Faces of the American Dead in Vietnam: One Week’s Toll, June 1969

Life Magazine ^ | 5/23/14 | Life Magazine

[TangledUpInBlue]

In June 1969, LIFE magazine published a feature that remains as moving and, in some quarters, as controversial as it was when it intensified a nation’s soul-searching 45 years ago. On the cover, a young man’s face — the very model of middle-America’s “boy next door” — along with 11 stark words: “The Faces of the American Dead in Vietnam: One Week’s Toll.” Inside, across 10 funereal pages, LIFE published picture after picture and name after name of 242 young men killed in seven days halfway around the world “in connection with the conflict in Vietnam.”

[ansel12]

I think that fueled more of the anti-war sentiment among the young than people today realize. It was clear by 1971 that the war had descended into a stalemate that could not be won without attacking North Viet Nam directly, which politics prevented. A lot of us, myself included, did not want to die in the quagmire of a ‘limited’ war.

What you just posted is something that no one wants to remember, because it is easier to just parrot the line about "youth" and "hippies", etc.

Those of us who lived through the times remember how people, including the young, were baffled by the nation's leaders and the way we were not fighting the war, eventually, many naturally wanted nothing to do with the unexplained war with no seeming purpose or goal, or end, we wouldn't even bomb the enemy, it was just year, after year, after year of half war, bloody combat, but with no seeming goal or purpose except to maintain an equilibrium between maintaining constant combat, while also maintaining the enemy's ability to fight us.

Fighting the Vietnamese was to be fighting a first class enemy, it was a true and bloody war with horrible conditions, in time it came to seem that people were merely being cycled through their time in the endless war, for no apparent purpose, as though it had become a habit for the politicians, it became clear that whatever unseen purpose it was serving for the politicians, that they weren't interested in defeating the enemy and that they kept stopping before delivering the death blow.

Look at these polls, the young were the strongest supporters of the war, and clearly the older people were mystified by the way it was not being fought, for instance leaving the north alone, and their harbors, and fighting for ground and then abandoning it.

Look at the over 49 age group, the WWII fighting age group, look at how quickly they changed in their support for the war.

[huldah1776]

Thank you. Is it okay if I quote you till I die?

[oh8eleven]

And iirc didn’t they really push the number of dead during the first Gulf War?
You mean the "100 Hour War?"
About 250 were KIA and the war was over so fast, the MSM didn't have time to exploit that.

[x1stcav]

Maybe not fought overwhelmingly by volunteers but the names on the wall are overwhelmingly those of enlistees. I can’t remember the exact percentage but it is so.

One was 25-26 times more likely to die as a company-grade officer or an E-6 as a 19 year old draftee.

I also recall that the highest percentage of combat deaths, regardless of race, came from the states of the old Confederacy. I think you could also throw West Virginia in there (must be something in the water there that makes them want to fight.)(Then, again, it might be so many Scotch-Irish from there.)

There are so many misconceptions about the demographics of those who fought and died there that have been perpetuated by the left that have survived to this day.

[ansel12]

In Vietnam about 70% of those killed were volunteers, in WWII about 30% were.

During the Vietnam war 25% of the Army was draftee, in WWII 93% of the Army was draftee.

The Marines had far more draftees in WWII than during the Vietnam war, and during Vietnam, the Navy didn’t draft at all.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Stephie’s hypocrisy is palpable.

[x1stcav]

First of all, I’m on your side.

But I just can’t believe, from my own experience, that only 25% of the Army were draftees.

But, I’m willing to do my own research and I’ll get back to you.

(The best troops I had were from the South and were enlisted.)

[StormEye]

"You omitted Hanoi Jane Fonda!"

Yes! Absolutely!
And a big round applause to all the Hollywood nitwits, Hollywood liberals, Hollywood crypto communists and other assorted Hollywood traitors, typified by Jane Fonda, for their part in the deaths of plus fifty thousand Americans and the wounding of hundreds of thousands and the useless expenditure of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. You get the Oscar of Treason Hollywood!

[x1stcav]

Damn if you’re not correct! From what I could see, approx. 25% of the total who served there were draftees, but they accounted for approx. 30% of combat deaths.

I’ll be ———!

I would’ve thought it was much higher percentage.

So why were the pu$$ies crying so badly? Hell, they hardly made it there.

RA and proud of it.

[Flag_This]

"victory was denied by the old WWII generation, playing some sort of weird political game for a decade of us defeating the Communists on the battlefield."

Do you think what happened during the Korean War, when 250,000 chinese joined the party, had anything to do with how the vietnam war was later fought?

[ansel12]

I’m RA also, but it did take me about two years to beat the draft before I could enlist.

[ansel12]

Sure, is that your explanation for the Vietnam war from it’s mysterious beginnings by JFK, to it’s non, war, war fighting by LBJ and Nixon, that it was all because of China?

Do you even think the American Vietnam era military was the same as what we had in 1950?

[Renegade]

Your opinion!

[DoodleDawg]

Three fourths of all Afghanistan War deaths have occurred on Obama’s watch.

What percentage of the Iraq war deaths occurred on Bush's watch?

[DoodleDawg]

If the Iraq war or the Afghan war claimed 250 deaths per week how long do you thing people would have put up with them?

[Flag_This]

"Sure, is that your explanation for the Vietnam war from it’s mysterious beginnings by JFK, to it’s non, war, war fighting by LBJ and Nixon, that it was all because of China?"

It was a simple question. Not sure what your agitation is about. But yeah, I think LBJ was paralyzed because of what happened in Korea and for that very reason he tried to make it a "limited" war, with the result that North Vietnam, with material help from russia and china was able to regroup, rearm and re-attack in South Vietnam over and over and over again... until we left.

[Renegade]

How do declare a war won when you flee the country and leave Viet supporters scrambling to board helicopters when the embassy was being overrun by the enemy!

[rlmorel]

Agreed.

What the left did to our military and to the mission in Vietnam was criminal.

I was ten years old when I became a conservative. I hated the left and hippies with a passion.

These people were against my father and good people like him serving in the military. They demonized them and wanted them all to die or be horribly maimed for serving.

I hated the left, and still do. And those people, instrumental in what happened then, have been in power, gaining power since then.

I view these people as being primarily responsible for the vast majority of the problems we face today. A pox on them all.

[noinfringers2]

I don’t think such an expression would have gone very far or well publicly in the years you cite. I had friends who were in the late teens or early 20s who fought and died during the time. My only brother who was 20 years old died on Okinawa and I was just ready to turn 19 and was on Leyte being prepped for the invasion of Japan. I strongly believed then and still do today that the existence of the USA was in real trouble. I have my own views as to the participation of the USA in wars since. From one perspective my views can be taken as anti USA servicemen but in my heart I feel deeply about the comradeship and purpose/service of servicemen and I am very cynical politically about the wars the USA has been involved in since the Korean war. The war involvement since have much, if not all, to do with Bush1s ‘new world order’ as much as I see. Obama has extended that purpose for reasons of his and his cabal including the likes of Soros. Even the USA chief justice was caught with a briefcase, ostensibly with cash, ready to enter the Vatican Bank on Malta after assuring passage of Obamacare. Now we learn that our USA government is rife with devious people and least among these are the Muslim friends/agents of so called friendly Arab nations. The issues today are much different than those of the 1940s. I wish such were handled in a corresponding manner today.

[ansel12]

You found agitation in that sentence, where?

So China was the reason that we went in, and then fought so long, through LBJ and Nixon, and Nixon, and most of us still remain in the dark about the length of the war and the way it wasn’t fought?

I know that China was a factor, and in the 60s and 70s I used to mention China, but it never was a great explanation.