military aggression to economic warfare. The Communists took Central
Europe and China by military conquest. Korea was the turning point,
tragic, perhaps unnecessary, but it was there they learned that the free
world would fight. It was there they learned they could no longer con-
quer the world piecemeal. They were stopped again in Indochina, far
short of their objectives in Southeast Asia. Then the pattern of the
transition became clearer. They withdrew from Austria peaceably;
gave up the strategic naval base they had seized in Finland, and began
a general campaign of waving the olive branch instead of the sword.
Of course the olive branch could be a weapon of conquest, too, through
subversion, economic infiltration, and treason, but it is in a field of
battle where we should prevail, if we work hard enough at the job.

Are we winning the cold war? At this intermediate stage, I think the
answer is that we are ahead, because the free world is larger than it was
four years ago. In addition the Soviet satellite empire has been shaken
in Hungary and Poland. if not elsewhere. But this merely intensifies
the struggle.

The men in the Kremlin are never to be underestimated. They have
switched their attack to what they consider our greatest weakness——a
burning desire for peace. They are now dealing in the currency of
peace, rather than the coin of war. They hope to persuade us to disarm,
stop foreign aid, abandon free Asia, dismantle N. A. T. O., and leave
the world to go its own way. In all this, they have some unintentional
allies: war-weariness, neo-isolationism, a legitimate desire for lower
taxes, a natural desire to reduce armed forces and get on with the
happy business of life.

So the weapons of the moment have been chosen, as always with
peaceful people, by our enemies; the struggle has been joined. One
phase of it is going on here at home, in the battle over the foreign aid
program. Once again we are hearing that fatuous perennial, that
weary old cliché, that money doesn’t buy friends. Of course it doesn’t;
nobody with any sense ever thought it did. The point is that there is
an enormous difference, perhaps the difference between life and
death so far as we are concerned, between nations which are hostile
Soviet satellites and nations which are neutrals. A neutral nation may
not be our friend; it may actively dislike us; its leaders may irritate us
to the point of exasperation. That’s their privilege in a free world. I
submit that being irritated is not very important compared with the
mortal danger involved in the possibility that such a nation might be-
come a Red satellite and an agent of Communist conquest.

Think of these people, if you will, as individual human beings instead

3