N.Z. PRIME MINISTER'S DEFEATIST VIEWPOINT

"A total military victory in the Vietnam War was impossible, the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr. Holyoake, said last night. 'Experts agree it cannot be determined militarily; it must finally be settled around the conference table', he said. The tide of battle had turned in favour of the Allies and the North Vietnamese would eventually be forced to negotiate for peace.... 'Nobody can prophesy the progress of the war or how long it will last', he said. 'But every 24 hours brings us a bit closer…although there has been no indication from the Viet Cong that they will come to the conference table. 'Our whole effort is aimed at ending the war - around the conference table." - The Australian, October 3.

It was not surprising that The Australian published the above report under the heading, "Impossible to win in Viet, says Holyoake." That headline alone was a vital contribution to the psychological war being conducted by the international Communist conspirators; it conveyed the very message they have been constantly proclaiming, that the Americans and their allies cannot win in Vietnam!

The New Zealand Prime Minister, who made his statement upon his arrival in Australia on October 3, was, of course, merely spelling out much more clearly what others have been saying. It provides further evidence of the truth that the Americans and their allies are not seeking to defeat North Vietnam, but are primarily engaged in a defensive war with the ultimate objectives of some type of conference. Unless this policy is challenged, there is no doubt that the Communists are going to continue to win the psychological war.

Mr. Holyoake refers to "experts" who claim that the war cannot be won militarily. As Mr. Holyoake did not name the "experts" who claim this, we can only guess at their identity. But some real experts were interviewed by the American Senate Preparedness Sub Committee members of which also thoroughly cross-examined Defence Secretary Robert McNamara on his strange conduct of the war in Vietnam, and the result was that in their recent first report the Committee unanimously agreed that military victory could be achieved if military experts were permitted to do what they felt was necessary.
The Senate Preparedness Sub Committee is chaired by one of President Johnson's own party, Senator John Stennis.

The interim report was published because "of the fact that the war in Southeast Asia is the most crucial and critical problem confronting the American people today and the Sub Committee believes they should have information with respect to this war to the greatest extent consistent with the requirements of national security."

In a searing criticism of the American air attacks, the Report of the Sub Committee disclosed that early in 1965 "the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a list of 94 fixed targets.... which they considered militarily significant. These were not approved.... Only 22 of the 242 targets on the JCS were struck in 1966 and less than 1 per cent of the sorties flown were directed against fixed targets on the JCS list."
Because of the failure to permit the American military experts to attack the most vital targets, the Americans have paid a heavy price in loss of planes and pilots.

The Report of the Preparedness Sub Committee says that the enemy was given time to accomplish "a tremendous and very formidable build-up of his air defence..."
Flatly disputing Defence Secretary McNamara's claim before the Sub Committee that "few if any, important military targets remain unstruck," General Greene, USMC Commandant testified on August 28 "The key targets have not even yet been hit."

Mr. Robert McNamara admitted that an enormous flood of Soviet military equipment was reaching North Vietnam through the North Vietnamese Port of Haiphong but discounted the value of closing the port. The Report of the Sub Committee states "All military witnesses stated that the closure, neutralisation, or isolation of the Port of Haiphong was the single most important thing which could be done in North Vietnam from a military standpoint."

In its October 19, 1962 Report the American Senate Preparedness Sub Committee concluded with the following grimly prophetic comment: "If war should come it can be conducted successfully only by professionals in that art and if strategy or tactics come under the influence of unskilled amateurs, sacrifice in blood is inevitable and victory is in doubt."

The American Senate Preparedness Sub Committee leaves no doubt that it believes that Defence Secretary McNamara has lied to the American people and misled their elected representatives. It is certain that Australian and New Zealand politicians have also been misled. Australian and New Zealand electors should request that their representatives immediately obtain copies of the Report by the American Senate Preparedness Sub Committee, study it themselves and make it available to the Australian people.
It is now clear beyond all argument that the American bombing policy will not force the North Vietnamese to the conference table.

The bombing is not preventing a sufficient flow of military and economic aid from North Vietnam to the Viet Cong. What little secondary industry North Vietnam does possess makes little significant contribution to the military equipment being used by the Viet Cong. The sophisticated anti-aircraft equipment which is taking such a deadly toll of American planes, the long-range artillery now being increasingly used, is not manufactured in North Vietnam's backyard industries, but in the Soviet Union and its satellites, and to a lesser extent in Red China.
The Soviet Union and Red China are the main bases from which the war in Vietnam is being fought, North Vietnam is the secondary base, but until such time as the Soviet Union and Red China are deprived of this base there is no hope whatever of other than a long term bloodletting for the Americans and their allies and a political and psychological defeat at the end.

In an interview with David Schoenbrun, the foreign correspondent whose articles on North Vietnam have been syndicated throughout the world, the Communist Prime Minister of North Vietnam, Pham Van Dong, has left no doubt about the confident and uncompromising attitude of the Communists: "The Prime Minister insisted that the way to peace must follow two paths, one that can be opened up to Hanoi by unconditional cessation of bombing, the other leading to peace in the South by recognition of and direct talks with the National Liberation Front. 'If America wants peace in the South it must talk with the front. Neither we nor our brothers of the front will deal with your puppets Thieu and Ky." The Australian, October 3.
The Communists believe that there is no substitute for victory. If the Americans and their allies settle for less than victory, they will once again have betrayed the cause of freedom. And thousands of Young Americans, Australians and New Zealanders will have died in vain, in Vietnam.

CHRISTIAN COMPASSION EXPLOITED FOR POLITICAL END

"We find ourselves pulled this way and that, and in the matter of the war in Vietnam, ardently support the Government or ardently oppose it; and if the latter, divide our nation even more than it is already divided and indirectly prolong instead of shortening the war, as we encourage the other side by our divisions. It might be that by being imbued with a deep sense of compassion, as all Christians must be, we are persuaded to become tools to some who use Christian compassion as a political end." -Archbishop Strong of Brisbane in the Courier-Mail. October 2.

Distressing evidence of Archbishop Strong's viewpoint appeared at the Melbourne Anglican Synod on October 3, when a resolution was carried calling for an end to all foreign intervention in Vietnam. A study of press reports leaves no doubt those those responsible for the motion were referring to the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders when they mentioned "foreign intervention."
The Communist invasion of South Vietnam obviously does not constitute "foreign intervention" in the eyes of these promoting the motion.

"Let our friends do the work", taught the famous Communist instructor on political warfare, Georgi Dimitrov.

Those who voted for the Melbourne Anglican Synod motion on Vietnam demonstrated that they are the "tools'" Archbishop Strong warned about. This motion will provide the Communists with further evidence of success in their campaign to divide and confuse the peoples of America, Australia, and New Zealand.

ANOTHER MAJOR SOVIET VICTORY IN MIDDLE EAST

"King Hussein of Jordan carried his plea for money and sympathy to the Kremlin yesterday in a round of talks with President Podgorny. The King, once branded as a Western puppet by Moscow, was given a royal welcome by Soviet leaders when he arrived from Amman. President Podgorny, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko and Mr. D. Polyansky, a politburo member, were at the airport with a band, a guard of honor and several hundred cheering Russian workers. A 21-gun salute also greeted the King." The Australian, October 4.

King Hussein's visit to Moscow in search of Soviet support is the greatest Soviet diplomatic victory in the Middle East since they persuaded the Shah of Iran early this year to enter in to a major economic and arms deal. Like the Shah, King Hussein has always tried to be pro-Western and is certainly an anti-Communist. But the moderate Arab leaders, who until recently have resisted Communist tools like Nasser of Egypt, find themselves in the desperate position where the West has forced them to turn to the Communists in an endeavour to get urgent economic and military assistance.

It is conveniently over-looked by those who see all virtue as residing in Israel, that the shocking Arab-refugee problem, of which Jordan is bearing the main brunt, did not start with the recent Arab-Israeli conflict, but when Israel was being established by force of arms, most supplied by the Communists, and sheer terrorism twenty years ago.
No realistic assessment of the Middle East situation is possible without a complete historical background.

Israel was established by naked Political Zionist aggression, backed by the Communists, at the expense of the Arabs and their territory. The moderate Arab leaders have been haunted by the spectacle of Israel refusing even to accept the borders laid down by the UN, and the fear that Israel will constantly seek to enlarge its territory to achieve its official objective of providing that national home which political Zionist leaders demand. At no time has the West taken a firm policy on the question of boundaries, giving Jordan, for example, the firm assurances she has sought.

Those who accept the widely promoted view that the Soviet is backing the Arabs to destroy Israel are the victims of a major propaganda hoax. Official statements by Communist leaders make it quite clear that they do not seek the destruction of Israel. The Communist Tribune, of August 16, for example, carries a report from Rupert Lockwood in Moscow headed "No question of wiping out Israeli state."
The Communists are not going to destroy the one major element in the Middle East situation which permits them to bring all the Arabs into the one camp, and which enables them in the absence of any constructive Western policy, to present themselves as the only friends the Arabs have. The visit by King Hussein to Moscow is a most ominous development.

25,000 DOLLAR EXPANSION FUND