 The following program has been provided by the Pacifica Radio Archives Preservation and Access Project. For more information call 1-800-735-0230 or log on to PacificaRadioArchives.org. The subject of today's discussion is the Invasion of Czechoslovakia. As my commentary I shall read to you an article by Avis Brigg from the forthcoming issue of my magazine The Objectivist. Needless to say I agree with the views expressed in this article and I want them to be heard. I quote from Cultural Trends by Avis Brigg. According to the brothers Grimm there was once a shepherd boy who so loved the excitement that he was forever turning in false wolf alarms for the fun of seeing the villagers come running to the pasture armed with clubs and guns to deal with a wolf. As time went on and no wolf was ever there when the villagers arrived fewer and fewer of them answered his calls for help and finally when the wolf actually came no one at all paid any attention to him and the wolf ate him up. If the Grimm's were collecting folk tales today they might find the stories that goes like this. Once there was a shepherd boy who was so afraid of having enemies that he refused to believe that wolves existed at all. When the wolf made off with one of his flock he always managed to think of some likely sounding story with which to convince himself and the villagers that no wolf had been involved. The wolf grew strong and commenced to raise a family and the shepherd boy got better and better at inventing stories to account for the diminution of his flock so that pretty soon no one believed in wolves any longer and the wolf and his cubs could walk through the village streets without fear of being recognized. If the story were carried to its logical conclusion the ending would be far worse than that of the original tale for if the wolves were smart enough to realize that the shepherd boy was the best friend they had they could pull down all the sheep and indeed all the villagers as hunger decreed. All they would have to do would be to save the shepherd boy until last for he would always find a way of convincing the survivors that there were no wolves. Indeed I suspect that he would be telling himself the same thing even while the wolves were dragging him off to their lair. There are wolves aplenty in the world today and our government and our press and our halls of learning are literally full of shepherd boys who cannot allow themselves or anyone else if they can possibly help it to believe in wolves. Unlike the shepherd boy in the story they are willing to admit that Soviet Russia once was somewhat carnivorous but they insist she has filed down her fangs and become a vegetarian. She might unthinkingly get a little rough at times but she means well and would never hurt a soul. 12 years ago that particular wolf pulled down the equivalent of one of the villagers. Russia invaded Hungary and brutally crushed its people and has been gnawing their bones ever since. The free world stood in horrified paralysis and watched unbelieving and no one lifted a finger to help. Since then Russia has been involved in many coups and attempted coups among the developing nations. American troops have been killed by Soviet guns and bombs everywhere they have fought in the last 20 years and once Russia went so far as to indicate quite clearly that the United States was on her list. Russian missiles aimed at the industrial and population centers of the United States were installed in Cuba but our shepherd boys keep telling us how friendly are Moscow's intentions, how good-hearted are the people of Russia, how much the Soviet government has mellowed over the years. Now once more one of the civilized nations Czechoslovakia has attempted to free itself of its bondage to Moscow and has been crushed under the tanks of the Red Army. The Czechs knowing that there was no hope of assistance if they rebelled forcibly against Russian rule, knowing that if they were to stand at all they would have to stand alone, use no weapons but their courage. We may never know just how bloody the crushing of the Czech rebellion was. All we know is that it is not over yet and that Moscow with its enforced trade and tribute agreements will be chewing the bones of that gallant nation for a good many years to come. It happened again and again we stood helplessly by watching in disbelief and before the corpse of that battle for freedom was called some of our shepherds were busily explaining that it didn't mean a thing that Russia was not going back to her old habits, that the ruthless suppression of Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with Russia's international policies and how do they propose to convince us of such a thing? Ironically, they have chosen a concept which was once used by socialists all over the world to condemn capitalism, the concept of spheres of influence. They have taken it out of the mothballs, brushed it off and turned it inside out to make it respectable. This policy they say and do not mention that they once called it a vicious policy of which only capitalist nations were guilty is necessary for world peace. James Reston in the New York Times of September 13th 1968 quotes Walter Liebman as saying quote recognition of spheres of influence is a true alternative to globalism. It is the alternative to communist globalism which proclaims the universal revolution. It is the alternative to anti-communist globalism which promises to fight anti-communist wars everywhere. The acceptance of spheres of influence has been the dominant foundation and the detente in Europe between the Soviet Union and the West. Eventually, it will provide the formula of coexistence between red china and the United States. Close quote. Mr. Reston agrees. It is not a fair policy. He admits but quote it is a practical formula for minimizing the tensions between the nations that have the power to start a world war. Close quote. He also admits that the Soviet action in Czechoslovakia was somewhat different from America's demands that Russia remove its missile bases from Cuba but he adds that the problem appears to be one of definitions. Russia and the United States must define their own spheres of influence and we must both agree on what is and is not meant by the term sphere of influence. Tom Wicker in the New York Times of September 22, 1968 offers another suggestion on how to ignore the fact that Russia has not changed her methods or intentions for 50 years. Quote. The Czechs after all challenged the most basic tenet of communism, the dominance of the party. Close quote. Czechoslovakia had been communist and whatever rights anyone else in the world may have the people of a communist country do not have any right to change their politics or to disagree with the party. Quote. Thus the crashing blow that has fallen on Prague, however reprehensible, was taken for reasons having little to do with basic east-west relations. Close quote. He also quotes Eugene McCarthy as stating that our own actions in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and Cuba have made it difficult for us to, quote, raise serious moral and diplomatic protests. Close quote. Mr. Wicker indicates another reason for continuing to believe that the Soviets have mellowed, even so he admits, not quite as much as we had hoped. Quote. It is inconceivable, he says, speaking of the problems between the United States and Russia, that these can be solved or even coped with more easily in an atmosphere of cold war than the spirit of the town. The Soviets and their allies have not made that easier to do, but they have not made it impossible either. Close quote. One wonders what the Soviets would have to do to make Mr. Wicker believe that it is impossible or if indeed there is anything at all they could do to convince him. It is somewhat encouraging to note that on the same day Mr. Wicker's article appeared, The New York Times also ran an editorial which disagreed with his views. The editorial stated uncompromisingly that the conquest of Czechoslovakia was, quote, illegal and immoral, close quote, and referred to it as, quote, an act of bestial imperialism, close quote. And, quote, every guarantee of the United Nations Charter has been violated. The editorial went on to say and demanded that the UN take action to force Russian troops out of Czechoslovakia and restore the legal government, quote, the United Nations will be judged and deserves to be judged by the effectiveness and vigor or lack of it with which it acts to secure rectification of a blatant international crime. Close quote. It is encouraging to hear such words from the bastion of liberalism, but it is puzzling when one remembers the outrage of Hungary 12 years ago. It was surely as clear then as it is now that the UN is not defense against Russia's determination to dominate the world nor has it been of any use in preventing Russia from furthering her aims anywhere else on earth. Even if we assume that such issues as the veto or the inclusion of Russia in the United Nations at all were too abstract to make the liberal suspect that that organization would contribute little or nothing to the cause of world peace and might actually do more harm than good, certainly the UN's ineffectual squabbles over the Hungarian bloodbath were an obvious fact. How 12 years later anyone can still speak of judging the UN in the future tense is a mystery understood only by such shepherd boys as the one in my story. Like a real wolf, Soviet Russia is a carnivore incapable of producing its own sustenance. It needs a steady stream of victims or it will starve to death if the intellectual leaders of the West had been acquainted with the political philosophy of freedom the Soviet foreign policy would not be a mystery to them. They would know that that policy had to be as rapacious as it has been. Throughout history to the degrees that the people of a country were free they were productive and prosperous and to the degrees that they were not free they starved unless their country was in a position to loot an exact tribute from its neighbors and we know that the Russian government exerts more control over more aspects of the lives of its citizens than any other government in today's world. The naturalist upon observing an animal which possesses all the defining characteristics of a wolf does not expect that animal to behave like a lamb or a kangaroo or a dove. He knows that by its very nature a wolf is incapable of growing wool or carrying its young in a pouch or laying eggs and cooing. The political scientists if they are scientists should know that the totalitarian nation by its nature cannot mellow in the manner so hopefully described by the legions of shepherd boys here and abroad. Force, aggression and slavement are its only means of survival. These conclusions however are not part of the political philosophy of those who determine our foreign policy. What then is their philosophy? When we observe the passive indifference of our government to the events in Czechoslovakia the feeble protests the perfunctory reprimands the evasive brush off of the entire issue a comparison to our policy in Vietnam becomes inevitable and raises many questions. If any of the considerations offered to justify our involvement in Vietnam have any validity whatever aren't they much more applicable to the situation in Czechoslovakia. If the spread of communism is a threat to our national security then which communist conquest is the greater threat Vietnam in a forsaken corner of Southeast Asia or Czechoslovakia in the heart of Europe. If we must resist communist aggression then which aggression is worse the encroachment of North Vietnam upon South Vietnam a guerrilla civil war fought by divided people though directed by outside powers or the invasion of a small country united in its quest for independence by a stronger bigger neighbor. If we must uphold the principle of the right of small nations to national self-determination then where did the clearest violation of that right occur in Vietnam or in Czechoslovakia. If we must defend the people's right to a government of its own choice established by a democratic election then which people has earned that right the Vietnamese whose primitive culture and savage tradition of rule by force and corruption have not prepared them to grasp or desire or seek or conduct the process of a political election and the establishment of representative government or Czechoslovakia a civilized nation that has chosen its government by a process of popular election. If we are to defend freedom in the world then where is its frontline in the jungles of Vietnam or in the industrial cities of Czechoslovakia these questions are obvious yet we hear no answers to them anywhere neither from our government officials nor from our public commentators and that silence itself is an answer an ominous one raising the deeper question of why what causes the silence what does it hide there are many possible hypotheses about which we can only speculate at present one such hypothesis was offered by V.O.R.L. Virgil Tillay in a letter to the editor of the New York Times September 15th 1968 Mr. Tillay is identified as quote Romanian minister to London in 1938 his recall was ordered by the Nazis but he refused to leave he later organized the free Romania movement close quote Mr. Tillay writes that the military occupation of the eastern European countries was agreed upon at Yalta by Roosevelt Churchill and Stalin quote it was agreed upon only after Stalin gave formal assurances that he would not interfere in the eternal affairs of the countries to be occupied by him Churchill himself who regretted that Blunder told me before his Fulton speech that the Yalta division was only for the duration of the war the Soviets pretend even today that it is still internationally valid also that a tacit agreement exists between them and the United States administration for the de facto maintenance of the division and what is more tragic they pretend to have obtained the green light from Washington after giving notice of their intention to occupy Czechoslovakia the ambiguous attitudes explanations and press reports from Washington make one believe that the administration has given the green light it all comes back to the crime of Yalta balance of power tacit consent or whatever you call it therefore these terms must be quickly and openly repudiated the blotting out of Yalta and its vestiges does not mean war but it tears to pieces the only Soviet justification of a protracted world division close quote there is no way of knowing at present whether the allegation of Washington's tacit compliance is true or not the Soviets are not a reliable source of information and any claims they make is almost certain to be false but the mere fact that their claim was made at all and was not answered is horrifying enough one of the most bewildering issues in the all but incomprehensible field of American foreign relations is our policy toward the Russian-dominated nations of Eastern Europe what precisely is our policy and what are its reasons if the next administration will take a clear cut stand on this issue it will be taking a major step toward the rational foreign policy close quote this was an article by avis big entitled cultural trends from the forthcoming issue of my mad magazine the objectivist now i shall add a few comments of my own the prospects of a change in our foreign policy in regard to Europe are not very bright particularly in regard to our attitude towards Soviet Russia our public commentators are enmeshed in an intellectual package deal made of blindness and our evasion and our incredible naiveness which has taken 50 years to grow there is nothing as naive as the attitude of significant modern pragmatists in the presence of an idea or a political ideology just as they did not believe Hitler when he announced openly that he intended to conquer the world so they do not believe Soviet Russia when it announces openly that the conquest of the world is its aim as an example of this type of naiveness i will quote an article by james reston in the new york times of october fourth 1968 quote in his speech to the general assembly here today the general assembly of the united nations the soviet foreign minister andrei gromyko put forward a couple of intriguing propositions there is no contradiction he said between the soviet union's aggression in czechoslovakia and its desire for peace and second no matter how moscow uses military force to defend the interests of socialism it is still for arms control in the world and friendship with the united states in short the soviet union wants a free hand to do what it likes in eastern europe which it regards as its sole sphere of interest even the movement of the red army across the czech border should be seen according to this argument to be an internal matter internal to the socialist empire and even the united nations must realize mr gromyko emphasized that the ussr will not tolerate any situation which seems to infringe upon the vital interests of socialism what is interesting about the logic of the soviet mind if that is the right word is that it never seems to grant to others what it demands for itself and either does not see or care that it actions have consequences often contrary to its own objectives close quotes mr reston's and proceeds to state that the soviet objectives are peace in the world that the soviets really do want peace and friendship with the united states and therefore he claims they are defeating their own aims by invading czechoslovakia and therefore arousing a great many people in this country against any treaties any friendship or any trust towards the soviet union the naiveness of this position lies in the fact that mr reston apparently does not grasp the nature of the soviet aims he does not grasp that they the soviets are practicing the philosophy of pragmatism much more consistently and effectively than its practitioners in america the soviets do want friendship with the united states for a while they do want peace for a while for as long as it fits their purposes any peace or friendships they seek is only for the purpose of undermining and destroying the united states and the rest of the semi free world their policy in czechoslovakia is not a contradiction to their actual long-range goals the conquest of the world has always been their goal and they are now proceeding to achieve it as they always have peace meal step by step taking advantage of the innocence naiveness or evasion of the intellectuals the world over there is no hope for a change in this situation until the intellectuals of the west begin to grasp that soviet russia is a monstrous totalitarian dictatorship that that is all it is and all it can ever be and then we must gauge our attitude and our foreign policy accordingly