ANOTHER SOVIET INVASION OF BRITAIN

"London, February 6. - The Soviet Prime Minister (Mr. Alexei Kosygin) declared here today that international developments were at a very serious stage and a detente was imperative. Speaking on arrival here for a week's official visit, he added that Britain could play a positive role in solving several urgent problems.... East-West relations, European security and trade will be the key topics in Mr. Kosygin's talks here.
The British Prime Minister (Mr. Wilson), in a welcoming speech, described his guest as 'an old friend and a statesman I know to be cool and wise in his judgment, warm in his heart". The Age, (Melbourne), February 7.

Fabian Socialist Harold Wilson's "old friend" is one of the criminal gangsters responsible for controlling the Communist Empire, murdering large numbers of people, and for supplying most of the military hardware being used by the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Mr. Kosygin was an influential member of the Soviet dictatorship when the Hungarian uprising was drowned in blood by Russian tanks in 1956. It would be instructive to know just when the Soviet leader has shown any warmth in his heart, or any statesmanship. Mr. Kosygin would not be where he is today if he were not a tough, dedicated Marxist-Leninist pledged to advance the cause of International Communism.

Mr. Harold Wilson's eulogy of Mr. Kosygin is a further revelation of the true nature of the British Prime Minister. He does not, for example, eulogise Prime Minister Ian Smith in this manner. He reflects on the Rhodesian war hero's personal courage and threatens to destroy a Government building a Civilisation. But the criminals of the Kremlin are allegedly represented by a "cool and wise statesman".

The Soviet leaders have Mr. Wilson's measure. They know that in an endeavour to help solve their internal financial and economic problems - the results of Fabian Socialist policies - the British Socialists are desperate to increase their exports to the Soviet Union. No doubt Mr. Kosygin has made it clear to Mr. Wilson that he must supply the Soviet Union with long-term financial credits so that more British production can be imported. He has also made it clear that Mr. Wilson must help apply pressure to the Americans to settle for a compromise "peace" in Vietnam.

MOBILISING "WORLD OPINION" AGAINST AMERICA

"The Vietnam war was as unpopular among the U.S. allies as it was in the communist world, Senator J .W. Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday. 'The U.S. is condemned for the war all over the world', he said in a lecture at Colombia, Missouri. "Not a single one of our European allies has been willing to send even a token force to Vietnam as a symbolic gesture of support... Not even our closest ally, Great Britain, which depends on us for its economic stability, and West Germany, which depends on us for its defence".... "The Swedish Government has even prohibited the sale of armaments to the U .S. - an action which tells us something about the moral standing of America in a neutral and hitherto friendly country", said Mr. Fulbright". - The Australian. February 8.

Senator Fulbright is the most prominent spokesman in the U.S.A. for the defeatist and treacherous groups, which have consistently worked to erode American will to resist the Communist advance in South-East Asia. Communist global strategy - the most dangerous strategists being in Moscow, not Peking - has been based upon Lenin's famous concept of revolutionary war: confuse and paralyse the enemy's civilian rear so that eventually he cannot maintain his military front.
Unfortunately there is a great amount of truth in what Senator Fulbright says about "world opinion" on the Vietnam issue. This opinion has been created and mobilised by a high-powered international campaign of propaganda and psychological warfare. This campaign is now being intensified as preliminary campaigning starts in the U.S.A. for next year's Presidential Election. President Johnson desperately wants to get some type of settlement in Vietnam before the Presidential election. The Communist strategists are well aware of this.

The recent flood of peace rumours has been deliberately initiated by the Communists for the purpose of intensifying psychological war. The Communists will only settle for a compromise peace in Vietnam when it suits their purposes. They are adequately protected by the continuing American no-win policy, imposed upon frustrated American military leaders by subversives and their dupes in high places in the U.S.A. - particularly inside the American State Department.

The military viewpoint has been forcefully put once again, this time by the famous American general, now retired, Mark Clark. General Clark knows how the Communists forced a compromise peace in Korea and prevented an anti-Communist victory (a study of John Stormer's None Dare Call It Treason, price 82 cents post free, is revealing on this subject).
Speaking on February 3 (vide The Australian, February 4) General Clark said that there should be more intensive air and naval power directed against military targets in North Vietnam. "After we've really hurt the enemy, we might get better results at the peace table".

INSIDE RED CHINA

"There was little violence in China and no civil war, a Sydney University Professor who has been there for the past six months said yesterday. He is Professor W .D. Christiansen, head of Sydney University's School of Electrical Engineering, who spent six months sabbatical leave in China as the guest of the Chinese Academy of Science ' Reports of China's internal upheavals are misleading, grossly exaggerated or complete fabrications', he said in Sydney yesterday after his return". - The Australian, February 4.

In attempting to assess Professor Christiansen 's report on Red China, where he claims to have traveled extensively, it is important to stress that Professor Christiansen is the brother-in-law of Mr. Ted Hill, leader of the pro-Chinese section of the Australian Communist movement. He has openly demonstrated his strong pro-Communist sympathies.

The Australian report says that Professor Christiansen was accompanied by his wife and son. His son has been the leader of pro-Communist causes at the University of New England, Armidale, N.S .W. However, in spite of his support of the Chinese Communists, there are good reasons for believing that many of the reports coming out of China at the present time are exaggerated. But there is a struggle for power taking place in the same way that there have been struggles for power inside the Soviet Union. There is also conflict between Moscow and Peking for leadership of the world Communist movement. Unfortunately this conflict, and the exaggerated reports from Red China, are fostering the dangerous myth that the Soviet leaders are "mellowing" and that the West must get closer with them to contain Red China. This is a classic example of Communist dialectics (see Dialectics, by Eric D. Butler, price 44 cents post free).

It is certainly beyond dispute that large Soviet forces have been built up on China's borders. The real reason for this build up is to ensure that should any internal anti-Communist revolt take place inside the Red China as a result of the power struggle, Soviet forces can move in to co-operate with pro-Soviet leaders inside Red China to make certain that China is not lost to the Communist Empire. Any break between Moscow and Peking will be of no more assistance to the non-Communist world than was the break between Tito and Moscow.
Wishful thinking, fostered by Communists and their numerous dupes, is a dangerous substitute for real knowledge about Communist strategy and tactics.

VIET CONG SUSTAINED THROUGH HAIPHONG

"Unloading of Communist supplies in North Vietnam's Haiphong harbour has been speeded up and Soviet seamen are helping unload their own ships, Pravda reported today. The Soviet Communist party newspaper, said aid from Communist nations to the Hanoi Government was "of exceptional importance to the struggle". Ships flying various flags lie in the harbour and work goes on around the clock, Mr. Shchedrov (Pravda correspondent) reported. He quoted the deputy Chief of the port, Nguyen Khac Hoe, as having said much more freight was handled last year than in previous years". - A Moscow dispatch in the New York Times, December 27, 1966.

In a dispatch dated January 10, from Hanoi, Mr. Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times revealed that while in North Vietnam he did not seek to visit Haiphong. He wrote, "Since Haiphong is constantly visited by foreign shipping, there is no real question of military security in that area". Which raises the question why Mr. Harrison Salisbury did not visit Haiphong to give the world a first-hand picture of the flood of military assistance to the Viet Cong through the port of Haiphong. Perhaps he did not want to embarrass his hosts? Or did he feel that if there were wide publicity about what was happening in Haiphong, there would be an upsurge in American public support for the choking of this major supply port for the Viet Cong?

The refusal by the American Government to blockade the port of Haiphong is beyond doubt one of the most frightening examples of the influence of the International Communist current conspiracy. Not only is Haiphong a Communist sanctuary, but following Mr. Harrison Salisbury's dispatches from Hanoi giving details of the effects of American bombing, American planes have been ordered not to approach within five miles of Hanoi's centre.

The New York Times of January 26 reported "In effect, the new order, issued within the last week by the Joint Chief of Staff, imposes a total sanctuary over a circle 10 miles in diameter.... No bombing raids within a 30 mile area can be launched without explicit approval of the Defence Department, State Department and White House".

The Communists must be delighted with the results they have obtained from the tactic of inviting Mr. Harrison Salisbury to Hanoi. It is dangerously misleading to keep on claiming that the Viet Cong can no longer win on the battlefield, when in fact with the massive military aid they are receiving from the Soviet bloc of countries and Red China, they can continue with a guerrilla war until they are ready to settle for another Korea. And after that they can launch their next offensive in South-East Asia.

Australian Prime Minister Holt says his Government gives advice to both London and Washington. It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Holt has ever suggested to Washington that the war in Vietnam, in which Australians are being killed, might be won by choking the enemy's main supply route through Haiphong?

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : Philosophy and Policy

There is a widespread view amongst Christians that "there is some good in Communism". And because there is some good in Communism, it should not be condemned out of hand. Now Communism is the policy of a philosophy.
What does this mean? It means that the Communist movement is based upon a philosophy. All Communist activities - all policies - are firmly based upon this philosophy, which is known as dialectical materialism, or sometimes historical materialism.

Is there any truth whatever in this philosophy? Is it in any way compatible with the Christian philosophy? These are basic questions, which must be answered before looking at Communist policies.
Christ stated that figs cannot be obtained from thistles. How then can some good fruit be obtained from a philosophy, which is totally false?

The Communists never cease to stress the close relationship between their philosophy and their policies. They insist that theory is useless without practical application. Those who would effectively oppose Communism must grasp clearly that it is the policy of a philosophy, and that they must support policies based on an opposing philosophy.