“De-escalation”

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31654, 15 April 1968, Page 8

“De-escalation”

Sir,—George Kelly is to be commended for his more moderate reply. Since many Leftists, like most on the Right, are unable to rise sufficiently above their prejudices to attain more than half of manytided truth, and since this has been very obvious in this correspondence, the earlier fury of Mr Kelly's “metaphorical truncheon” was perhaps understandable. What cannot be "forgiven," however, is the failure of many of the more intelligent antl-Communlsts to oppose the worst excesses of modern militarism. Particular criticisms by such people might have been heeded where the biassed denunciations of Leftists were ignored, and if most on the Right had not gone along with all the means being used, the chances of some positive accomplishment in Vietnam, to counterbalance the human agony involved, would have been much greater. But if all “hawks” are not “compulsively aggressive", they are deficient in humane restraints.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. April 14, 1968. Sir,—Your editorial and President Johnson’s supporters claim be has made a great bid for peace, even a sacrifice. Sacrifice means the slaughter of a victim, death in battle for one's country, giving up something for the sake of something else. There is no such word as de-escala-tion. Since President Johnson announced his peace plan he has proved to the world he is no lover of peace. Since being President he has failed to bring peace to his own troubled nation, yet in Vietnam has staged the most barbarous undeclared war in hiatory. The world is on the verge of total destruction beeause President Johnson and most leaders of nations are military and political gamblers. The recent storms, with tragic loss of life and minor damage to property, have given warning signs that a greater power than President Johnson will take part in the Anal destruction of mankind. —Yours, etc., FLEMING ROSS MILLER. April 14, 1968.

Sir,—Democracy and freedom of the press are indeed the two most cherished freedoms we have. However, this latter freedom has recently inspired too many Vietniks and blind pacifists to vent their spleen on L.B.J.’s Vietnam policy. The howls of these, the minority, surely deserve less space. For those so contorted by anti-United States bias need only turn back the pages of history 30 years to Czechoslovakia to realise a United States withdrawal from South*East Asia would deny these people the fundamental right of establishing a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and thus pose a threat to New Zealand more ominous than the Japanese occupation.—Yours, etc., TIKI.

April 10, 1968. [This correspondence is now closed. Ed., “The Press.’’]