Vietnam — An American Replies

Sirs.—Your position on the matter of sending your troops to Vietnam (Salient, June 15) is rather surprising to me. A study of history would enlighten you.

The reason the United Stales is in Vietnam and is asking others to join us in defending freedom there dates back to the Roosevelt administration here. Russia went Red during World War I. Neither Presidents Wilson or Hoover would recognise Russia. F.D.R. did. And the reason was that both he and his wife were Reds. Mrs. R. recanted and confessed her error after F.D.R.'s death.

F.D.R. gave Russia unlimited support, material and supplies during World War II, about 11 billion dollars worth of planes, trucks, ships, ammunition, not a penny of which was ever repaid. He set the stage for the division of Germany and the blockade of Berlin through treaties engineered after the war. He also arranged the division of Korea without consulting the Koreans. Secretary of State Acheson sparked the war there by ordering the military to evacuate. Russia then went in and attempted to take over. Truman surprised Acheson by ordering the defence of South Korea and we lost over a hundred thousand men there to keep South Korea out of the clutches of the Communists.

Ho Chi Minh was trained in Russia and, with Russia's aid, engineered the revolt against the French and the Treaty of Geneva, which resulted in the division of Vietnam. Then the Communists broke the treaty provisions and began their aggression in South Vietnam.

President Eisenhower realised that the line must be drawn someplace or the Communists would eventually take over the world, as they had announced they would, and as they still plan to do. So, at the invitation of South Vietnam, we sent advisers to help them in the defence of their freedom.

Consider what would happen if this were not done. With South Vietnam in its power, and with the connivance of Cambodia, used as a base for many operations, Thailand and Burma would be next. The Chinese Communists are already starting their aggression in Thailand.

If all South-east Asia comes under Communist control, whether Russian or Chinese makes no difference, and with Indonesia ready to help, how long do you think it would be before they began the rape of Australia and New Zealand?

The United States does not covet a square foot of any other country. We are in Vietnam in defence of freedom everywhere. New Zealand is a sovereign nation. It makes its own laws, its own decisions. I cannot conceive of any way in which the United States could enforce New Zealand's participation in the defence of freedom in South Vietnam, even if it wanted to.

We are simply defending the world against Communism on the line drawn there.

As to the Santo Dominican situation. Had we not gone in there when we did, the Communists would now be in control there, as they are in Cuba. And Castro, with Russia's aid, is "exporting" Communism, arms and ammunition, and tons of propaganda, as well as saboteurs, to many countries in Latin America, notably Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Mexico.

In her own self-interest, New Zealand should join the United States in South Vietnam in the defence of freedom—for all men everywhere.

Read history and weep for "Man's Inhumanity to Man."

C. Henry Nims.

Detroit, Michigan, USA.

Dr. Sutch's Economics:
An Honest Conclusion

Salient is showing more interest at an attempt to reach an honest conclusion to the present Sutch debate than at least one other periodical. Noticing that the Federated Farmers' journal Straight Furrow had published D.A.P.'s" article "The Economic Consequences of Dr. Sutch" and had seen fit to make this the subject of an editorial, I wrote pointing out that the analysis had been strongly criticised and that "It seemed to me that in the interests of fairness you (Straight Furrow) are required to publish some of these replies or a similar one."

The Editor wrote back that "this newspaper is not 'required' to publish anything.

"The subject seems to have been well thrashed out in both the daily and national press and we do not propose to carry the mattter further."

Straight Furrow is published by the Point Blank Press Co. Ltd.

With reference to "D.A.P.'s" reply to my article his points 1 and 4 are irrelevant, arising from a careful misreading.

Accusing me of attempting "to confuse the issue by talking about shares of private income" flabbergasts me almost as much as "D.A.P." attempting to discuss New Zealand Economic Structure without reference to the Farming Sector!

I discussed shares of National Income simply because "D.A.P." in his initial article said that "import controls have shifted a large slice of National Income away from the wage and salary earner," and in case you missed this point he finished with "policies which shifted part of the National Income away from the workers." Are we to understand that he does not include Farming Income in National Income? or that he thinks an analysis is adequate which makes no reference to the Farm Sector?

"B.H.E." did consult the Government Statisticians' Volume of Production and discovered that Volume of Production indices are irrelevant for the calculation of productivity increases when there has been import substitution. "B.H.E." (and the rest of the world) would be grateful if "D.A.P." was to explain how he reached his growth of productivity per head from his index, particularly if the calculation is valid.

I repeat the basis of my criticism of "D.A.P.'s" article. In no way docs the analysis support the conclusion of "the shifting of a large slice of National Income away from the worker." I can now add that "D.A.P.'s" irrelevant or invalid comments in his rejoinder gives as much support as the initial analysis.—B.H.E.

Salient's interest in an honest conclusion having been, we feel, well satisfied by five rounds on the subject, the whole matter is declared closed.— Editors.