Some background; In 1964 the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater was running against the incumbent Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. Barry Goldwater, for whom my great grandpa Van Wert was a supporter. Ultimately, Goldwater suffered a major loss to Johnson, winning only 6 states compared to Johnson's 44. My great grandpa lived in Colorado, a state that Johnson won in.
 |
| Map of the 1964 U.S. Presidential Election (source) |
The following is a transcription of my great grandpa's letter to the editor, explaining why he believed Goldwater should be president, despite the popular opinion of the rest of the USA at the time:
To:
The Editor
The Rocky Mountain News
40 W. Colfax Ave.
Denver, Colo. 80204
From: revw
Denver, Colorado
October 25, 1964
Mr. Editor:
So, your newspaper has come out against Presidential Candidate Barry M. Goldwater. Although I cannot agree entirely with your point of view, you did it quite respectfully.
I also read the editorial in the Saturday Evening Post “Why Lyndon Johnson Must Be Elected,” in which they downgraded Senator Goldwater and tried to classify him as a dangerous nit-wit.
When Senator Goldwater charged the Democratic Administration with being soft on communism, your editorial said that he is being similar to Joseph B. McCarthy. Was McCarthy so very wrong? What about Goldwater? Why not review some history of the last twenty-odd years?
Perhaps, if we go over our Country’s past record of appeasement and retreat we could learn something of the problem facing us to-day. With crisis after Crisis taking place from Korea clear to the explosive area of South East Asia Americans tend to ask themselves, how did we allow things to happen so bad?
While we in America are concerned with the problems of our own depression, the Russian-backed Chinese of the North were starting their move to sweep through all China.
Until we were thrown into conflict by the shocking Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we lacked any comprehensive policy toward the spread of Asian Communism. Many of the prominent figures who came to make up the Institute of Pacific Relations were then in policy maxing positions of State-department and Foreign-service. And so, the vast and ever-growing problem we face today: the problem of which we are reminded daily, through radio, press, and television; grew because of a series of incidents over many years, reflecting treason, neglect, and completely misguided judgment.
Young Americans are bleeding and dying daily in South West Asia because, for too many years, the best men were on the in-side, calling all the wrong plays.
These wrong policies and wrong decisions came to a tragic head at the Yalta conference of February 1945.
Two days before the ailing President Roosevelt left for the conference he received, from General MacArthur, detailed plans of a Japanese surrender overture, which the Japanese had forwarded to MacArthur. These terms were virtually identical with those accepted as the basis for the Japanese surrender six months later.
The General urged that Roosevelt begin immediate negotiations with the Japanese to bring about their surrender. He warned against inviting the Soviet Union into the war against Japan, because he knew, as he had all along, the communist outline for the conquest of Asia. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected the advice of the General with the statement that MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician. And so, with Alger Hiss at his elbow, The President was off to Yalta and his meeting with Stalin. There, Stalin easily talked him into making huge concessions to the Soviet, in exchange for the Red Army’s entry into the war we had under control and were bringing to a close.
The Japanese were ready to surrender to the United States, and Roosevelt’s agreement to bring in the Russians was one of the most misguided decisions in our history.
We paid a very high price for the President’s rejection of General MacArthur’s advice, by way of the needless and bloody battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, which followed the rejection of the Japanese surrender bid. The dropping of atomic bombs on the people of Japan could have been avoided. These were the immediate tragedies.
The entry of the Soviet into the last stages of the war provided the momentum for the take-over of the Chinese mainland. Korea was divided as a result Russia’s entry, and in the June of 1950 we paid the price for that division when the communist-held North attacked, and the Korean war began.
The true story of Japan’s surrender attempt to General MacArthur in February of 1945, and its subsequent rejection by President Roosevelt, was one of the key dramas to come out of World War II. And, it helps explain much of the pattern of misguided policy in the face of Communist Expansion.
Our Government has never made this sensational episode public. But, thanks to the quick thinking of a high-ranking military officer in Washington, at the time, its authenticity is known. General MacArthur’s document, containing the Japanese surrender offer, came across the officer’s desk. The officer was concerned over what might happen at Yalta; and fearing that Roosevelt, or one of his aids, might destroy the MacArthur Document, or hide it for years in top-secret files, he decided to make a record of it. The military officer called in Walter Troan, the out-standing bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, and suggested that Troan make an exact copy of the Japanese Overtures; after and on the Sunday following V. J. Day. The Tribune published the material in full. Yet, despite the vast historical significance of the MacArthur Document, prominent newspapers ignored the story, and it is known to few Americans today.
Examples such as this explain much of the righteous frustration of patriotic citizens, who want to know why all this happened and continues to happen. Too often, the facts surrounding foolish and misguided policy decisions are either covered up or conveniently ignored. Yet, Americans, especially those on the firing line in Vietnam are paying the price and will continue to do so
.
If we are in serious trouble in Asia today, and we most certainly are, then it is no accident. It was accomplished by every means and degree of communistic and left-leaning influence upon our government from the executive branch on down the line.
It was at the 1945 war-time conference at Teheran, in meetings between Roosevelt and Stalin, that the (fatal) decision to drive France out of Indo China was made. In his official report on the conference, Roosevelt-aid, Charles Bolin stated that Roosevelt was one-hundred percent in agreement with Marshal Stalin, that France should not get back to Indo China, which was then occupied by the Japanese.
Thus, the enemy received the tip-off some twenty-one years ago, that Western Influence was going to be driven out of the strategic peninsula which is now Vietnam.
Today, people of America wonder why France (Charles DeGaul) should feel so antagonistic toward the United States and insist on building a nuclear bomb of their own.
The distortions, double-talk, and concealment by the Department Far Eastern Division, heavily laden with the Institute of Pacific Relations’ type, stands as one of our darkest chapters of diplomatic disgrace.
Our late president John F. Kennedy; whom I believe was fully dedicated, at the time he took office, to freeing Cuba of the Castros and communistic control; had plenty of aid ready to help at the Bay of Pigs Invasion. But, as the crucial time arrived all aid was called off. Who were the policymakers and advisors change his mind, the United States could well have cleared Cuba of the Russians, and also Castro. They are still there; only ninety miles from our shores.
When President Kennedy learned, for certain, that the Russians were building missile bases in Cuba, his show of strength had them on the move to get out. Then, the sudden softening; and according to eye-witness accounts, the missiles were moved to just better hiding places.
If John F. Kennedy had followed his convictions and had not let his policy makers and advisors change his mind, the United States could well have cleared Cuba of the Russians, and also Castro. They are still there; only ninety miles from our shores.
Then, through the tragic loss of our young and vigorous President John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson became our president. Have the policy makers been changed? President Johnson has been in the United States Congress practically from the inception of these misguided policy-making decisions.
What is the foreign policy of the present Administration, or the Democratic candidates? So far, try hard as I may, I have heard nothing specific to come from their speeches. The only specific thing they do; build an image of fear for the unthinking, by saying that Barry Goldwater is dangerously trigger-happy, and “whose finger would you rather have in position to ‘press the button’.”?
Does the vast experience that Lyndon Johnson has had in public office-holding and political maneuvering, really, make the qualifications for a man to be president of the United States? After so long a time, a man could require a faulty perspective. America has been on the trail of retreat and appeasement from the end time of World War 2 until now. Where has Lyndon B. Johnson been all this time?
When I started this letter, it was to be for “Letters from the People” column, but it has become quite lengthy. However, one cannot write about the subject that I have, without being explicit. Otherwise, it becomes merely an accusation, or a smear.
So, now you will probably find some excuse to not print this letter in your newspaper. Especially, since you have joined ranks with the “wapper-mouthed” Liberals, as your columnist, Robert C. Ruark, has named them.
The Sorippe-Howard Newspapers has another columnist who is tops, in the field, when it comes to a truly analytical report of his observations. His name is Henry J. Taylor; he has been calling the shot all along, especially during the last four years.
Evidently, you Editors have not been reading his column. Did you read Taylor’s column in the Rocky Mountain News, dated October 2, 1964? Just look at the page opposite to where your editorial “Soft on Communism” is printed. You’ll find it.
Senator Goldwater did say, “I charge that this Administration is soft on communism.” And “I charge that this Administration has a foreign policy of drift, deception, and defeat.” Goldwater has been insisting that communism is aggressive, just as is fascism; that it is wrong to base our foreign policy on the assumption (idea) that the wolf will become a lamb- that we are dealing with a system; not faced by a man, only. Khrushchev is OUT – is the end of communism?
Events have confirmed what Barry Goldwater says.
A majority of the people in America today, seem not to be thinking and so not want to think anything through. They, usually, read only the periodicals or newspapers; listen only to the speeches, or the candidate who happens to coincide with their own inclinations and prejudices. The candidate who says peace, peace – when there is no peace – and who will promise the most for the least amount of effort put forth, is the one for them.
NO PEOPLE DEFFERVES A BETTER FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAN THAT
FOR WHICH THEY WILL STAND.
Think it over.
R. E. Van Wert
4552 Utica St.
Denver, Colo.
80212
No comments:
Post a Comment