m LAfVUA AMBJM SestdieM, 1975. ^ada 26.
the Soviet Umon? 1^^ entire Etogland, France,, United S small coiintries—entered into a Union in 1941. How is tMs to stand this? : : \
military alliance with the Soviet
explained? How can we mder».
become mm® ©l@¥@r.
aiiy more» say,
a
.1^^ first:explanatioiiwe can offer is'that perhaps it.means: ■ that the entire unit^^ democracies of the world were too wea^^^ ta,fight just. one Germanj alone, Hitler-alone, If this is the ease, then it is. alerrible portent^^ terrible prophecy for- the- present day* 1 afl these comtries^^^^^^^ could not defeat one little Germany at the time of HMer, what are they gomg to do todayp : when mora than one half: of the globe is tooded: vith' totalitāri»
don't want to accept this explanation. Then perhaps the second ļexplanation: that this was simply an attek of panic^ of fear of the statesmen of the day. They simply didn't have sufficient confi° dence in themselves, didn't have the strength of spirit, and in this confused state, decided to enter iiito an alliance with the Soviet totalitarism.
Ls :was' a
device. Democracy- did not want to~ defend itself ^ it wanted to de fend itself by means of another totalitaiism system: the Sovie totalitarism system. I am not talking now about the moral evolution of this—rm going to talk about that later—but purely in terms common calculations.. How nearsighted is. that self-deception is that?
Wa have'a Russian proverb: Do not call a against the dogs; If the dogs are attacking you, fight agains the dogs. Fight against ākt dogs, but do not call the wolf help yoUo Because when the wolves comej, they will' consume or chase away the dogs^ but they will tear you apart as welo
The.:W democracy could have defeated one.totaHtarim regime after another—the German, the Soviet." Instead, it strength-ened the Soviet totalitarianism, had helj^d to bring into existence .a third totalitariaņism,vthat:of ĢMna™^ tMs the present world situation; ^
Roosevelt in Teheran, during one;of Ms last • toasts^, this statement. He said:""ī do not doubtthat thethree of us"— meanmg Roosvelt,' ChurcMl and Stalin —"that ■ we lead our
peoples in accordance with their desires, in accordance with their aims/*
:..''^ ■ How are we to explm^^ this? Well, we11.1eave itto the:^histo-iians. We at the,;^^
We in the Russian Army thought when we reach Europe 111 meet the Americans, and we will
troops which. were niarchin| toward: Elbe. A little bit more and I would have reached Elbe, and would have shaken the hand of the front troops of the United States Army. But a little before then, I was taken off to the prison, and my meeting did not take place, But now, with this great delay, here I am to teli you, as a iriend of the United States, what as fŗiends we wanted to teli yoii but wMch^mr soldiers w^re prevented from telling yoi on
■ ,1^^ proverb: The eEemy is
man, but the friends will argue with you, īt is reason that I have come to
president Roosvelt did not pose' any €on| Union bef ore he gave them unimited aid,
In Yalta, withbut any neēd for it, the occupation Moldavia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were recb ately after that, almost nothing was done to protect Eastem Europe
home be haņded over to Mm. And the Westem handed over L5 milipn human beings, who did prisoners of Stalin^ and pushed them by
How could the Western democracies have done this? And immediately that came the other 30 years that followed-^the constant retreat, the surrender of one country after another, up to the point where now, in Africa, there are Soviet satellite countries; almost all of Asia is taken over iby them; Portugal is roUing down into the precipice. During the 30 years, more was siirrendered to totalitarianism than ever—ever in th^ world Wstory after any war had any defeated country surrendered. There was no war, but there might as weU h
For a long time I couldn't understand this. We conldn't mderstand the Sabbiness of this trfuce which was conducted in Vietnam. Any average Soviet Citizen understood that this was a sly device which made it possible foi" Northern. Vietnam to take over Southern Vietnam when it so ehooses. And suddenly, this is 'being rewarded by the Nobel Prize for peace? A. tragic and ironic peace. ,
This i^ a very dangerous sentiment, which may arise as a result of this 30 year's retreat. The feel for the world that comes as a result of it is to give in as quio]dy as possible, and to get peace an quiet at any cost.
Many papērs in the West have written: Let's burry up and end the blood-shed in Vietnam and have nationalunity'there. One of your leading news-papers, after the end of Vietnam, gave a fuU, big' headline: "The Blessed Silence." I would not v^^ish that ikind of blessed silence on my vvorst enemy. I would not wish that kind of national unity upon my forst enemy.
I have spent 11 years in the "archipelago." And for half of my lifetime I have studied this question. Looking at this terrible tragedy in Vietnam from a distance, I can teli you: A million persons wili be exteiminated. Four to 5 million—^in accordance with the scale of Vietnam—wi]l spend time in concentration camps and will be rebuilding Vietnam. . What is happening in Oambodia you already know. It is genicide. It is fuU and complete destruction, but in a new form.
Once again, the technology is not up to buildiņg gas chambers, so in a few liours the entire capital city, the guilty capital city is emptied out—old people, women, children are driven out without belongings, without food. Go, die!
Now we hear voices in your coūntry and in the V^est: Give up Korea and we will live in peace. Give up Portugal, of course. Give up Japan, give up Israel, give up Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia,.Thailand, 10 African countries. Just Iet us live peaceably.
Give us the possibility to continue driving our beautiful cars on our splen-4id highways. Make it possible for us to play tennis and golf. Let us mix our cocktails as we are accustomed to doing. Let m see the beautiful, toothy smile in the glass on every advertisement page of a magazine.
But this is how things are turning out to be. It is turning out to be that now, in the West, all this bas become a means of accusing the United States.
Now in the West we hear lnany voices whicb say it is the f ault of America. And here I must decisively state that I must defend the United States against these accusations. I have to say that the United States of all the countries of the West, is the least guilty in all this. It has done the most in order toprevent it
The United States helped Europe to win the first and the second World War. It lifted up iBurope from. the disaster of destruction of the war, twice. For 10, 20, 30 years, it has stood as a shield protecting Europe while Euro-pean countries were counting itheir pennies, and were trying to find a means of not paying their standing armies, or better yet, not to have them at aUo How not to pay for the armameņt. How to leave NATO, knowing that in any case the United States will protect them. These countries with thousands of years of civilization and culture—^these couhtriels have tegun this, even though they are closer and they should be able to sort the situation out better.
I have come to your continent. For two months I have been traveling in its wide-open spaces. Here you do not feel the nearness of it all, the im-mediacy of it all. And here it is possible to miscalculate. Here you must make a spiritual effort to understand the situation.
The United States of America, for a long time, has shown itself to be the nbst magnanimous, the most generous country in the world. Whenever there is a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a natūrai disaster, disease, who is the first to help? The United States. , ^
And what do we hear in response? Reproaches, condemnation, swear words, "Yankee go home!" American (informatibn) centrēs are being de-stroyed—being burned—mid the represehtatives of the "third world" jump up on the table to vote against the United States. .
But this does not reducē the load on America's shoulders—the great burden on America's shoulders. The course of history, -whether you like it or not, has made you the leaders in the world. You country can no longer afford to think provincially. Your political leaders cannot think only about their State, only about their party, about small situations. You must think aboul; the whole world. And wh©n a new political črisis in the world arise-^and I think that we have just come to the end of a very acute crisis and the next one will come any moment—the main decisions will fall on the shoulders of the United States of America. .
Allow me to quute whal I have heard here: "It is impossible to protect those who do not have the will to defend themselves." I agree with that. But I must say this was said about Vietnam. In one half
after another'^
□
to today's Europe and in three quarters of today's world, itself is even less than it was in Southern Vietnam.
One hears: "We cannot defend those who cannot defend themselves with their own human resources, with their own manpoweroBut, against the powers of totalitarianism—when all of this power is thrown against a country —-no country can defend itself with its own resaurces.
We are told: "It is not possible to protect those who do not have full de» mt>cracy." This is the most remarkable argument of the lot. This is the leit-moth I read in your newspapers and I hear in the speechesofsome of your political leaders. Who in the world, on the front lines of defense agamst total-itarianismp. eveir" has been -able. to sustaiE, feil-dem0cracy? .You? The United