Since then, for about 4 years, Chinese Communists have not used force
for aggressive purposes. We have achieved an armistice in Korea which
stopped the fighting there in 1953. There is a 1954 armistice in
Viet-Nam; and since 1955 there has been quiet in the Formosa Straits
area. We had hoped that the Chinese Communists were becoming
peaceful--but it seems not.

So the world is again faced with the problem of armed aggression.
Powerful dictatorships are attacking an exposed, but free, area.

What should we do?

Shall we take the position that, submitting to threat, it is better to
surrender pieces of free territory in the hope that this will satisfy
the appetite of the aggressor and we shall have peace?

Do we not still remember that the name of "Munich" symbolizes a vain
hope of appeasing dictators?

At that time the policy of appeasement was tried, and it failed. Prior
to the Second World War Mussolini seized Ethiopia. In the Far East
Japanese warlords were grabbing Manchuria by force. Hitler sent his
armed forces into the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty.
Then he annexed little Austria. When he got away with that, he next
turned to Czechoslovakia and began taking it bit by bit.

In the face of all these attacks on freedom by the dictators, the
powerful democracies stood aside. It seemed that Ethiopia and
Manchuria were too far away and too unimportant to fight about. In