Skip to comments.New Thesis on Vietnam Aimed at 2008 Election (Nixon & Kissinger not the Dems betrayed South Vietnam)
Posted on 01/30/2007 2:38:26 PM PST by presidio9
A new thesis about the end of the Vietnam war is making the rounds in the context of the debate over Iraq. It holds that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger not the Democratic Congress and public opinion were chiefly culpable in America's betrayal of South Vietnam.
The managing editor of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rose,
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
In 1975, ex-President Nixon aimed his mind control ray at the Democrats in Congress all the way from San Clemente and made them cut off funds to South Vietnam.
The left is re-writing history?
I don't think a "thesis" is required to learn the truth, just a review of the facts.
A lying coward, media, and a certain senators actions would be a better thing to spend time studying.
Problem with this scenario is that Kissinger is still alive and he can kick their butts from DC to Timbuktu.
"It holds that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger not the Democratic Congress and public opinion were chiefly culpable in America's betrayal of South Vietnam."
More lies by these frapping leftists. They never give up, do they? No part of history they won't try to distort or re-write. These people have the mentality of totalitarians, and they will lie consistently and forever to the American public.
Liars should be treated like liars.
My favorite is when they start ranking presidents, and Woodrow Wilson invariably makes the top ten. Ignoring for a moment the fact that had we not gotten involved in WWI, Hitler, Stalin and probably Mao would never have come to power, the man was literally brain-dead for the last three years of his term.
As I recall, in 1975 Gerald Ford was President [and mute] when a DEMOCRAT led Congress cut off the funding, and military supplies promised to the South Vietnamese in '72. But yeah, Nixon did it, fresh from his triumph at the Johnstown flood.
That agitprop should be shot down pronto.
All necessary is to look at today's Democrat - that's Democrat - manifestations, and view their cowardice, duplicity to achieve any end, and feverish desire to attempt to appease those intent on killing all of us.
They abandoned the S. Vietnamese and Cambodians; they now seek to abandon committed Iraqi allies, and consequently the whole Middle East, for the silver of poliitical opportunism.
The only antidote to their poison is a continuous offensive against them.
Not a matter of giving up. It's a matter of creating more viewership through further creative imagery. All about sponsorship and profit. Take the show "Wife Swap" where they generally take people that are polar opposites and place them in the same cage for a couple of weeks. This most certainly is the type of TV people want to watch. Same thing here "We know what you've been told, but according to our experts Vietnam blah, blah, blah" - cut to Lexus commercial etc.
I don't take TV seriously because nobody on there knows what they are talking about, because if they did there would be no need for part 2, and commercials for Tide with Bleach. Because in part 1 of the series there was only plain Tide.
This is news? Those of us who were there at the time knew damn well that Kissinger and Le Duc Tho had negotiated a face-saving US surrender. The fact is that neither Kennedy, Johnson nor Nixon had any idea what they wanted out of the Vietnam war -- other than not to be blamed for losing it. The Paris Peace Accords were 'close enough' and we bailed out.
Yes, the media was against us and the Dems were their usual selves... but that all came after three Presidents' utter failure to lead.
"Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia."
You mean that the bombing of Hanoi until the North Vietnamese agreed to sit down at the negotation table, getting them to agree to respect the soverignty of South Viet Nam is a "US Surrender"?
Strange - I thought that the Paris Peace Accords, while flawed, were more of a victory for the U.S. than for the North. And in fact, if the U.S. had followed through on our promises to aid the South with the North Vietnamese Army invaded (in violation of the accord) - then they would have withdrawn, and the South wouldn't have fallen.
But it sounds like revisionist re-write to blame the loss on other than those who are responsible for the loss - Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, aided by the Lame Stream (lying) Media. The passive participants included a public that was too lazy and slightly stupid to investigate the facts of the sordid affair.
Mr. Gitell (gitell.com) is a contributing editor of The New York Sun wrote.
"There is a word for that, and that is betrayal. Without a doubt, Congress felt compelled to follow the public and leave South Vietnam defenseless in 1975. But with the hindsight of history, we know that measures existed that could have preserved the South Vietnamese government without full-scale American redeployment, namely the air war, money, and supplies. Attempts to absolve the 93rd and 94th Congresses and to shift the blame for the final fall of Saigon to Messrs Nixon and Kissinger only cloud today's current leadership from acting wisely as we are challenged by a new and equally savage enemy."
There is a word for that, and that is betrayal. Without a doubt, Congress felt compelled to follow the public and leave South Vietnam defenseless in 1975. But with the hindsight of history, we know that measures existed that could have preserved the South Vietnamese government without full-scale American redeployment, namely the air war, money, and supplies. Attempts to absolve the 93rd and 94th Congresses and to shift the blame for the final fall of Saigon to Messrs Nixon and Kissinger only cloud today's current leadership from acting wisely as we are challenged by a new and equally savage enemy.
You got that right! But we have the advantage of "instant" replay to see who's at fault because it's happening again. Different teams, same contact sport.
The left-instigated social turmoil, the Democrat-instigated political clash, the MSM fulmination against a Republican president's war -- all major parts of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The quagmire, in other words.
"The war is a Bush failure!" fulminate the MSM. "The American people are overwhelmingly against the war!"
Soon this generation's John Kerrys will testify to the criminality of U.S. troops and chain of command, often quoting phony verterans of the war -- blatantly arguing for the enemy's position, Rats anodding -- it's called Congressional oversight.
Then violence and a call to end the violence by cutting off funding of the immoral, illegal war that "every" American opposes.
Won't be any violence this time? Oh, yeah? Only Al Gore stopped his Party from fomenting riots to help settle the 2000 elections. "The people have spoken! They want Gore! Stop the violence, Mr. Bush, step aside."
To wit, from David Frums Diary, NOV. 19, 2002: GORE SPEAKS. The words are by Karenna Gore.
He said, "We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness. And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the ... the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is. [end excerpt]
Finally, calls to impeach! A 24/7 MSM frenzy reporting the president's "crimes." Then another "Peace with Horror" made under incredible duress.
The left's issue is not the issue. It's a weapon, "issue" after "issue" after "issue."
The only "issue" then as now is "Bring it all down, man."
Pettifogging! Mr. Perlstein would make a whirling dervish dizzy.
John Murtha was part of the select group from Congress that traveledlt o Vietnam and came back and cut off funding the support that we agreed to provide Vietnam as part of the Vietnam Peace Agreement.
Check out the book - the presidential File" to learn how we failed to live up to our responsibility.
Yes their most trusted man in America had paved the way and given them the thumbs up. In gratitude NV General Giap awarded his coveted "Most Valuable Guerrilla Award" to Walter Cronkite and the American MSM.
Ah.. yes. Another "issue." A weapon to divert attention.
"Bring it all down, man."
Reliving the 1960s are we, Mr. Perlstein, et al.
Thanks for the tip but I could not find a book on www.amazon.com with that title.
As a veteran of the Vietnam War from August of 1969 to January of 1971, serving as an infantry squad leader in a mechanized infantry company, and with another unit as a tank commander on an M48A3 tank; I am keenly interested in the distortions, lies, and half truths perpetuated about the Vietnam war by many of those who helped to undermine the US effort there. Much of the conventional understanding of the US involvement in the South East Asian conflict indicates a general disapproval of the United States war effort, and an acceptance of the oft regurgitated leftist conventional wisdom as to it's historical course and outcome. That is painting the American war effort in Vietnam as misguided at best and an imperialistic effort to establish SE Asian capitalistic hegemony at worst. The antiwar left is portrayed as being noble and idealistic rather than populated by a hard core that actively hoped and worked for a US defeat, the US government as destructive of basic civil liberties in its attempt to monitor their activities, and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong as nationalists who wished to preserve their unique culture against an imperialistic onslaught. The South Vietnamese government's struggle to survive a ruthless Communist assault while engaging in an unwarranted assault on human rights .while ignoring the numerous genocidal atrocities of the Vietcong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) is also part of this narrative. The deceptive reporting of the Tet Offensive, the Communist's worse defeat among numberless hundreds of others was probably the most grievous deceit perpetuated by the Press .
The reason that the United States opposed nationwide elections that were to be held in accordance with the 1954 Geneva accords was due to the murder and intimidation campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh. This fact is in Professor R. J. Runnel's book Death by Government, in which he cites a low estimate of 15,000 and a high figure of 500,000 people in the murder by quota campaign directed by the North Vietnamese Communist Party Politburo that would have made the election a corrupt mockery. This campaign stipulated that 5% of the people living in each village and hamlet had to be liquidated, preferably those identified as members of the "ruling class." All told says Runnel, between 1953 and 1956 it is likely that the Communists killed 195,000 to 865,000 North Vietnamese. These were non combatant men, women, and children, and hardly represent evidence of the moral high ground claimed by many in the antiwar movement. In 1956, high Communist official Nguyen Manh Tuong admitted that "while destroying the landowning class, we condemned numberless old people and children to a horrible death." The same genocidal pattern became the Communists standard operating procedure in the South too. This was unequivocally demonstrated by the Hue Massacre, which the press did a great deal to downplay in its reporting of the Tet Offensive of 1968.
The National Liberation Front was the creation of the North Vietnamese Third Party Congress of September 1960, completely directed from North Vietnam. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a disastrous military defeat for the North Vietnamese and that the VC were almost wiped out by the fighting, and that it took the NVA until 1971 to reestablish a presence using North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. The North Vietnam military senior commanders repeatedly said that they counted on the U.S. antiwar movement to give them the confidence to persevere in the face of their staggering battlefield personnel losses and defeats. The antiwar movement prevented the feckless President Lyndon Johnson from granting General Westmoreland's request to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail or end his policies of publicly announced gradualist escalation. The North Vietnamese knew cutting this trail would severely damage their ability to prosecute the war. Since the North Vietnamese could continue to use the Ho Chi Minh Trail lifeline, the war was needlessly prolonged for the U.S. and contributed significantly to the collapse of South Vietnam. The casualties sustained by the NVA and VC were horrendous, (1.5 million dead) and accorded well with Gen. Ngyuen Giaps publicly professed disdain for the lives of individuals sacrificed for the greater cause of Communist victory. They were as thoroughly beaten as a military force can be given the absence of an invasion and occupation of their nation. The Soviets and Chinese recognized this, and they put pressure on their North Vietnamese allies to accept this reality and settle up at the Paris peace talks. Hanoi's party newspaper Nhan Dan angrily denounced the Chinese and Soviets for "throwing a life bouy to a drowning pirate" and for being "mired on the dark and muddy road of unprincipled compromise." The North Viets intransigent attitude toward negotiation was reversed after their air defenses were badly shattered in the wake of the devastating B-52 Linebacker II assault on North Vietnam, after which they were totally defenseless against American air attack.
To this day the anti-war movement as a whole refuses to acknowledge its part in the deaths of millions in Laos and Cambodia and in the subsequent exodus from South East Asia as people fled Communism, nor the imprisonment of thousands in Communist re-education camps and gulags.
South Vietnam was NOT defeated by a local popular insurgency. The final victorious North Vietnamese offensive was a multidivisional, combined arms effort lavishly equipped with Soviet and Chinese supplied tanks, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft. It was the type of blitzkrieg that Panzer General Heinz Guederian would have easily recognized. I didn't recall seeing any barefoot, pajama-clad guerrillas jumping out of those tanks in the newsreel footage that showed them crashing through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon. This spectacle was prompted by the pusillanimous withdrawal of Congressional support for the South Vietnamese government in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which particularly undermined this aspect of President Nixons foreign policy. It should be noted that a similar Communist offensive in the spring of 1972 was smashed, largely by US air power; with relatively few US ground troops in place. At the Paris Accords in 1973, the Soviet Union had agreed to reduce aid in offensive arms to North Vietnam in exchange for trade concessions from the US, effectively ending North Vietnams hopes for a military victory in the south. With the return of cold war hostilities in the wake of the Yom Kippur war after Congress revoked the Soviet's MFN trading status, the Reds poured money and offensive military equipment into North Vietnam. South Vietnam would still be a viable nation today were it not for this nation's refusal to live up to it's treaty obligations to the South Vietnamese, most important to reintervene should they invade South Vietnam.
There is one primary similarity to Vietnam. A seditious near traitorous core of anti-war protesters is trying to undermine U.S. efforts there with half-truths, lies, and distortions. In that respect, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very similar. A significant difference is that thus far the current anti-war movement has not succeeded in manifesting contempt for the American military on the part of the general U.S. public as it did in the Vietnam era.
When I was in Vietnam, I recall many discussions with my fellow soldiers about the course of the war in Vietnam and their feelings about it. Many, if not most felt that "We Gotta Get Outta this Place," to cite a popular song of the time by Eric Burden and the Animals, but for the most part they felt we should do it by fighting the war in a manner calculated to win it. I do not recall anyone ever saying that they felt the North Vietnamese could possibly defeat us on the battlefield, but to a man they were mystified by the U.S. Governments refusal to fight in a manner that would assure military victory. Even though there was much resentment for the antiwar movement, and some (resentment) toward career professional soldiers, I never saw anyone who did not do his basic duty and many did FAR MORE THAN THAT as a soldier. Nineteen of my friends have their names on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall in Washington DC. They deserve to have the full truth told about the effort for which they gave their young lives. The U.S. public is not well served by half-truths and lies by omission about such a significant period in our history, particularly with their relevance toward our present fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.