To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Yesterday the May 2nd Committee passed out some leaflets. The discussion contained in the leaflets transcended the usual bounds of mere ignorance, so I feel it necessary to comment.

The leaflet maintains that since most of the Viet Cong are from the South, and since these men are already armed, reprisal against Hanol is senseless. In fact the Viet cong, be they from North or South are trained in and supplied from the North. More important, the war in South Viet Nam is carefully controlled from Hanol; every attack is carefully detailed according to the instructions of Mao Tse-Tung's handbook on guerilla warfare. The Viet Cong have paid much closer attention to their handbook than their Viot Minh counterparts in the days of war against the French; in particular there have been no set piece battles except Binh Gia and peasant indoctrination has been much more sophisticated. In the contrast of a (brilliant) masterplan, the May 2nd Committee's statement becomes mere distortions.

Eisenhowever is cited by the Committee as having stated that none of our experts were certain that Ho Ohi Minh would have won a general election. It's to bad they didn't cite a Southeast Asian; I don't think they could have found one to cite. I peat last year in Southeast Asia, is India, Thailand, Formosa, the Philippines. Everywhere I heard that Ho had once been regarded, and rightfully so, as the George Washington to Indochina. He had led his people against the imperialist French and, with General Giap, had waged a brilliant, tightly-organized campaign against a superior enemy. Is there say need of a elector parallel with Washington?

But Ho marched on the Communist side: his forces carried huge banners with pictured of Mao on them and posters that proclaimed the gory of the Chinese. Ho's men killed the bad authorities to ingratiate the people, but they also killed the good to terrorize the government. There was much senseless killing. Villigers la the likes were tortured brutality, and killed and the precis of them were left for terror. Everywhere the people were told that the land would be distributed to the peasants if the the Communists won. This land propaganda was, with other things, crucial is Meo's victory in China and very the May 2nd Committee probably knows how well that promise is fulfilled.

Thus the entire region was faced with Communist take over by men who fought oppression with brutality and lies and then substituted wore oppression. The May 2nd Committee is on their side.

I do not defend U.S. policy in Southeast Asia on all points; I have been outspokenly critical of several paves. But I would lose all respect for the United States it we retired without a fight. The above reasons are sufficient, but there are more. The people of Thailand and the Philippines have risked their lives in allying themselves with us-literally, not the least bit figuratively. I shall not be party to the desertion of a friend who has risked his life for me. Red China's most effective propaganda in the Far-East has been calling the U.S. a paper tiger who will not support her friends. We lost the trust of Pakistan for this reason. We lost the trust of Cambodia for this reason. Following the twisted rationalization of the May 2nd Committee we shall lose all of Asia for this reason. William H. Overholt '68