Chapter VII: Who Is the Defeatist?

One reason that was given for the banning of “Communism on the Map” from military installations was that it was defeatist. If a diagnosis of the dangerous situation we are in is defeatism a doctor should not diagnose a serious disease. It is not a defeatist film, although it does show that we are in real danger. Senator Fulbright himself said: “We are confronted by the most formidable and resourceful adversary ever to have challenged us...”[168] President Kennedy on October 12, 1961, stated that mankind is in the most dangerous situation the human race has ever been in.

An examination of some of Senator Fulbright’s positions shows that he is a defeatist in that he indicates that we should not try to win victory over communism. The Senator does not think in terms of victory over the communist enemy; although he seemed to think in terms of victory, and that immediately, over the military in his effort to knock them out of the cold war!

The Senator does not seem to understand the principle set forth by Anthony Harrigan, director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, that: “As important to a navy as new ships and late-model weapons is a victory psychology. In the last analysis, it is the will to win that turns the tide of battle. The great conflicts of former centuries are replete with illustrations of the truth that the nation that is emotionally dedicated to victory is the nation that triumphs, even though its weapons may not be a match for the enemy’s weapons. To cite only one example, the outnumbered airmen of the Royal Air Force defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain because they had the will to win.”[169]

_Victory not Sought_

Senator Fulbright said that both “World Wars ended in total victory, but the world is far less safe for democracy today than it was in 1914, when the current era of upheavals began. One of the principle lessons of two World Wars is that wars, and total victories, generate more problems than they solve.”[170] What if we had lost these wars? The trouble was not that we won the wars but that we failed to keep the peace after the wars were won.

Senator Fulbright, to be consistent, should take the position that we should not fight communism even if war is forced on us, since he says that war and victory create more problems than they solve. The Senator says that he is not for total victory, and by that he means such a victory as we won in World War I and World War II, and that even if we won we would have the additional problem of what to do with victory![171]

What is it but defeatism for one to say that we should not seek victory over communism, and that if we did win it would create more problems than it would solve?

_Defeatism concerning Cuba_

In the campaign for the Presidency, John F. Kennedy said that he would do something about Cuba. The Monroe Doctrine calls on us to do something about Cuba. The influence of Senator Fulbright, according to Charles J. V. Murphy, helped bring about a change in plans which contributed to the “fatal dismemberment of the whole plan.”[172] The Senator thought that the invasion was a bad thing to do even if we succeeded. World opinion would label us as an aggressor, and we would have to support Cuba after we had thrown out Castro, and this would be a drain on our Treasury![173] It is strange that the Senator did not think of such arguments when U.N. troops, with United States support, waged war on Katanga. Furthermore, the Senator approved the State Department’s action in the show of force of American troops, ships and planes off the coast of the Dominican Republic in the fall of 1961.[174]

Fulbright is such a defeatist that he thinks that we cannot do much about Cuba, and that communist-controlled Cuba seems to be here to stay[175].

The rejection of the idea of victory over communism may be the reason that Edgar Ansel Mowrer, on returning to the United States after being in Europe, wrote: “In short, I find the Washington official attitude one of basic defeatism hidden behind a hot air screen of talk about the historical trend being on our side.”[176]

FOOTNOTES:

[168] Stanford Speech, p. 11.

[169] “The Will to Win”, _Congressional Record_, August 29, 1961, p. A6794.

[170] _Congressional Record_, July 24, 1961, pp. 12280-12281, col. 3,b. The Senator thought that possible action on our part might provoke the Soviets to an unrestricted nuclear arms race. At the very moment he was saying this, the Communists were finishing their preparations for renewed atmospheric testing, although we had not prepared for such and had not “provoked” them into doing this! When will some people learn that the driving power of communist activity is not reaction to our moves, but a positive program of world conquest based on their world view.

[171] Same as 3.

[172] _Congressional Record_, September 7, 1961, p. A7040. Senator Fulbright thought that it violated the OAS Charter. This statement in the quotation concerning Kennedy’s change of plans, does not imply that Senator Fulbright had anything to do with planning or executing the project.

[173] _Arkansas Gazette_, July 30, 1961, p. 5E. This quotation from the _Gazette_ is based on the Senator’s speech of July 24. _Congressional Record_, July 24, 1961, p. 12281.

[174] _Arkansas Democrat_, December 4, 1961.

[175] _Congressional Record_, June 29, 1961, p. 10874. The Senator once said that he did not know whether Castro was a Communist or not, but the main thing was that we must be patient and understanding and drive him toward the Communists. We must not confuse communism with nationalism, he said. He reprinted an article by Walter Lippmann which attacked the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee for indicating that Castro and his revolutionists were pro-communist. _Congressional Record_, August 11, 1959, p. 14100, _New York Times_, August 12, 1959.

[176] Edgar Ansel Mowrer, “Washington Attitude is one of Defeatism,” _Congressional Record_, July 23, 1962, p. A5660.