Withdrawal from Vietnam

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32563, 24 March 1971, Page 20

Withdrawal from Vietnam

Sir,—By comparing the United States fighting record in the Second World Wai with its role in Vietnam, “The Springbok” is naive to the extreme, completely overlooking the fact that North Vietnam, unlike Germany and Japan, had super-Power support if “all-out war,” which “The Springbok” advocated, had been a pursued policy of the United States. The mining of Haiphong harbour (usually full of Soviet munitions ships) as advocated by Senator Barry Goldwater could have induced the U.S.S.R. to enter the conflict. Similarly, saturation bombing extending to the Chinese border no doubt would have provoked armed intervention on a massive scale from Communist China. The stage then would have been set for global nuclear conflict. No, do not let us quibble about the reasons for withdrawal, but be grateful we are quitting the whole sorry mess and try to get our defence priorities right in the future.—Yotirs, etc, A. R. KEAY. March 23, 1971. Sir,—l never said that World War II “was simply a Nazi-Fascist Struggle against communism” as “The Springbok” claims,' I do say that anti-communism was the camouflage, which the Axis Powers used to disguise their insane ambitions for world conquest. It is also the fashionable see-through garment in which naked imperialist aggression in Vietnam today clothes its vileness. Pearl Harbour was merely an ex-

tension on the military plane of United States-Japanese imperialist rivalry which began with Commodore Perry’s bombardment of Japan in 1854. Certainly the Western Powers were not fighting to defend communism in World War 11, but historical necessity decreed their alliance with the Soviet Union. In his ardent advocacy of capitalism, “The Springbok” seems unaware that it was the economic system of the Axis Powers; it quite happily coexisted in mutual harmony with these reactionary, repressive, and inhuman regimes.—Yours, etc, “M.C.H.” March 22, 1971.

Sir, —Repeated involvement in wars is a feature of American imperialism. “The Springbok” should know that the Nazi-Fascist struggle against communism fitted the British tradition of economical defence by the balance of power in Europe, but the encouragement of Hitler backfired. Hitler’s war suited American imperialism waiting on the sidelines to pick up the pieces until Pearl Harbour. Had Japan been content to attack British outposts, America would have remained unmoved, with dire consequences for New Zealand. Forced in at a late hour, America dictated the peace terms for Europe, preferring, for those countries headed towards moderate socialism, Russian domination instead of democracy. Right-wing tyrannies were preserved wherever possible. But Asia rejected Pax Americana as a substitute for British, French, Dutch, or Japanese imperialism, and that is what the misery of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is all about.— Yours, etc, “JIM ABELSON.” March 23, 1971.