McNAMARA'S DISARMAMENT POLICIES UNDER FIRE

It has been truly said that the battle for the world will be won by that side which has the last squadron of planes and the last division of equipped and efficient soldiers. It is also true that the main objective of the Communist conspiracy is to affect the policies of the West through subversion and infiltration from within the ranks of the policy makers in the West. The policies of the U.S. Defence Secretary Mr. McNamara have come increasingly under fire by concerned Americans. These policies amount to almost rapid disarmament, and parallel the tragic hasty dispersal and demobilisation of the powerful Western forces in Europe at the cessation of hostilities in 1945, thus leaving Russia free to consolidate her grip in Eastern Europe. However the lesson is beginning to be learnt.

The American Congress with only two dissenters in a vote of 358 forced upon McNamara and President Johnson the alternative of rejecting such a massive no-confidence vote in their bid to obtain increased nuclear powered surface vessels. The international scribes have for some time seen the clash between McNamara and Congress coming. Syndicated columnists like Stewart Alsop have been commissioned to write eulogies about the genius of McNamara in an effort to stem the tide of criticism. This revolt by Congress is another indication that the Conservative forces in America are having increasing impact, much more than the international press would have us know about.

"COMRADE DE-GAULLE"

The Melbourne Herald 20.6.66 reports from Robin Stafford in Moscow that a young Intourist guide referred to the President of France, President De Gaulle as "Comrade". To which we can only join in saying "how true, how true".
The return of de Gaulle to Moscow is only the fulfillment of a man returning to his spiritual home.

More than any of those persons in high places in Western politics de Gaulle has consistently destroyed the hopes of those who look to some lead from high personages in the battle against Communism. He has destroyed the French Parliament and constitution and assumed dictatorial powers, which have been placed at the disposal of international forces favouring Communism. His early recognition of Red China, and opposition to western policy in Vietnam, following his destruction of the French Army after giving Algeria to the Communists, is now history.
Such policies fulfill earlier views not generally known regarding de Gaulle.
During the closing stages of the last war Stalin insisted that de Gaulle should head the government in liberated France. As was usual he was backed by Roosevelt.

Few people realise the extent of the pogrom unleashed against French patriots in the first few days of liberations. Thousands were hunted down and killed by the Communists who had infiltrated the Resistance Movement and seized this opportunity to settle old scores on the pretext that the anti-Communists were collaborators. De Gaulle was responsible for a similar policy in regard to loyal French army officers in the Algerian campaign. All of which makes the letter submitted by General Beaufort to the editor of La Nation Francaise more authentic.

General Beaufort spoke of a conversation with de Gaulle in the Elysee Palice in 1960. Parts of the letter in the light of this visit to Moscow are pertinent and should alert us to the real de Gaulle.
"The evolution towards communism is unavoidable. It is the direction of history. One must be absolutely crazy to try to oppose it...I shall unite us with the Soviet Union. Thus we shall make a Europe that will extend from the Atlantic to the Urals..."

What was it the Intourist guide said, "When Comrade de Gaulle gets here."? Comrade! Yes how true.

WEST GERMAN MOVE

While posing the above question on de Gaulle we may poll ponder on the reasons for the softening attitude to Russia by West Germany. The Melbourne Herald 16.6,66 reports that the leader of the West German Christian Democratic Party, Dr. Rainer Barzel, wants the Soviet Union to be offered the right to keep troops in a reunified Germany. It is impossible to measure the radical extent of such a proposal except against the background of understanding the depth of antagonism held by most Germans towards the Russians who desecrated and over-ran their country in 1945.

The answer can be found on at least two levels. There is no major political party or movement within Germany, or Europe for that matter, with the ability to throw out a fundamental challenge to the economic policies, which are driving the West more and more into the arms of the Communists. Neither can we measure to the extent that such a weakness has allowed Communist penetration into the policy-making hierarchy of parties such as the Christian Democrats. We can be sure that Dr. Barzel was not speaking without the consent of the party junta.

AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY IN FORMOSA

Two leading Formosans are reported by U.P.I. 15.6.66 as urging an immediate attack on China. They are Messrs. H. P. Tseng and Milton J. T. Shieh who are attending a conference in New York. The Mao Tse Tung regime they said "was losing control and nearing bankruptcy." Mr. Tseng, a former director of the Central News Agency, said the Vietnam War was only part of a world-wide struggle between the forces of enslavement and those of freedom."
Small wonder that the "no win" daily journals are displaying fury at the decision of the Australian Government to belatedly appoint an Australian embassy to Formosa. These objections have been based purely on political power considerations and demonstrate the total immorality of editorial policy.

Every principle of justice demands our support for Formosa our ally, against Red China who seeks our destruction. This powerful and courageous little island of Formosa continues to point the only way to Asian peace, i.e. the removal of the inhuman regime, which operates the conspiracy's Asian subversion center. Cutting off the tentacles as they point out is costly and temporary: Recognition of the right of the Communist junta to pre-present the Chinese people is a betrayal of these people to a living death.

BOBBY THE STATESMAN

THE DIALECTICS OF MR. LIPPMAN

The art of dialectical activity in the political field is to change your position whenever the objective warrants a change. Mr. Walter Lippman has led the journalistic field in advocating surrender to the advance of the Communist conspiracy. Wherever his advice has been taken it has led to the surrender of another area to bloodshed and despair. With occasional lapses into emotional pleading when his advice is not heeded, his articles are pretence at calm and dignified reasoning.
Such as for instance that in the Melbourne Age 16.6.66 entitled "How to Please No One". Speaking of the middle of the road policy (the current description for any policy which advocates compromise with Communism) of President Johnson he remarks,
"Just as it is no good building half a bridge across a river, so to conduct a war on a 5O-5O principle is likely to mean, as in Vietnam today it does mean, that the attempt to negotiate, and the attempt to defeat the enemy are both half hearted and indecisive."

With this sentiment we, in the current phrase, "could not agree more." Mr. Lippman's memory must be lamentably short (or is it just the dialectics in his philosophy operating?) if he fails to recall his howls of fury and invective at the policy of the then Senator Goldwater in his campaign for the presidency in 1964, when that gentleman advocated a policy of victory over the Communists in Vietnam. Mr. Lippman's solution is not the defeat of Communism however, but as he says in the closing paragraph of the above article,
"to make an unequivocal decision to withdraw eventually from the mainland of Asia and thus to begin negotiations with Hanoi on the terms of a general political settlement."

Backed as he is by both China and Russia this would suit Ho Chi Minh down to the ground.

THE COMMUNIST OBJECTIVE

It is not so long since Mr. Hasluck returned from Moscow advocating greater cultural exchanges with Russia. Mr. Wilson had hardly been elected to office when he made his twelfth personal trip to Moscow. Western politicians in general give lip service to the view that Russian Communism is mellowing. In September 1965 Mr. Breshnjev restated Soviet policy when speaking at the 9th Congress of the Rumanian Communist Party. He said: "We know the objective since Lenin, Stalin and Khruschev. It transcends all changes and remains always the same: world domination in order to assure world-communism of victory." (Nation Europa May 1966).

How much clearer a statement of policy do Western politicians require before they can grasp the meaning and start to act on the implication?