Category: History Why the Communists are Winning as of 1976... by William D. Pawley & Richard R. Tryon
Pawley was depressed and had many reasons to feel this way. Personal illness got in his way as did a lot of poliitcs. He saw the game being lost in 1976 in the term of President Jimmy Carter. See why that was so. and wonder what could chane it?

Chapter Twenty-seven
FUTURE ROAD FOR AMERICA
1
We, the people of the free, democratic nations, clearly stand at a historic fork of the road. Especially is this true of American citizens, observing our 200th anniversary as an independent country.
We have a choice. We may continue down one road of the fork, headed in the general direction we have been traveling since 1951. Or we can take a harder road, one that presents a climb back to our former greatness and strength. It is a road that will need to be traveled with courage and determination.
To continue in our present direction would be easy. All we need to do is what we have been doing. We can give in to the demands of the Reds; presume that they can be satisfied and appeased by concessions on our part; negotiate with them, and show a willingness to “meet them halfway”. If the Communists engage in actions painful to us, as was the slaughter of the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956; or dangerous to us, as the seizure of countries in Asia or Africa will be, then we might just shut our eyes and hope the problems will go away.
Whether or not we shut our eyes and try to ignore the problems arising from the world wide Communist conspiracy, the problems will not go away. They must be faced, examined, understood, and met with intelligent and determined action.
At stake is the future of the Free World and of Western civilization as we know it. Our way of life, with its liberties, its opportunities for production and progress, its comforts and countless blessings, will either be preserved and strengthened, or we and our nation will move backward into a period of erosion and decay.
Just because we of this nation have enjoyed 200 years of freedom and progress is not guarantee that this freedom and progress will last forever. Many civilizations have flourished for two or more centuries, then fallen before enemies within and without. At the same time, the fact that civilizations have declined and died does not mean that our way of life and government need to perish from the earth. Our destiny is in our hands.

2

We face a formidable task as we confront the Communist challenge. In every area of the world, we find their leaders pressing and pressing--and winning. No agreements have changed their purpose. The successes they have won have only spurred their appetite for more and bigger triumphs. Any setbacks they have encountered are considered by them as temporary.
For example: The very existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the shield of the Free World against Russian westward expansion, is today in peril. Our allies farthest east, Turkey and Greece, are almost in armed conflict over the control of Cyprus. Italy sways toward becoming the first European country to fall voluntarily to Red control by internal weakness. Portugal, another NATO member, saved from Communist rule chiefly by steadfast opposition of the Catholic Church, is still a prize coveted by the Reds.
In Angola, the Soviet Union and its obedient satellite, Red Cuba, have clinched a victory and a foothold upon the huge African continent. In Indochina, at the other end of the world, the two dominoes, Laos and Cambodia, have fallen in the wake of our refusal to win the war in Vietnam. Thailand is clearly the next target-domino for Red aggression. It would be followed by Burma, a country with a totalitarian regime that could feel right at home in the Red orbit. The government of India, with its teeming hundreds of millions of people, and its dictator, Indira Gandhi, favor Communist causes and oppose our national interests at every opportunity.
Behind the Iron Curtain of Eastern Europe, “from the Baltics to the Balkans,” as Winston Churchill so aptly said, the steel hand of Soviet Russia has kept its grip upon the throats of the captive peoples. Ever since World War II confirmed Stalin’s agreement with Hitler that Red Russia should retain as a “sphere of influence” the Eastern corridor, it has been the constant hope and plan of the Kremlin overlords that permanent control of these formerly free countries of Eastern Europe would be recognized and formalized by all other nations including the detent-numbed United states.
At a conference in Helsinki, Finland, in August 1975, the Reds got their wish. The meeting, euphemistically called the “Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe,” opened on July 3rd, 1973. Nearly all the countries of Western Europe, plus Canada and the United States, sent “high representatives.” Highest American representative was President Ford, accompanied by one of the chief planners of the agreement reached at the Conference, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. Of course all the Russian lackeys in the captive nations were on hand to see that this promised new “security” was granted their regimes.
Through the 135 pages of the Helsinki Declaration there runs the usual hog-wash of polite references to how each participating state should strive for more cultural exchanges, and the like. The real pay-off for the agreement is spelled out in these words:
“The participating States regard as inviolable all one another’s frontiers as well as the frontiers of all states in Europe, and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers. Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.”
In plain words, the frontiers are “inviolable.” The status quo by which Russia controls these areas must not be disturbed. The agreement killed the hopes of 250 million people of Eastern Europe that someday they might have the liberty of self-government again.
Protests from countless American citizens who understood the implications of the Helsinki accords were met by the lame question of Secretary Kissinger: “Well, what are the alternatives?”
3
Coming back to our own Hemisphere, we find the liberal pack in full cry for recognition and restoration of trade with Fidel Castro’s Russian stooge, Red Cuba. We are assured that the Organization of American States has abandoned us on this issue, and that we should climb on the bandwagon in the parade to bless this Cuban enemy of all human liberties, even as he exports his mercenary soldiers halfway around the world to serve Red aggression.
The chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Vladimir Novikov (quoted by Morris Rothenberg in “Current Cuban-Soviet Relationships”) has asserted:
“In the struggle for the construction of Socialism, Cuba is not alone. Cuba is an integral part of the Socialist System. The interests and security of Cuba and its international positions are faithfully defended, not only by the firm policy of the Communist Party and the heroism of its revolutionary people, but also by the multifaceted support of the Soviet Union and other Socialist countries.”
As to Panama, we find the same liberal pack baying for the United States to give up our rights to the Panama Canal and to let Panama own and operate that vital waterway joining the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. There is the implied accusation of the United States, in the arguments of those who urge this retreat on our part, that during the years of our ownership of the Canal we have dealt unfairly with our small Latin American Neighbor, and Panama should not be “Humiliated” any longer.
The plain fact is that the United States bought and paid for the Panama Canal. The treaty, signed in 1903 with Panama, assigned the Canal Zone to the United States in perpetuity and specified our right to operate it under terms that have been fair and just to Panama and to all the countries of the world whose ships go through the passage.
Yet every Red leader in our Hemisphere is backing the move to force the United States to give up the Panama Canal. It is certain that if they succeed, within a short time the Canal will become a tool for “Socialist” interest in the Americas.The Dictator of Panama, General Omar Torrijos, in speeches in various cities of Latin American countries, has repeatedly declared:
“Within two years, Panama will have total control over the United States-owned Panama Canal, either by treaty or by force.”4
In our own country, since World War II the Reds have enjoyed a veritable field day. Their master planners in the art of dividing a people and weakening them from within have thought of everything: They penetrate the armed forces, the churches, the news media, the book publishers, the motion picture and television industries, the high school and university faculties, the billion-dollar foundations, and most important of all, our federal agencies, including the Department of State. The planners have won brilliant successes in the enlistment of Americans in support of Communist causes, not necessarily as traitors, but as dupes.
Under the relaxations of detente, Soviet agents now roam our country, gleaning secrets of our latest industrial and military technologies. FBI Director Clarence M. Kelly has testified that he lacked the number of agents even to begin to cope with the flood of Soviet intelligence spies, nor can the CIA’s manpower hope to match the capabilities of the Russian KGB abroad.
The growth of Red control vividly illustrates why the Communists are winning in so many areas of the world today.
They are winning because their leaders have a definite, unchangeable policy: To see what they call “Socialism”-- actually the cause of totalitarian tyranny--triumph over all other forms of government. They possess also the tactical plans to bring this about, including propaganda, subversion, and the necessary military pressure: and the patience to keep pressing while the people of the Free World grow weary of the struggle and gradually give in to Red demands.
4

It would be a gloomy picture, were it not for the fact that the people of the free, self-governing nations, led by the United States of America, have the weapons needed to counteract the Communist threat. The Tide of Red triumph can be reversed--before our Time runs out.
In order to take this high road that will insure more years, and God willing more centuries, of our security and peace, we must accomplish these four essential tasks:
First: We must restore our American will for self-preservation. At the beginning of this Century, it would have been unthinkable that the growing, expanding, vibrant nation known as the United States would ever lose its will to overcome any obstacle, to perform any task, to endure any hardship, in order to preserve our liberties and our national interests. It would have been unthinkable to have adopted any policy that would have prevented winning a war, when our country was thrust into one.
The spirit of that era was typified by a young man, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1898 gave up public life in New York City and state to lead a regiment of “Rough Riders” in the war against Spain, in Cube. He came back into public life a governor after that war: then in 1901 as Vice-President. Within a few months, this vigorous young man, by the assassination of President William McKinley, assumed the highest office in the nation.
Theodore Roosevelt secured the land and the rights for the Panama Canal. he mediated an end to the war between Japan and Russia in 1904. He warned the countries of Europe that while the United States desired no territories of its neighbors, it would not tolerate any breach of the Monroe Doctrine which since 1823 had protected the nations of this Hemisphere from threats against their territories. To display the strength of the U. S. Navy, in 1906 the President sent its fleet of battleships on a cruise around the world. He called it a “demonstration of good will.” It was also a demonstration of this country’s determination to survive any threat to its security and peace.
When democratic government were challenged in two world wars, the United States responded with a full measure of blood and resources-- sufficient to insure victory in both those holocausts.
Since World War Ii, as we have seen in this discussion, the decline in our determination, strength, and prestige has continued to the present time. Numerous examples come to mind, some of which we have mentioned. They include our stupid policy of granting concessions to the Communist enemy under the false assumption that our enemy would repay us with like concessions: our failure to maintain parity, much less superiority, with the Reds in military strength: our neglect to use every peaceful weapon that is ours to win the support and cooperation of the peoples of the world, both those who are enslaved by Communist tyranny and those who are still free.
One of the greatest bulwarks against Communist subversion in this country, and certainly the most hated by those who would bury us, is our Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). Admitting that in the past, the C.I.A. has sometimes made mistakes, as what Agency or person has not, we must never lose sight of the fact that the C.I.A. is absolutely indispensable to our national protection.
I quote from a discussion of this subject by Lieutenant General Vernon A. Walters, deputy director of the C.I.A.:
“One of the problems we have today is that there is a great effort to make it appear that intelligence gathering is immoral, un-American, and unworthy: that nothing should be kept secret; and that the Founding Fathers would have frowned on all of this undercover activity.
“Well, George Washington wrote a letter to his chief of intelligence in New Jersey, Colonel Elias Dayton and this is what he said: ‘The need for procuring good intelligence is so obvious that it need not be emphasized. All that remains for me is to caution you that secrecy is essential in these matters, and for lack of it, they generally fail, no matter how favorable the outcome.’
“I come down to a much closer time to president Truman who said, ‘It matters not to the United States whether its secrets become known through publication in the media or through the activities of spies. The damage to the United States is the same in both cases.’”5
If we are to restore and maintain our will for self-preservation, an immediate task is to see to it that our essential intelligence services are saved from leftist subversion.
Another vital task is to reform our present machinery of government. Clearly, it has grown too huge, too intricate, too cumbersome for rational management. We must demand that our leaders in both our legislative and executive branches reduce the federal bureaucracy to manageable proportions, and through elimination of redundant personnel and agencies. We must create clear lines of authority, cutting through the labyrinthian rabbit warrens of power that proliferate today. Each year that passes creates a new urgency for doing so.
Finally, this Bicentennial year gives us an excellent chance to honor our heritage of liberty. Let us call attention, vigorously and repeatedly, to the fact that under our Constitution and bill of rights, we people of the United States of America enjoy the greatest freedom of any humans on the globe, and that we intend to preserve and defend those liberties with all our devotion and might.
I suggest that our will for self=preservation can be strengthened if every citizen, whatever his age, will study the constitution and Bill of Rights; and a copy of these two great documents be placed on the walls of every school, every library, every editorial office, and in all public buildings, in America, to call attention to the meaning of our pledge to a “nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
5

Second: We must restore military superiority over the Communists.
This is an imperative task if our efforts for national survival are to succeed.
We have seen the proof that in every division of military power the Soviet Union holds the upper hand over our country. furthermore, if one draws a parallel between the rise of Soviet influence around the globe and the rise of Soviet military power, a point that has too often been overlooked, the two rising curves on a graph are parallel. For the United States during the past thirty years, the corresponding two curves have also been parallel-- and downward.
It cannot be overemphasized that the Kremlin spokesmen have repeatedly declared their willingness and intention to use their military forces, spearheaded by the nuclear arm, should “peaceful co-existence” fail to achieve their ends.
The latest figures from the Soviet Union show that their people are being assessed eighteen per cent of the gross national product for military purposes. We in America are spending only three-and-one-half per cent of our gross national product for defense. yet powerful forces in our Congress, by sniping at military appropriations year after year, seem bent upon destroying our national defense, the last obstacle we can muster against our eventual submission to Soviet demands.
If anyone is misled into believing; as some liberals shout, that “the Pentagon is living high on the hog,” let him consider the melancholy words of former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger:6
“We have dropped in terms of military power by a million-and-a-half men, compared to pre-World War II. We have the lowest share of the gross national product since before the Korean War. And in terms of public spending we are at the lowest point since fiscal year 1968.
“The appetites to further reduce the Department of Defense continue to grow as the Department dwindles. . . our resources have dropped by about forty percent in the past seven years, even without taking inflation into account.
“The question is, does the United States wish to maintain a military balance or does it not? If we are to disarm as a nation and accept second-class status as a military power, we should do so consciously, rather than allowing the erosion of purchasing power for the Department of Defense to drive us into that second-class status.
“I think that the departure from Vietnam and the war in the Middle East eliminated much of the hostilities toward the Department of Defense. Now we’re faced with a crueler fate, which is indifference rather than hostility. . . People don’t care very much.”
While I agree heartily with former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger that we must maintain a military balance with our enemies, and still better, that we should maintain superiority, I do not believe that the American people are indifferent to our danger. I believe that once they know the truth, they will act decisively. I believe that they will not want another Secretary of Defense to lead us into the mistaken policy of estimating Soviet intentions instead of their military capabilities. It was Secretary McNamara who argued that we should allay Soviet fears by lowering our military posture, on the erroneous assumption that Red Russia would follow suit.
We must commence at once to rebuild our military strength. We must stay with the task until we reach the point where no present or future Soviet regime can subscribe to the theory that it can be a winner in a nuclear confrontation or where we will be mesmerized into indifference or neglect of the power to protect our people, our government, and our cherished way of life.
Catching up with the Communist enemy in military strength will not be easy. It will require the same sacrifices we had to rebuild our Navy after the attack on pearl Harbor and to gain superiority of military strength in both the pacific and the European theaters of World War II. Whatever the cost, in this Bicentennial Year we must start to build a defense capacity, in all branches of the service, second to none in the world. And we must maintain it so long as the worldwide Communist conspiracy remains a threat to the independence of our own and other nations.
Who, except a Communist sympathizer or a person deluded by the false propaganda of those who would defeat us, will say that the price will be too high? Regaining lost ground may cost us some of the billions which we have been pouring into welfare programs that have not achieved their objectives. And every one of those dollars, if spent instead for our survival, will go into the very same pockets of the total work force in America, in the form of jobs, which the welfare dollars have been attempting to supply. And we will get something for our money.
No patriotic American wants to see the United States fall under the domination of what would in effect be a One World Government controlled by the soviet Union, following some ultimate conciliation by a President who finds he has no alternative to our physical destruction except surrender. There is evidence that some U. S. policy makers consider such an outcome as the rational, and perhaps the only, way to avoid a nuclear war. It would indeed be the supreme irony of history if our country, out of fear of nuclear war or in pursuit of a welfare-state economy, should allow that to happen.
Third: We must use food as a weapon for freedom.
There is no way the Reds can match our production of food. Outside of our military strength, food is our most powerful weapon. Even if the Communists adopted the methods of the democracies, allowing free agricultural production unfettered by bureaucratic strangulation and political control, they could not approach our production of food and feed in the next twenty years. Unless the whole Soviet system falls, such a change will not occur.
Therefore, we should be utilizing with full power this neglected weapon. The Politburo in the Kremlin, along with all the Commissars of all Marxist regimes, realize that if food is not available to their oppressed peasants and laborers, the people will rise up against the Red overlords and depose them from power.
It is estimated that there are only between six and eight million officials in the government of the Soviet Union, as compared to the total population of 220 million. In their captive nations there are comparable numbers of bureaucrats in relation to the people they enslave. Without food, the people would tear their officials apart -- and the officials know it. But we have never capitalized upon this fact. This food bank would then become our arsenal to influence both friends and enemies in our own national interests.
In my opinion, we should allow our farmers and ranchers to produce all the food and feed grains they can. After supplying our needs, or being sold on the open market, what is surplus could be purchased by our government.
We are told that Russia will need tons of grain from abroad for her people during the years 1976-77. Supplying any part of this need should be considered in a plan that would require some agreement by Russia on arms limitation, instead of keeping our supply of food on a one way street.
As a practical suggestion, I urge a policy of exchanging a certain measure of our wheat for a barrel of their oil, from their production. If the Russians do not have enough oil for this exchange, then let them go on the market and buy it, using their huge supplies of gold.
6

4. We must enlist greater support of our allies.
One of our urgent requirements as we confront the Communist challenge is to rebuild, as rapidly as possible, our NATO alliance. This task is parallel to, and it supplements, that of rebuilding our own military strength.
Too often our military aid to some countries has been squandered on personnel and material that contribute nothing to solid defense within those nations nor to the interests of the United States. The quid pro quo of our military aid to any country on earth should be its co-operation in creating an impregnable defense against further Communist expansion.
The action of a majority of the 1976 Congress (In my opinion the worst and most ineffective Congress in my lifetime), in refusing funds to assist in preventing the seizure of Angola by Russian and Cuban troops, should not be allowed to happen again.
As one who has served our country in high positions in Latin America, I am sensitive to the feelings of our good neighbors to the South. They are our allies. What they want of us, we should give: Greater attention to their economic needs so that they may become more self-sufficient and enjoy higher standards of living. What we need from them, they will repay: Closer co-operation in the battle against Red subversion in our hemisphere.
The infamous agreement with the Russian aggressors at the time of the missile crisis, that Fidel Castro would be protected by the United States on his Red throne in Cuba, should be publicly repudiated. It would be a gesture of assurance that no tyrant will be recognized as secure from being overthrown when his victims decide the time is ripe to do so.
All the citizens of the nations of Eastern Europe, established after World War I by President Woodrow Wilson’s policy of “self-determination of peoples,” are our secret allies against their Russian captors. The strongest weapon they possess in aiding us to overcome the challenge of Red aggression is their burning desire that someday they may enjoy their independence and self-government again.
We should be making every possible use of this weapon. To do that, we need a constant, unchanging policy. It can be stated in these words.
“We shall never turn our backs upon peoples who have been robbed of their freedom. By every peaceful means we shall plan and work for the liberation of all such victims.”
Those who have know freedom have had, and will continue to have, a hatred of their slave masters. No policy of detente can dissolve such an innate hatred. The rulers of Communist states, on the other hand, hate and fear any expression on our part, or on the part of their captives, that suggest liberation from their tyranny.
We should take away from Communist regimes the word “Liberation.” They use it to indicate freedom from a current regime, when actually it means seizure and enforced political economic slavery. We should use it for its true meaning: Liberation from Red tyranny and for self-government.
Every item in our Bill of Rights is anathema to Communist ideology. The shocking revelations documented in Solzhenitzyn’s The Gulag Archipelago stuck embarrassment and fear among the Kremlin masters. Just how sensitive the Russian leaders are to exposure of their brutality was illustrated at the Conference for Peace with Japan, held in San Francisco in September, 1951. At that meeting a member of the U.S. Congress publicly presented one of the slave-labor maps to the head of the Russian delegation, Andrei Gromyko, within range of news and television cameras.7 Gromyko was so embarrassed and angry that he threw the map on the floor. Next morning, in a special news conference, the Russian delegate branded the presentation as “a dirty capitalist trick.”
Every day in the United Nations the Reds should be confronted with their violations of the human rights they agreed to respect in the Charter and its amendments. Every day they should be asked by our U.N. representatives, echoed by news media of every kind:
“When are you Russians going to honor freedom of movement within and across your borders, as promised in the Helsinki Declaration?” “Why do you not permit freedom to worship in your country and in your colonial Empire?” :When are you going to take down the Berlin Wall?” “Why do you shoot people who try to escape from your country?” “When will you grant free elections, with free choice of candidates?”
We should remind ourselves of the statement of Abraham Lincoln: “I believe that this nation cannot endure half slave and half free,” His ideal was to recreate a nation in which all could be free. Today, every American citizen, north and south, east and west, is thankful that Lincoln’s dream came true. We should remind our secret allies, by every medium available, of our new policy: That we shall plan and work for the day when they too may live in a world where all are free.
One of the strongest bulwarks against Red Russian expansion in Europe is West Germany. At the close of World War II it was agreed by the four occupying powers, Great Britain, the United States. France, and the Soviet Union, that the division of the defeated country into zones would be temporary, and would be ended by a treaty of peace. It was agreed also that there would be free and open trade, travel, and other intercourse among the four zones of occupation. From the start, these agreements were discarded by the Russians, moving from the infamous Berlin blockade to the more infamous Berlin Wall, and on to the Helsinki Declaration that in effect incorporated East Germany into the Soviet Union.
It should be or policy: To fulfill our promise of a united Germany, possessing a truly democratic government.
The other nation we defeated in World War II, with the help of our allies, was Japan -- now also our ally. Despite mutual problems in economic matters, we should give Japan every assurance that we will remain her political and military ally against Red aggressions whether from Russia, North Korea, or China.
At this point I return to China, where my public service began with the building of the first aircraft factory for President Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces, in 1932. I stand on my opinion that we made a colossal mistake in forcing Chiang to join a coalition with the Communists, thereby losing this great subcontinent of Asia. If we had not surrendered China to the Reds, China today would be a land of peace and prosperity, as is the Nationalist island of Taiwan. I am certain also that there would have been no wars of Red aggression in Korea and Indochina.
But that is history. Our nation has recently found a rapprochement with China. Two of our Presidents have exchanged views with Chinese leaders. In the present perilous position, as we face the Russian threat, we must think in terms of the realities of today and the future. China is far more fearful of Russia than of the United States, which would no doubt cause her to be our willing ally in any showdown with Russia.

7

A means by which America and our allies can accomplish the vital rebuilding of our defenses, military and otherwise, is ably stated by Clare Boothe Luce, former member of Congress and former U. S. ambassador to Italy. This true statesman, a keen observer of both domestic and foreign affairs, in a speech before the Association of the United States Army, on the observance of the 200th anniversary of the founding of our army, June 18, 1975, declared:
“Let us not be downhearted. Democracy, as Churchill once said, is the worst form of government in the world - excepting all other forms of government. Its singular weakness -- its inability to formulate, support and conduct a coherent foreign policy -- is offset by a singular strength - its enormous flexibility. This gives a democracy the stunning capacity to get back on the right track almost overnight, the minute the people understand that the country is on the wrong track.
“Moreover, the U. S., together with its allies, still has a tremendous military potential that can be quickly realized the moment the will to do so is present. The Soviets are only 220 million. The Western alliance has close to a billion. Its productive capacity is six times greater. The GNP of the U. S. alone is twice that of the Soviets. Disposable wealth is not our problem. Last year Americans spent more on liquor, cigarettes, cosmetics, candy and entertainment than they spent on their entire Defense Establishment.
“When we get it through our heads that what is now on the line is our own survival - which, God willing. we will do short of another Pearl Harbor - we have all that it takes to regain our lost preponderance of power. Time is growing short - very short - but it is not too late.
“With the awakened resolve of the American people, and the courage and steadfastness of our Armed Forces, our country will celebrate its tri-centennial in peace and prosperity.”
I write these words in the election year of 1976. There are differences of opinion as to issues and candidates from the local offices, where our democratic processes begin, to the halls of Congress and the White House. But I plead that on the matter of our national survival as we face the Communist challenge, we unite as one great people. In foreign affairs and our relations with all other nations, whether friend or foe, let politics end at the water’s edge. Let us close ranks in a solid front of support for the interests of America.
During our history, we have faced crises that seemed as desperate as the present one. American stamina, ingenuity and courage have served us well. We have always risen to the occasion. I refuse to believe we have lost the capacity to do so once more.
--0--