ese 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
Europe appeasement was looked upon as the way to peace. The
democracies felt that if they tried to stop what was going on that
would mean war. But, because of these repeated retreats, war came just
the same.

If the democracies had stood firm at the beginning, almost surely
there would have been no World War. Instead they gave such an
appearance of weakness and timidity that aggressive rulers were
encouraged to overrun one country after another. In the end the
democracies saw that their very survival was at stake. They had no
alternative but to turn and fight in what proved to be the most
terrible war that the world has ever known.

I know something about that war, and I never want to see that history
repeated. But, my fellow Americans, it certainly can be repeated if
the peace-loving democratic nations again fearfully practice a policy
of standing idly by while big aggressors use armed force to conquer
the small and weak.

Let us suppose that the Chinese Communists conquer Quemoy. Would that
be the end of the story? We know that it would not be the end of the
story. History teaches that, when powerful despots can gain something
through aggression, they try, by the same methods, to gain more and
more and more.

Also, we have more to guide us than the teachings of history. We have
the statements, the boastings, of the Chines