced US power
that when the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor,
you all remember that some
of our old battleships
lined up there either
were sunk or beached.
And we had, for all
practical purposes,
lost our Pacific fleet.
It appeared as though
it was almost too late,
but we did get down to
the agonizing business
of rebuilding for
a counter-attack.
And the history books show
that in spite of all obstacles
we finally, we finally did win.
After that, followed those usual
negotiations between the winner
and the loser.
But even while we were winning,
certain American leaders,
perhaps fooled by
Stalin, they arranged
things so we lost nearly as much
as we gained, possibly more.
As our troops rushed in
triumph through Germany
they got the word to
slow down, slow down.
Let the Russians move in.
Let the Russians take
over East Germany,
take over the great
city of Berlin.
Today, a nation of
people who love communism
so well that they
have to be walled in
and kept in with guns,
they are a tragic monument
to those people who seek
to appease the enemy.
[weapons fired]
In meetings at Yalta with
Lenin's cunning successor,
Stalin, the Russians managed
to take over all of Eastern
Europe, much of Asia.
We know what happened
in the Far East,
and how they put
it over on China.
And so the stage was set
for Korea, and a little later
on for Vietnam.
In 1945, everybody
thought the war was over,
but our real enemy was
still going strong.
This was the so-called
ally that we had let
take East Germany and Berlin.
Now I'm not speaking
of the Russian people,
and I won't speak of
the Chinese people.
I'm speaking of the
communist conspiracy.
So many of the great Americans
of the last generation
are no longer with us to give
us the firsthand account of what
happened behind the scenes,
behind the false front
of communist cooperation
after the war.
We are fortunate that one of the
greatest leaders, a conqueror
of the Nazis in
Italy, is here and can
tell it like it was when it came
to getting along with the Reds.
This is General Mark Clark.
After the end of World War
II, when the fighting stopped
in Italy, and I took the
surrender of the German forces
there, I went into Austria
as the American occupation
commander and High Commissioner.
Russian armies were
there in Austria as well,
and I sat on a quadri-apartheid
meeting with the Russians
and the British, the
French and ourselves
in order to implement the
agreement that the nations had
made at Potsdam,
which was to bring
about free and independent and
democratic Austria once more.
Saw firsthand the duplicity of
the Soviets, how they looted,
killed, murdered, and that
they couldn't be believed.
I found that every
constructive move
and suggestion we
made to help Austria
was vetoed by the Soviets.
When I went with Burns to the
conference of foreign ministers
in England, and then
with Marshal into Moscow,
and there again I saw the
difficulty, the almost
impossibility of doing business
with the Russians and that
you should do it from a
position of extreme force,
and you never compromise,
and you never show weakness.
Or they see weakness, they
despise it, and exploit it.
And when they see strength
and determination,
that's when they sit
up and take notice.
In the aftermath
of the war, the Reds
managed to grab off
East Germany and all
the countries that are now
on the wrong side of the Iron
Curtain.
And for the next big
move to encircle a world,
they looked to east to Asia.
There a lot of garbled
accounts of what
really happened when the
East began to go Red,
but we have the number
one authority with us,
who can give it to us straight.
This is a man who is more
familiar with Asian communism
than anyone else
in America today.
He is General Albert
C. Wedemeyer, former US
commander in the Far East.
He sat and listened to Mao
Tse-tung tell how they,
the Reds were going
to take over China.
The general warned the State
Department at that time
that we should support Chiang
Kai-Shek if we didn't want
the biggest country in the
world with 700 million people
to be lost to communism.
Unfortunately,
nobody was listening.
We'll listen to him now,
General Albert C. Wedemeyer.
I have spent 10 years
in the Orient living
in China, the
Philippines, and in India.
Experiences and
observations in those areas
provide the basis for
my ideas and suggestions
about the Vietnam war.
At the close of World
War II, the Soviet Union
accelerated plans for the
conquest of the Far East.
In 1946, the Republic of
China, Japan, and Thailand
were the only independent
nations in that area.
Moscow planned to exploit the
industrial know-how of Japan,
the vast pool of
manpower in China,
and the natural
resources in Southeast
Asia, the Philippines,
Indonesia,
and the Melanesian islands.
During General MacArthur's wise
and courageous administration,
Communist efforts
to communize Japan
were successfully blocked.
The Soviet Union then turned
its attention to mainland China.
With the connivance of
the Red Chinese leaders,
Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai,
mainland China, an area greater
in extent than the United
States, and 700 million people
were drawn within the orbit
of the Soviet Union in 1949.
The loss of China to
the tyranny of communism
was a black mark
on the escutcheon
of the United States.
Instead of supporting our
loyal World War II ally, Chiang
Kai-Shek, the United States
government adopted a hands
off policy which was dramatized
by the then Secretary
of State's announcement quote,
we will let the dust settle out
there," end of quote.
You and I know that the
dust was settled in Korea
and is now being settled in
Vietnam with American blood.
Chiang Kai-Shek,
and his government
were compelled to
withdraw to Formosa
where they maintained
a strong bastion
against communists advance.
I believe then, and do now,
that we should have continued
our support of the strongly
anti-Communist government
of Nationalist China.
Had we done so, the United
States would not today
experience an uneasy
peace in Korea
and a costly war in Vietnam.
Of course the next communist
move in their continuous war
on the free world was Korea.
And after General MacArthur was
pulled out for being too tough
on the commies, General
Mark Clark was ordered
to Korea to pick up the pieces.
He soon found out
he was faced again
with the same ol'
problems when it
came to dealing with the reds.
General Mark Clark.
President Truman sent
me out to the Far East
to take command
during the Korean
War the last year and a half.
And there I saw them
again, I saw them this time
on the field of battle.
I saw how treacherous they were,
how they murder our prisoners
of war, and how they could not
be relied upon to carry out any
of their promises or
live up to the rules
of the Geneva
Convention concerning
prisoners or conduct of war.
The so-called Korean War
was the first evidence
since the pullback from
Berlin of a no-win policy.
Apparently Hitler was the
last enemy we were supposed
to put up a fight against.
General Clark found
out that he had
to try to wage war with one,
or maybe both hands, tied.
The fighting was
severe at that time
the Chinese had entered
the war, and there
were many limitations
that were placed upon me
as the commander-in-chief.
I could not hit, for
example, the bridges
over the Yellow River over
which the killers came
with their paraphernalia,
their ammunition, their tanks,
and whatnot to kill our men.
It seemed to me that that was
completely wrong that we should
not take out those bridges.
And that would make it more
difficult for the enemy
to maintain his
position on the field.
We were not able to hit
the city of Pyongyang
because there were
ammunition plants
that were hidden within it.
We did not hit certain power
plants that provided power
for North China and Manchuria.
But in spite of all the
difficulties, a kind of peace
was finally arranged in Korea.
At that time we never heard of a
place called Vietnam, which was
to be the next Red
battle in their long war
against the free world.
Vietnam was in a part of the
French colonial possession
known as Indochina.
The reports were
that the Indochinese
were fighting for
independence from the French.
[explosions]
This may have been so, but
it was also a good excuse
for a communist takeover
to switch the ruling
powers from France to the Reds.
The so-called
revolution was headed
by a character with a funny
beard and an unfunny reputation
as a terrorist.
His name was Ho Chi Minh.
He was what the historians
call a dedicated revolutionary.
Ho was born in 1890 and was a
communist even as a young man.
He was so active that he helped
form the French Communist
Party in 1920.
All during the '30s, the Kremlin
used him to foment trouble
in the Orient, and aided him in
building up a fanatic follower.
When he died in 1969, the
London Daily Telegraph
debunked the picture of
Ho as a simple patriot.
I quote, "there are always men
who, for one reason or another,
will rhapsodize on the qualities
of even the worst tyrant.
Ho Chi Minh's record
for cold-blooded,
and often bestial murder of
men, women, and children,
ranks him beside Hitler and
Stalin for shear atrocity,"
unquote.
Now during Ho's
career, he was paraded
around the communist
world, where
the masses were trotted out
to give him a big reception
wherever he went.
He was feted by such Red liners
as India's Krishna Menon,
and of course, by, the then
big boss of communism, Nikita
Khrushchev, as well as
all the secondary world
wields of the party.
Ho made his biggest
effort at a place
called Dien Bien Phu where
he beseeched the French army.
The United States was asked
to bring an air strike
in against Red positions.
The United States refused.
In any event, the French
cause was probably
doomed because the leftist
French government forced
their army to fight a no-win
war as General Clark had been
forced to fight in
Korea, So Ho was
able to inflict a humiliating
defeat on the French.
NARRATOR: At the Geneva Peace
Conference, which followed,
it was agreed that Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam
would be independent nations.
However, Vietnam was
partitioned temporarily,
and the two areas divided
by the 17th parallel--
the north area to
be under the control
of the communist stooge,
Ho Chi Minh, and the south
to be under the former
French puppet, Bao Dai.
Immediately after the
Geneva Conference,
Ho Chi Minh and his
Viet Cong followers
launched an extensive and
brutal campaign of subversion
and guerrilla action.
More than 50,000 South
Vietnamese, including village
officials, teachers, merchants,
and law enforcement officers
were kidnapped,
mutilated, or killed
by the Viet Cong Guerrillas.
Too often our own
information media, TV, radio,
and the press, are responsible
for a wide-held impression
that the North Vietnamese
and the Viet Cong
are the good guys,
and we, the South
Vietnamese, the South
Koreans, and Americans,
are the bad guys.
The Red liners of all
countries had a ball castigating
the United States,
but no one ever
complained about the
almost daily Viet
Cong mortaring of towns and
the killing of civilians.
Well, anyway, to give you
an idea of how popular
Ho and his crowd were after
they kicked out the French,
the Geneva Conference
gave all Vietnamese
300 days to go
either north or south
to the Red or non-Red area.
Word of this opportunity
to make a choice
was supposed to be
circulated in every village
and town in the land.
While Ho understandably
made no effort
to broadcast this information,
over 1,200 thousand people who
found themselves in
the Communist North
streamed south to freedom
below the 17th parallel.
This rush was still in progress
when the 300 days were up,
and Ho dropped the
bamboo curtain.
But in spite of the fact that
he lowered the boom on them,
officially, the continual
defection of North Vietnamese
and defection from the
supposedly dedicated Viet Cong
goes on to this day.
From before 1960,
US advisers were
aiding the South Vietnamese.
We had in the area what
was known as the Military
Assistance Command.
We are fortunate
to be able to hear
from the man who was in charge
almost from the beginning,
General Paul Harkin.
From February 8,
1962 until June 1964,
I was the commander of
the United States Military
Assistance Command in Vietnam.
And at capacity, I commanded
all the United States
forces in South Vietnam,
the army, the Navy,
the Air Force, and the Marines.
We had no American combat
troops in Vietnam at that time.
Our role was strictly advisory.
In that capacity, we trained
the Army, Navy, and Air Force
of the Vietnamese armed forces.
You have probably heard people
say that the United States
shouldn't be over there in
the first place, that's it
an immoral war, that
we are there illegally.
The record shows that after
the partition of Vietnam,
President Eisenhower promised
the government of South
Vietnam, all possible aid.
At the Geneva Conference,
the North Vietnamese
agreed not to molest people
south of the 17th parallel,
but when the Viet Cong started
infiltrating and slaughtering
village leaders, administrators,
and school teachers,
the president of South
Vietnam asked for our help.
He didn't ask Russia.
He didn't ask communist China.
He asked the United
States of America
if we could assist in
stopping communist aggression
and helping build up the
resources of his country.
This was when my headquarters,
the Military Assistance Command
was established.
The South Vietnamese didn't have
quite enough forces to protect
all the villages at once.
And we started in 1961, what
we call the Strategic Hamlet
Program, which simply
meant a trained
local force to protect
the local people
from communist infiltration.
By the American
advisors, the situation
was frustrating in the extreme.
They would aid a village
in building a school
and on the first dark night,
the Viet Cong guerrillas
would destroy it by mortar
fire with mortars made
in Russia or Communist China.
In the back country,
other Americans
were helping to distribute food,
medicine, and needed supplies.
Special forces
played an active part
in training the South
Vietnamese soldiers,
as well as the Montagnard
people in the highland.
The special forces, a
new unit in our services,
is called the Green Berets.
One of the best known of these
is Sergeant Barry Sadler.
We have a big job in Vietnam.
The villagers on both the
Mekong and the Highland
are constantly threatened
by the Viet Cong
and their North
Vietnamese allies,
and often recruited
into their armed forces,
sometimes with use of
propaganda, promises, lies.
When that fails,
they don't hesitate
to use force, terrorism, even
to butchering entire villages
as an example to
those who won't listen
to their friendly persuasion.
And when they use force, they
use these, modern weapons made
in Communist China
and the Soviet
Union, their communist allies.
I spent a great deal of
my time in the Vietnam
working as a medic.
I work in the villages with the
people, and they needed help.
And over a period of years,
the health of these people
has been greatly improved by
the US medics in the field.
You can't get to really
know the people of Vietnam
by staying around Saigon.
Saigon's a big city with 4
and 1/2 million people in it,
and with worst traffic than
you'll find in New York.
The marketplaces are crowded and
filled with black market goods,
everything from American
coffee to opium.
And like all cities
in a war zone,
the profiteers are
after the buck.
But south of Saigon
lies the delta,
28,000 square miles of the
richest rice land in the world,
rice land the communist won.
Here's a housewife out catching
poisonous snakes for the family
dinner, and glad to get them.
Where the Viet Cong mortared
or burned a village,
we came in to collect refugees
and ferry them to a new, more
secure area, one that was
safe from the guerrillas,
at least for the time being.
Of course, the roads were
mined or under possible mortar
attack, and the villagers had to
be moved in airborne operation.
And everything went, including
burial urns which contained
the ashes of their ancestors,
because these people always
carry their dead with them.
More and more
aircraft were needed.
But as we seem to be
getting somewhere,
it so infuriated the
communists that they
stepped up their attacks on
these unarmed innocent people.
Whole villages were
burned to the ground.
Farmers were
mortared and machine
gunned in their rice
paddies while trying
to gather their crops.
The attacks became more and
more vicious and fanatical.
It seems incredible,
but the knowledge
of these terror tactics
didn't inflame the free world
against the communists.
But unbelievably criticism of
our operations began to mount.
It was frustrating for a
soldier halfway around the world
fighting a war, and it
seemed like the enemy was
the good guy in the white hats.
It was as if the
American public were
only getting the information
the Reds wanted them to.
In fact, I'd say the Press had
been more help to the enemy
than a fresh division.
To the Americans in the
mid 60s the situation
really became explosive.
All the troops were
told to avoid combat.
We were losing more and
more advisors all the time.
In the summer of '64,
some of our destroyers
were patrolling in the Gulf
of Concord, and two of them
were fired upon by North
Vietnamese gunboats.
A man who was in
the unique position
to see the whole thing
develop is Admiral
US Grant Sharp, former Commander
in Chief of Pacific operations.
Admiral Sharp.
In early 1965,
President Johnson
decided that US combat troops
were necessary in South Vietnam
to keep the country from being
overrun by the communists,
so that is how it started.
Our objectives are
clear and honorable.
They are simply to prevent
the success of North
Vietnamese aggression, to
prevent Viet Cong terror,
and to allow the country to
live in peace and freedom.
While our objectives
are correct,
the methods we have
used to achieve them
leave much to be desired.
We inserted our
forces piecemeal,
and then, worst of all, we
never used our tremendous air
and Naval power effectively.
Before the admiral
goes on, notice
that just as with the Berlin
pullback in World War II,
and the hamstringing
of the military
during the Korean
mess, the no-win policy
dictated by behind the
scenes powers in Washington
is again in force
and has been ever
since President
Kennedy committed
us to this no-win conflict.
From the beginning, we
should have closed the harbor
of Haiphong and prevented
all the vital imports
from reaching that area.
Instead, we permitted them
to import all the necessities
of war without any difficulties
whatsoever despite the fact
that we control the seas.
This was a great
mistake of course,
and immeasurably
increased the casualties
that our side incurred.
One of the best features
of a Naval blockade,
or a blockade by mining, is that
there are very few casualties
involved.
The country which is
blockaded against simply
doesn't get the
supplies they need,
and thus their capacity to
fight is greatly reduced.
Whenever we fight
the communists,
they seem to have help
from somebody on our side.
Somebody always
wants to bend over
backwards to avoid
getting tough with them,
doing them any damage.
I can't figure this as
a innocent attitude,
especially since the
Reds tell us continually
exactly what
they're going to do.
Now Lenin said war is
simply continuation
of politics by other means.
He's admitting that if
they can't convert you
by peaceful means, they'll
just switch to violence
and pull a gun on you.
He also said something
else in that book.
He said that the assistance
of the Soviet Republic
side by side with the United
States is unthinkable.
One or the other must
triumph in the end.
Now Lenin's school of
poetical warfare in Moscow
teaches that, "war is to
the hilt between communism
and the free world.
It is inevitable."
Now don't take my word for it,
just get one of these books
and read it for yourself.
If you want to know how
they're doing so far,
let's take a look.
They have East Europe.
They're around big
Cuba on one side
and getting ready to break
out in Korea on the other,
and about to wear us
to a nub in Vietnam.
Well, the patience of a
nation or the fighting men
will wear out.
If your own side won't let
you win since that's what
the Reds want, it
makes you wonder
who's controlling our destiny.
The boys on the firing line
are the most frustrated of all.
Listen to a man who
not long ago was
flying a gunship in Vietnam.
We were never really allowed
to go on the offensive.
We were constantly
clearing out areas,
only to let the Viet
Cong go back in as soon
as we had moved out.
On the search and
destroy missions
we would burn up
an area with lead,
or lay down a base of
fire as the term is.
Then the troops were lifted in.
The boys would be landed
and take off into the brush
after the Viet Cong.
When the guys on the
ground were at work,
the expression,
smoking them out,
was an appropriate description
of how they operated.
Later, after they
had swept the area,
we'd come back and pick them up,
and fly them back to the base.
It would be anywhere from
two days to two months.
One thing great
about the chopper,
we would be able to get
the wounded to the hospital
in a matter of minutes.
We arranged the delta
looking for infiltrators,
but the trouble was justice in
the city streets, the markets,
or on the water front, the
North Vietnamese and the
South Vietnamese look alike.
And you can't tell them
apart until it's too late.
The sand-pans below
contain concealed
guerrilla terrorists
armed to the teeth
and loaded down with grenades.
Our night photo planes told
us that during the night
they had slipped
in from Cambodia,
but due to the
political restrictions
we couldn't hit them.
One thing bad about the
war, we couldn't shoot
until they fired at us first.
A lot of my buddies never
got a chance to fire back.
It's tough when
a politician gets
a hold of your trigger finger.
Sometimes we found their boats
hidden in marsh areas covered
with reeds, these, we destroyed
because the area was off limits
to the local populace.
Once the troops uncovered
an ammunition assembly
plant that was actually
below the surface
of the swampy terrain.
The troops found a lot of
grenades and explosives
with Chinese markings, the
products of munitions factories
in Red China.
When an area became heavily
overrun with Viet Cong,
we would pinpoint them
and call in the Air Force.
With our let the enemy
shoot first policy
we saved a lot of American
lives by not having
to drop our ground soldiers
into the hot spots,
but the bearded, bleeding hearts
at home and lefty politicians
soon put a stop to this.
I guess we weren't
supposed to hurt the enemy.
The kind of war we
were forced to fight
was bound to get us nowhere.
But worst of all, the
guys on the ground
might take an area or
a hill with great loss
of blood and life.
They would have to
withdraw and might
have to take it all over
again three months later.
We all felt more and more
frustrated as time went by.
Now I can understand why so
many of the people at home
wanted us to call it quits
and bring the troops home.
Most Americans at home
are honestly concerned.
But unlike any other war that
we were ever involved in,
we have a
communist-inspired front
in our streets working
on the civilities
of a lot of honest people.
They claim they are simply going
all out for peace, while a lot
of them burn the American
flag, stamp it into the ground
while waving the flag
of the Viet Cong,
who have tortured and
killed tens of thousands
of innocent civilians whose only
crime was that they resisted
joining the Red ranks.
Would you call a
person who backed
the enemy, a peace advocate or
a member of the enemy's forces?
Well, someone who backs our
forces, who has traveled
to Vietnam many times, who has
gone to all the combat zones
to entertain the
fighting men, and one
of the best loved stars
of the American public,
is Martha Raye.
She can tell it like
is, Martha Raye.
Thank you, Duke, from one
green beret to another.
I've just returned
from my eighth trip
overseas with our
troops, and I'm now
returning from my ninth trip.
I take it and my gear together
to go back home with my family,
and they're also
your family too.
Our troops are shocked at the
attitude of college officials
and others who stoutly maintain
there is no organized direction
to the [inaudible], that
all the demonstrations are
spontaneous and unorganized.
We may rest assure these
servicemen are not deceived.
The Reds have declared
in no uncertain terms
that they are going to destroy
the moral character of a
generation of young Americans.
And when they have
finished, there
will be nothing left to
defend ourselves against them.
And they're doing a
pretty thorough job
on some of our kids.
And while this is
happening, they
won't let us defend
ourselves in the manner
that all great military
minds advocate, to attack,
strike the enemy in
his own territory.
We keep coming back to this as
a central problem in our war
on communism.
Let Admiral Sharp tell it
to you the way he saw it.
The major problem was that we
were restricted in the targets
that we could hit.
We started in the southern
part of North Vietnam
and gradually worked north.
Will the result that the North
Vietnamese with the Soviet's
assistance were permitted
to build up their defenses
around Hanoi and Hai Phong.
So that when our
planes eventually
got into the
Hanoi-Hai Phong area,
they were met by the most
concentrated and accurate air
defenses that any
country has ever faced.
Even so, with their
very heavy defenses
and with the restrictions
are on our air attacks,
we were still able to damage
North Vietnam to the extent
that in the fall of 1967,
they were in great difficulty.
Had we been allowed
to go in 1968,
and hit the targets
that needed to be hit,
and keep the targets down
that we had already hit,
the war would certainly had
been over by the end of 1968.
If you aren't sufficiently
convinced by the admiral,
listen to one of the
Navy bomber pilots.
I think I'm speaking for 99%
of all the men that have been
to Vietnam, whether
in a flying status
or on the ground, when I say
that it's one of the most
frustrating experiences a man,
particularly a fighting man,
could go through.
I think I can say that all
of us who went over there,
and I know all of us
that were together
in my particular
group, went over
there with a
exhilarating feeling
that they were going
to go into battle
and do the job that
had to be done.
They were going to be allowed
to get to the targets.
And of course, we always
go in with the feeling
that we want to help the men on
the ground as much as we can,
and we do this by bombing
the necessary targets.
The logistics lines,
the munitions dumps,
the petroleum stations that
prevent the enemy from getting
this stuff down
into South Vietnam
and using it against our men
and, our allies, the South
Vietnamese.
But it wasn't long until
we realized that because
of the political
restrictions that were placed
upon this particular
war, it was to be
similar to the Korean
War, only probably worse.
And that we were not allowed
to get to these targets
that we knew were necessary
targets and vital targets,
to destroy them and to prevent
these supplies, and enemy
equipment, and enemy
soldiers from getting
into South Vietnam.
We knew that they
were going down there.
And we knew how they
were getting down there.
We knew where the targets were.
But there was so much
frustration in there
that when they came back,
and we told the people back
on the carriers, the
air intelligence people,
the admiral's war room, that
these targets were there,
that we'd like to go bomb them,
they were just as frustrated
as we were because
they had to then send
a message back to
Washington to get permission
to bomb these targets.
And this permission never came.
I recall when they
were first setting up
the missiles sites over there.
Missiles, at that time, had been
used against American aircraft
flying over North Vietnam.
But we came back and told
the responsible people
on the carrier that these
missile sites were going up,
that we could see
them down there,
they were getting
prepared, that we
ought to go back and bomb them.
But once again, our
hands were tied,
the admiral's hands were tied.
They had to go
back to Washington
through channels
with a message, and
the message came
back, no, we could
not bomb the missile sites.
Until the time came
that two of our planes
were shot down on these
missiles on a night
mission or an early
evening mission.
And the whole thing was they
tried to give the indication
that they had not known ahead
of time that these missile
sites were there.
And of course, this is
frustrating to a man
to see his friends, roommate,
the people that he has gone
through training with, go
down in a situation knowing
full well that it
could have been
prevented long before had
the politicians allowed
you to do so.
Now, when I say
restrictions once again,
I say restrictions,
such as these.
We could fly over
enemy air fields
where the planes were
sitting on the airfield.
We knew what they were there
for but we couldn't harm them.
These same planes could
come up behind our aircraft,
and shoot them down, and
climb back down on the deck,
and we were not permitted
to go after them
once they got to that airfield.
There was even
such a restriction
at the particular time I was
there that you could not shoot
an enemy aircraft until he had
fired at you, which is to say
that, if he didn't
shoot you down first,
then you had a chance at him.
I wish that some of the
liberal senators taking
on a negative stand
in this situation
to promote their own
political ambitions
could be put in the
same spot as our boys
overseas with one
arm tied behind them,
or maybe two, face
this treacherous enemy.
One time, we
couldn't bomb convoys.
Finally, we were cleared to
bomb these particular targets
but only so long as
they were on a roadway.
It doesn't matter if you knew
that this particular convoy
was carrying
munitions, supplies,
going into South Vietnam.
We knew their routes.
We knew where they
were going down Route 1
through Mu Gia Pass.
And as far as bomb
shortages at that time,
Mr. McNamara, who was
Secretary of Defense,
was decrying that there was no
substance to the information
that we were experiencing a
shortage of bombs, aircraft,
or flyers in the Vietnam area.
And Congressman Mitchell
had been on the carrier
and had personally
seen these missions
where we were taking off.
Loading with maybe
1/5 a bomb load.
An aircraft that could carry 24
of this particular type bomb,
we were carrying maybe
four of these bombs.
On some days, instead
of carrying bombs
to a target that clearly
called for bombs,
we'd be carrying rockets.
And when you'd ask your deck
officer why we were doing this,
he would say because we don't
have enough bombs to last
the rest of the month if we
carry them on every load,
or if we load the planes fully.
So it was obvious to us that
we were sending out five planes
on a mission, or four planes,
that were loaded with maybe
a fourth or a fifth of a load of
bombs, when we could have sent
one or two planes
with a full load,
and gotten the same job done
with a minimum risk of lives
and equipment.
Of course, you're talking about
a $3.5 million aircraft in case
you're not interested
in the lives involves,
but this is a thing that was
frustrating to us, you see.
Our only concern was
that we could get in
and be allowed to do the job.
When you send men into war,
you should send them in there
with the idea they are
risking their lives,
and for risking
those lives, they
should be allowed to do the
job, to take the action that's
necessary to minimize
the risk of their lives
and to get to the enemy
and get the job done
in a minimum amount
of time and get
back their homes and their
families where they want to be.
And this hasn't been
done in Vietnam.
And the only way
that we're going
to come to a successful
conclusion over there
is to defeat the enemy.
Just as bad as a
no-win restriction,
maybe worse, is the
policy of helping
the enemy to get
goods and munitions
with which to defeat it.
Does that sound idiotic?
We'll listen to a
young green beret
named Peter Stark who lost
both legs below the knees
in Vietnam.
The only way to
break communist will
is to break the communist back.
To do this, you must eliminate
their access to that material
which they need to wage a war.
You must eliminate their means.
The United States had never
significantly attempted
to eliminate their
means of war with which
they kill American soldiers
in the South Vietnam.
We have assured their main
supplier of war goods,
the Soviet Union, and its
satellite nation, its colonies,
which supplies 80% of all the
North Vietnamese war material,
we have assured the Soviet
Bloc countries that we will not
interfere in their
shipment of war goods
to the North Vietnamese enemy.
At the same time that we
have assured them we will not
interfere with his shipment,
we have continued our policy
of trading with the Soviet Bloc,
of sending strategic materials
to the Soviet enemy.
For example, in 1966, the United
States sent the Soviet Union
the entire technical
specifications
which they needed to
build a glycerol plant.
Glycerol is used in the
manufacture of explosives.
I think everybody's
heard of nitroglycerin.
Specifically, in
Vietnam, glycerol is used
as a detonator in booby traps.
Over 50% of all American
casualties suffered in South
Vietnam have come
from booby traps.
I do not think it can be
satisfactorily explained
to a man who has lost
his eyesight because
of a booby trap-- or to the
parents of a man who has been
killed on a booby trap
in South Vietnam--
why the government that sent
this man to South Vietnam
refuses to interfere not
only with the enemy receiving
this type of
weapon, but actually
helped the enemy to produce it.
A screaming example, late 1969,
we loaned Sweden $50 million.
Early 1970, Sweden loans $45
million directly to Hanoi.
For those of us
who have been there,
Vietnam is not a phony war.
It was and is a very real war.
It is not a limited
war because there is
no such thing as limited death.
We're glad to have fought
in Vietnam for the United
States of America
and for freedom
of the South Vietnamese people.
Many of my friends, your sons,
your husbands, your brothers,
and in some cases, your
fathers, have died fighting
the communist enemy in Asia.
You should be very
proud of these men.
They were good men.
They died for the
freedom of others.
No more can be
asked from any man.
They were willing to fight
because they know that
on that day that Americans
are not willing to fight
for their freedom.
On that day, America will no
longer have its own freedom.
Many people have not
been informed of the fact
that Vietnam is more than
just an isolated burstfire
war halfway around the world.
It has a much deeper
meaning than that.
Vietnam is one battle
in a war for the world.
It is a battle we are losing
not on the field of battle
but here at home.
The Soviet empire is expanding.
The communists are definitely
serious about their stated
goal of world conquest.
They are as serious as Hitler
and his National Socialist
Party were about world conquest.
All Americans must remember
that the Soviet enemy is
only 20 minutes away by rocket.
Finally, there was a great
hue and cry to get the Reds
to the so-called peace table.
After all proof to the
contrary over the years
some people still believe
you could talk the Reds
out of taking over our country.
Now, to get the
enemy to talk peace,
you usually bear down hard on
him so that he's had enough
and wants to get out.
Not us, not our
state department,
not our defense department,
we did just the opposite.
We made it easy
on the communists
by stopping the
bombing altogether.
Let Admiral Sharp
comment on that.
Then, in March of 1968, it
was decided to halt the bombing
of the vital areas
of North Vietnam
in order to entice the enemies
to come to the conference table
to negotiate a peace.
Before the North Vietnamese
even got to the conference table
and started negotiating,
we had stopped
all bombing of North Vietnam.
So here was a country
with tremendous air
power allowing an adversary
to fight from a sanctuary.
Were the communists
going to negotiate
under those conditions?
Certainly not.
They were going to delay
meaningful negotiations,
hoping that our natural
impatience to end the war
would get the
better of us, and we
would make concessions to
them which would result
in victory for their side.
Indeed when our bombing was
cut back in March of 1968,
the communists
proclaimed it a victory,
and a victory it really was.
So now we have been negotiating
in Paris for over two years,
and what have the results been?
Absolutely nothing.
We have made concession
after concession,
and the North Vietnamese have
offered absolutely nothing
in return.
They have simply used the
Paris meetings as a propaganda
platform from which to declare
that the United States is
the aggressor in the war,
that we must pull out all
of our troops before
they will consider
any meaningful negotiations.
So this is what we face as a
result of our all out efforts
to bring them to the
conference table.
What do the men who have
to do the fighting think
about the so-called
peace negotiation?
Right now we have people
that think that you can
talk with the
commies, and I think
history proves that you cannot.
I've looked at this enough, and
I am sure that people that are
much more experienced
in the field
of negotiating
with the Communists
would tell you the same thing.
The only time the communists
come to the peace table
is when they feel that they
have something to gain there
or for stalling.
And this means that
they have more time
to build up their
troops in the field
and to get more ammunition,
more troops into the battle,
and play publicity and
propaganda, particularly when
you have a situation like
we have in this country now
where people are expressing
their opposition to the war.
And of course, I can understand
some of this opposition
because the way the
politicians have used it.
They left themselves
wide open for opposition.
But the fact remains
that the only way
to stop the communist
action in Southeast Asia
is from a position of
unassailable strength.
That's the only thing
they understand.
For those of us who
have fought in Vietnam,
the peace talks have always
been, at best, futile,
at worst, tragic.
Tragic for those soldiers in
South Vietnamese who had been
killed because of the
improper and incorrect
use of the combination of
military and diplomatic means.
Correct diplomacy,
correct negotiations,
are used to shorten the
war, not to prolong the war.
The great statesmen that our
nation has had in the past
have been those statesmen with
the courage and resolution
to allow their military
do that job for which
the military is established.
Great statesmen are not people
who hamstring the military
and prolong the decision.
Peace negotiation and
peace depend on two things.
One is the will of
the enemy, the other
is the means of the enemy.
You must either
destroy the enemy will
or destroy the
means the enemy has.
Now, the United States
has always had the means.
The men and material
successfully wage
the war in Vietnam and win.
However, at the
policy level, we have
never had the desire to win.
We have never had
the will to win.
The North Vietnamese
communists, on the other hand,
have never had the
material or manpower
to defeat the United
States soldiers
on the field of battle.
Their leadership, however,
has the will to win.
They have the will, the
desire, and the determination
to conquer South Vietnam.
Communists are determined men,
they are very serious men,
they are very brutal men.
At this point I think we
should let General Clark
tell us how he managed
to get the Reds
to the peace table in Korea.
So after being at
Panmunjom, being in charge
of the negotiations there,
and our people being insulted
almost daily, I finally
plead with my government
to let me break off
the negotiations
and place on the
conference table,
a reasonable American
position, one upon which
we could sign an armistice.
When finally Washington
permitted me to do so,
we walked out.
And then I called
in my commanders
of the Navy, the
Air, and the Army,
and we sat around for days.
How could we hurt the enemy
within the limitations
imposed upon us?
And one by one with the
exception of permission
to bomb the Yellow
River bridges,
I had these
limitations taken off.
Our hands were untied.
And we hit the dams, and
we took out their power.
We hit their dams and
inundated their fields.
We attacked Pyongyang,
the capital of North Korea
after notifying the people
that we were coming.
And we just pounded
them until it hurt them.
And then about three
months later, Kim Il-sung
sent me a message, and said,
let's go back to the conference
table, and let's trade
prisoners of war and our sick
and wounded.
That's something we had asked
to do many months before.
So then we got down
to business and began
to work on an armistice.
Then General Eisenhower,
my old West Point comrade,
came over as the
President-elect.
And we had our plans
to present to him,
and I presented
them to him, how we
could win the war by
the use of the Naval
and Air power primarily.
I'm not a believer in slugging
it out man for man on the field
of battle with communists
because the American GI
is a very precious commodity.
And the communists don't
care how many of their men
they kill.
So not having had the
determination to win that war,
we got busy, as I was directed,
and we signed an armistice.
Now, that armistice was violated
by the communists the next day,
and it's been violated
by them ever since.
And as I signed that Korean
armistice I was convinced that
had we step out
and had the courage
to win in our first test
of arms with communism,
and win decisively, we would
not be in the predicament
and the mess we find ourselves
in at the present time
in Vietnam.
What's the answer?
One political leader
who hasn't kept silent
is Alaskan Senator [inaudible].
He went to Vietnam
to see for himself.
Our liberal Press has not seen
fit to spotlight his remarks,
here they are.
Well, the most brilliant
military men in our country
have said that we must win
in Vietnam, General Mark
Clark, General Al
Wedemeyer, General
Paul Harkins, Admiral Sharp.
The military
commanders in the field
have all said that there can
be no satisfactory conclusion
to the war in Vietnam
without a military victory.
We have the ships,
we have the guns,
we have the planes,
what is lacking?
We have the men, we
have the courage, what
is lacking is a will to win.
Richard Nixon, himself, has
said what is needed in Vietnam
is a will to win, but
our State Department
does not have a will to win.
In fact, they have
said that they do
not intend to win in Vietnam.
One of our top advisers to
the president, Dr. Kissinger,
has said, that military
victory in Vietnam
is neither possible
nor desirable.
This fuzzy thinking,
this no-win thinking
has resulted in the loss
of more American lives
than either World
War I or Korea.
It's resulted in the longest
war in American history,
certainly, the most frustrating
war in American history.
The question is
this fuzzy thinking
or is it something else?
With Congress rests the
constitutional authority
to determine foreign policy.
Congress must
reassert its authority
and determine the
foreign policy.
It must require that
military decisions
be made by military men.
Our men on the battlefield must
be given the chance to win.
In war there must be victory.
Some people are demanding
an abrupt pull-out.
They seem to believe
that the Reds will stop
fighting and killing
at once and that there
will be instant peace.
Well, let's hear again
from General Harkins.
If we pull out
abruptly, the Reds
will have a free hand as
they had when they took Hue
in that infamous Tet Offensive.
They massacred and mutilated
thousands of civilians.
There will be a frightful
massacre of those who have
resisted communism
in South Vietnam,
and perhaps in the
rest of the countries
of Southeast Asia such as Laos,
and Cambodia, and Thailand.
It may further open
the way to infiltration
and maybe attacks from
some of the other countries
such as Malaysia,
Indonesia, Australia, New
Zealand, and the Philippines.
The communists haven't stopped
in their world defensive
so far.
I think it's tragic
and unfortunate
that the people of
the United States
must be constantly reminded
that the communists have said
they were going to surround this
and they were going to bury us.
They said they were going
to take over Eastern Europe
and they have.
They tried to come
down through Greece,
and we helped to stop them.
They tried to come
through North Korea,
and with the aid of
15 other free nations,
we stopped them again.
They've taken over Cuba.
They're very active
in Latin America.
And now they're trying to come
down through Southeast Asia.
I would say they're pretty
well surrounding us.
I think it's far
better to stop them
on some faraway distant shores
than wait for another Pearl
Harbor, or perhaps, to try
to stop them on the shores
of the United States.
Tom Hayden has been
called America's most
decorated civilian to
have served in Vietnam.
He was in Hue after
the Tet massacre.
Listen to his account of how
the communists exterminate those
who oppose them, Tom Hayden.
A North Vietnamese
regiment captured
the ancient capital of Hue
during the Tet Offensive
in January of 1968.
The North Vietnamese
asked the Hue citizens
to join them and oppose
the Saigon government.
The people of Hue said no,
then came the massacre.
Over 4,000 civilian graves
have been found, many of them
were buried alive.
Over 1,000 people
are still missing.
Those in America who say that
the people of South Vietnam
support the communists,
refused to remember Hue.
They have forgotten
[inaudible] where
over 100 Motagnards
were murdered,
men, women, and children.
Here is the latest example
of the popular support
the communists have
in South Vietnam.
Saigon, Viet Cong troops attack
a South Vietnamese village
south of Da Nang.
Over 75 civilians were
killed and 85 wounded.
The survivors of the Viet Cong
invaded by reading Hamlet,
stated that the enemy
ran through the streets,
shooting anyone
they found, throwing
grenades into their homes and
into their civilian bunkers.
But some of the
news media will tell
you that the South
Vietnamese are
not fighting for their freedom.
That is a lie.
I spent over two
years with the people
and they are
fighting for freedom.
The Hue massacre should
prove that many of them
are dieing for their freedom.
We can't get out.
We lead a vacuum and
years to come we've paid
ten times the amount of blood.
And if we get no
response whatsoever
to our stopping of the
bombing and our initiatives
towards peace, it may be
that we will have to step
up and intensify the war.
And then if we
do, I'm sure we'll
bring the communist to
the conference table,
and we'll bring him fast.
[weapons firing]
[explosions]
When it comes to the
question of our pulling out,
I think one of the most
significant comments
was made by General [inaudible],
field commander, whose
troops were
surrounded and forced
to surrender at Dien Bien Phu.
[non-english speech]
General [inaudible]
does not speak English,
but in French, he
made it clear to us
that if the United States
leaves Southeast Asia
in defeat, on that day
the whole free world will
begin to crumble.
Ezra Taft Benson
offered one solution
that hasn't been given
too much attention
up till now, Mr. Benson.
I recently returned
from two weeks
in war-threatened
and war-torn Asia.
The men of Vietnam who
are ready to give their
all in the defense of freedom,
who worry about reports
from home of rioters, draft
card burners, and other citizens
many times more numerous, who
seem oblivious to the threat
to our freedom as
they continue to enjoy
their comfortable complacency.
Regardless of any question of
our involvement in Vietnam,
we're there and we're
involved, so what do we do now?
We should concentrate on doing
whatever is necessary to bring
our boys home, but before
we bring them home,
we should let them finish
the job most of them
thought they were
sent there to do.
Let the communists
see what good-natured
Uncle Sam can still do when a
bully picks a fight with him.
Drop those suicidal,
limited political objects
and launch a massive
military campaign.
Topple the Hanoi regime
and dictate rather
than negotiate the peace terms.
Then bring our boys home.
Will this bring Red
China into the war?
Red China is already in the war.
The best way to
get her out of it
is to let Chiang Kai-Shek
join us as he has requested.
He stands ready with
600,000 well-trained men
who know how to fight
under Asian conditions.
Our no-win policy in Vietnam
instead of promoting peace,
only sets the stage for settling
the problem, for the time
being, with a coalition
government of communists
and non-communists, and this
virtually ensures continued
war.
You know our troops
overseas, they
ask for so very little,
and yet they give
and give so very, very much.
Nobody wants a war.
God knows that, and
especially our troops that
are fighting one over there.
But as long as they are
fighting a war over there,
the least we could
do back home here
is just to give them the
support, the love, the dignity,
and the respect that they, our
flags and our country deserves.
And that's all they ask of you.
Thank you.
So we come back to the
men who fight the battle,
or are we all involved
in the battle?
Listen to Captain Wilson.
I went to Vietnam
to fight communism.
And when you get
to the base of it,
that's what Vietnam is all
about, communist aggression.
Communist aggression,
not only in Vietnam
but in Laos, Thailand,
Cambodia, and all
the areas of Southeast Asia.
We have communist aggression
right here in America right
in the streets every day, and
it's evident in the newspapers
if you read them closely.
Wherever we can fight
communist aggression,
we owe it to our
country to do so.
Communism is America's
number one enemy.
It has been for years and it
will be for years to come.
The only way to solve
the problem in Vietnam
is to take it to the
base of the problem,
and that is into the cities
and towns of North Vietnam.
We do not need to send
troops into North Vietnam.
The job can be
done from the air.
We knew it when I was over there
and we know it still today.
You have to take your aircraft,
the munitions at hand,
and go to North Vietnam and bomb
the targets and the facilities
that they use to wage war
against the other bordering
countries.
This is the only thing that
the communists understand.
You do it from an unassailable
position of strength.
You let them know that
you mean business.
You bomb their facilities
that they use to wage war.
You make it so unpleasant for
them at home that they have
to keep their troops at home
to look after the business
at hand, and they cannot afford
to send them across other
country's borders, violating the
sovereignty of these countries.
This is the only thing that
the communists understand.
It's the only way
to deal with them.
It cannot be done at
the conference table.
This is the only way to
win the war in Vietnam.
A choice made for us nearly
200 years ago by our founding
fathers is now up for review
in Vietnam and everywhere else,
in the Mekong Delta
and in the halls
of the Congress of the
United States of America.
There are over 3
million Americans who
had been and fought in Vietnam.
We have seen
communism in action.
We have seen what might be
termed relevant communism.
We have seen Marx and Lenin
taken off the library shelf
and put on the
backs of the people.
We will never
surrender to communism
because we know what it is.
There will be no Viet Cong in
the United States of America.
We will fight.
We know that there is a
possibility that we may not
triumph, but it is not
inevitable that the enemy
triumph if he is opposed.
There is no fate that must
fall on them however they act.
There is, however,
a fate that falls
on men if they refuse that.
We should win in Vietnam.
We can win in Vietnam.
We must help to extend
freedom, not allow
it to be foreclosed on us.
This is a challenge that
our generation faces.
This must be our goal.
Certainly, we could
not stand by idly
and see the communists
grab off chunks
of the free world at will,
some place we had to stop him.
And when we decided
to go into Vietnam,
we should have decided to
go in with a determination
to win that war and to win
it with the might of America,
mostly air and Naval power, and
we had the capacity to do so.
Now in Vietnam, I feel in
this second test of arms,
having learned a
lesson in Korea,
if I had had the
decision to make,
I would have closed
the port of Haiphong.
I would have not permitted
the paraphernalia of war
from friend and foe alike
to be delivered to that port
to kill our men eventually.
I would have attacked
with air every
remunerative military target.
in North Vietnam.
I would knock out
their railroads,
and inundated their rice fields,
and taken their dams out.
And I have found that
when the communists come
to the conclusion that they
cannot win on the field
of battle what they
set out to get, they
run to the conference table.
It is an extension
of the war with them.
It should be obvious by now
that the predicament we're in
is not the fault
of the military.
We should have stopped
the Reds in Berlin,
we should have kept
them out of Cuba,
we should have won
the war in Korea,
but we didn't, so let's not
blame the men in uniform
for our political mistake.
Maybe we should listen
to them in time of war,
and this certainly is war.
They say there's no
substitute for victory.
Maybe we should also remember
the words of Winston Churchill,
after Chamberlain's appeasement
negotiations in Munich in 1939.
Quote, "The government had to
choose between shame and war.
They chose shame and
they'll get war, unquote."
They got war.
Now, let's take a
look at our country.
Today, in the newspapers,
on radio, on TV,
we read, hear, and see riots
on campuses and street corners.
Crime is at all time high.
We read about our American
flag being hauled down by mobs,
burned and stomped
into the ground.
We hear the names
of these same mob
leaders over and over
from city to city.
They wave the flag
of the communist Viet
Cong, the flag of the enemy
that we're fighting in Vietnam.
The enemy that kills
our boys from ambush
and fades away into
political sanctuary.
And at the same time
here in America,
the commies are allowed to
teach in our schools, parade
through our streets
and our capital
while those in high position
choose to remain silent.
With all these
problems, I wonder
what would happen in America if
we all chose to remain silent.
Would crime come to a halt
without preventative measures?
Would the communist underground
movement to take over America
cease?
Would the communists leave
the free nations of the world
alone without our help?
Will they pull back across
the 17th parallel in Vietnam
if we withdraw our troops?
The answer is no.
Mr. Lincoln was right when
he said that to remain silent
makes cowards of men.
I plead with each
of you to reflect
on these facts of history.
Then I'd like to
speak for myself.
I believe we must vote
out of office, regardless
of political party, those
politicians who seek to appease
tyranny and promote anarchy,
and to vote for men who are
responsible and who will put
the welfare of our country
above their own
political ambitions.
We must stop communist
rioting inside America.
We must enforce the laws
that make crime illegal.
And if there should be
another 17th parallel,
we should not plead
with the communists
to get back, but warn
them, and do it only once.
To hell with world opinion.
We must speak up
and take a stand,
only then will this great
nation of ours survive.
[MUSIC - "BALLAD OF THE GREEN
BERETS"]