Did you support the Vietnam War?

Greybeard · February 16, 2005, 1:49am

Patient,

California wasn’t exactly a blue state in those days, with Governor Reagan, followed a few years later by Senator Hayakawa, Senator/Governor Pete Wilson, and Governor Deukmajian.

jvd · February 16, 2005, 6:45am

I registered to vote an registered for the draft on my birthday in 1971. Not sure, but I think that was the first year 18 year olds could vote. “if you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to vote” .

The war was winding down and I really didn’t pay that much attention to it. I went to college and was deffered. When they started the lottery and I got my 1A I payed attention but had decided if drafted I would go. It didn’t happen and I gave Nixon the credit for stopping the draft.

This thread is interesting because it shows how revisionism is already in place and how history is formed over time. What we read today as history and often unquestionably accept as fact may have been very different.

mini · February 16, 2005, 4:21pm

“Nixon did not end the war. US involvement ended by act of Congress.”

Funny, as I remember it, the U.S. lost. (Now that was pretty much a first.)

patient · February 17, 2005, 10:14pm

Greybeard, if you read my post I wrote “that part of California” so I don’t think that your comment was particularly responsive to what I wrote. Marin County was absolutely the way I describe. As for Orange County and many other parts of the state, of course it was different. Read carefully, dear.

Greybeard · February 17, 2005, 10:38pm

Patient,

Sorry if my response came across as a criticism - I didn’t intend it that way. If we’re using the “red-blue” distinction, I understand that Marin is as blue as they come. (Funny how the Republicans are the Reds, now, isn’t it? It sort of gives the old “Better dead than Red” saying a whole new twist.)

Of course, even “red” states have their “blue” pockets - see Austin, Texas.

What I was really trying to remark upon (however inartfully executed) is how quickly impressions have changed in this area - we think of California as the one of the bluest of the blue states now, but we have quite a history here (and not such an ancient one) of electing conservative Republicans to state-wide offices.

Red_Flags · February 21, 2005, 1:58am

Back to OP:

My dad was drafted A-1, fled to Europe, and outlasted the war. Ask me anything.

texdad · February 21, 2005, 11:07am

“Nixon did not end the war. US involvement ended by act of Congress.”

Mini,

No, but he did end the draft in a surprise at a Friday news conference.

Makes you wonder if Bush could start the draft in a surprise news conference. If not, sort of wierd that the President could stop it, but not start it on his own. Maybe it is just that no members of Congress wanted to be responsible for continuing it.

texdad · February 21, 2005, 11:12am

Red Flags, I would be very proud of your Dad’s action. I mean that sincerely. At the time those fleeing involvement in WW II had still not been allowed to return. Carter allowed that. Given the current hysteria, I doubt if those who are fleeing the service will be allowed to return any time soon.

Many conservatives are still lathered up about how the liberals and the media lost the Vietnam War. By nuking them or killing a few hundred thousand more civilians by drowning and probably many hundreds of thousands more by starvation, after bomging the dikes around Hanoi, and other measures, they still think we could have won.

drusba · February 21, 2005, 1:26pm

Was in Grant Park in Chicago during the 1968 convention – “The police are not here to create disorder, they’re here to preserve disorder” (Mayor Richard J. Daley). Went mostly out of curiousity and not because of any anti-war fervor. Was also in Vietnam, although I went rather late, 1971 to 72, as part the first birthday lottery draft group (mine came in low). Part of an Army MACV unit (Military Assistance Command Vietnam) which mainly meant that you, along with one to four other American soldiers, got to spend a huge amount of time in places there were no other US soldiers, hanging out with the ARVN or more often regional South Vietnamese forces. As “advisors” our main activity was to coordinate air strikes. I was part of some minor skirmishes and only one of significance, the seige of An Loc, a town about 60 miles Northwest of Saigon close to the Cambodian border, in the Spring of 1972, a battle that proved to me anyway that it was a misconception to believe that the South Vietnamese were ambivalent to staying independent from the North or that the South Vietnamese forces were unable to fight – they were just heavily outnumbered. (You can look that seige up on the web – did not get constant page one coverage in the press simply because there were few Americans involved and there were no reporters there.)

As for the vast majority of Americans during the time period, the Vietnam War was a daily news event, but not something that consumed their everyday lives. Those with passion, or, in the case of many students, those in need of a purpose, actively joined in demonstrations and protests and made it a cause, but they were a minority. For most people, it was a topic of discussion once in a while, but, as is the case of Iraq, not a topic that caused you to divert much of your time from your everyday life. Nixon called them the “silent majority,” but he was wrong to assume they all supported the war. Instead, they were just mostly ambivalent.

Though those who were part of the anti-war movement (and most of those were joiners not movers) like to believe they caused the nation to end the war, they really just accelerated the process. The war was destined to end poorly because it lasted too long, never produced a win, was relagated to counting victory by body count, and most Americans really had no idea where Vietnam was or why it had any importance. It was in that stage before the anti-war protests really got going and was already headed towards its inevitable end. Many had heard of the Domino Theory (if it goes the communists will take many other countries) which had some truth and there were many that firmly believed the government was right and knew what it was doing, but again they were also a minority.

The so-called movement differed from all prior dissenters in wars in two major ways – there became far more of them and the press carried it on TV constantly (which itself resulted in their being far more of them). It was the first war with virtually instant TV coverage both of what was happening in Vietnam and at home and protesting the war became not just nightly news but part of the nightly TV programs although often as satire (e.g., Smothers Brothers and That Was the Week That Was). Without the press to cover it constantly on TV, the movement would likely have died – witness today the Iraq war protests; they hardly get mentioned on page 2 and also demonstrating or protesting is no longer an activity that causes significant public interest, partly because the other side, the police, are now trained to allow rather than prevent and the police usually avoid getting out of hand, i.e., there is now little of interest that occurs at a demonstration to broadcast it on the six o’clock news; in 1968 we had the police pummeling demonstrators, now that is news. Today’s leaders of the protest just cannot get the press coverage to attract the mass joiners they need.

The Civil Rights movement was partly the learning grounds for the methods of the anti-war movement, although the Civil Rights movement learned most of its methods from the labor movements. To a certain extent, civil rights and anti-war had many of the same people. You mention the women’s movement. From the time period, many would ask, “What women’s movement?” Although you had somewhat of a vocal group, it was seldom major news. What women have accomplished in the workplace and the thought process applicable to them has little to do with any vocal movement of the period and more to do with women and males involved in the modern evolution of the concept that they are not second class citizens. I am not even sure what you are talking about as a “Free Speech” movement unless you are just referring to protestors activities such as burning flags and draft cards. Like other things it took on importance because it became a TV event. Any Environmental movement was at best in its infancy in the 1960’s.

Iraq is not Vietnam because we already have the most important thing that we never had in Vietnam – a win. That renders of minor importance in the view of the majority many of its problems including that we went in with the wrong information about WMD’s. Nevertheless the longer it goes with soldiers dying without another concrete win, the more you will see people turn against it.

texdad · February 21, 2005, 5:31pm

As a friend correctly says the anti-war movement in the 1960’s was largely an anit-draft movement. With the poor non -college- confidential kids “volunteering” very few Americans really care enough to have it disrupt their lives.

This Iraq war could not have been fought, nor can we continue to fight it with draftees, whether one considers it a “win” or not. Bush is pushing the limits to this approach as he contemplates war with Iran, Syria and others.

mini · February 23, 2005, 4:03pm

“Many conservatives are still lathered up about how the liberals and the media lost the Vietnam War. By nuking them or killing a few hundred thousand more civilians by drowning and probably many hundreds of thousands more by starvation, after bomging the dikes around Hanoi, and other measures, they still think we could have won.”

Well, more than three million Vietnamese were killed in the war, the vast majority of them unarmed non-combatants. I’m sure the U.S. could have prolonged the war, killed another three million, and would have lost any way. The Vietnamese had kicked out the Chinese, who outnumbered them 400 to 1, and the French who had much, much more military might, and would have defeated the U.S. in a prolonged war as well. Just would have taken a little longer.

We tend, because we are from here, to be very American-centric. From the Vietnamese point of view, the defeat of the American imperialist adventure was inevitable.

fundingfather · February 23, 2005, 5:03pm

Which Vietnamese point of view are you speaking of? The point of view of the hundreds of thousands who were slaughtered at the hands of the North Vietnamese? The anti-war crowd likes to pat themselves on the back as if they did the world a favor by ending the war. My guess is that the people who were butchered by the VC and the North Vietnamese during the war and those executed or drowned trying to flee after the war have a different perspective of it.

mini · February 23, 2005, 5:17pm

I’m sure. But the anti-war crowd didn’t end the war. The Vietnamese defeated the United States and the United States went home. The U.S. could have used our nukes, of course, but I doubt in the long run it would have made much difference. There was plenty of butchery on all sides. Lots of folks buthered. One group of butchers won, the other group of butchers lost. Happens in war. Same thing happened when the Vietnamese fought the Chinese, and when they fought the French. One side won, the other lost. Much like a bloody football game. It isn’t so complicated, and morality doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Could have been avoided totally, of course. Ho Chi Minh appealed for U.S. support, in 1951, in 1954, and in 1956. Could have been a staunch ally, or at least a friend. Would have been good for business. Just as it is now.

Do you wear Nikes, or eat shrimp at the buffet?

(To be clear: I didn’t support the War. Either side.)

fundingfather · February 23, 2005, 6:44pm

I think if you look at the chronology of the war including troop levels and North Vietnamese offensive activity, it is pretty clear that without the anti-war demonstrations and the resulting Case-Church amendment that the US did not “lose” the war. We definitely lost the will to win it. Here is a good source for the chronology of the times. <a href=“http://www.vietnamwar.com/Timeline69-75.htm[/url]”>http://www.vietnamwar.com/Timeline69-75.htm</a>

Note that even as the US ground involvement declined, the North Vietnamese were being held in complete check by a combination of South Vietnamese soldiers and US air power (see the Easter campaign in 1972 which resulted in the ouster of the NVA top general because the defeat was so significant - this all occurred when we had a relatively token number of “boots on the ground”). In other words, had our hands not been tied and our politicians so willing to abandon South Vietnam, all as a result of the anti-war movement, it is quite likely that the war would have taken a completely different turn and the hundreds of thousands of people whoe were ultimately slaughtered by the NVA would have lived.

Also note that the end result was not dictated by some overwhelming personal desire to establish a communist regime by the Vietnamese people. It was directly related to the fact that the Soviet Union continued to supply one side and we stopped supplying the opposing side. Simple as that.

texdad · February 23, 2005, 6:50pm

Mini, I went to a lecture at the an Indian guy named Sainath, a journalist. Very good treatment on rural Indian poverty. Are you familiar with him?

mini · February 23, 2005, 6:59pm

“I think if you look at the chronology of the war including troop levels and North Vietnamese offensive activity, it is pretty clear that without the anti-war demonstrations and the resulting Case-Church amendment that the US did not “lose” the war. We definitely lost the will to win it.”

Oh, that’s the way wars are almost always lost. Napolean’s soldiers get mired in the mud and refuse to go forward. Someone loses their nerve. Very few wars of annihilation “to the last man” (I think the Vietnamese would have won that one too, but would never want to find out.)

So the U.S. slaughtered half the three million and the NVA the other half. I didn’t count. And I’ll grant you, the U.S. could have slaughtered more, and the NVA could have slaughtered more. You were the one arguing that protesters didn’t end the war, only accelerated the process, a process that would have happened anyway. (Read what you wrote above, post #69.)

But it was a war that didn’t need to be fought at all.

So you didn’t answer my question: do you wear Nikes or eat shrimp?

fundingfather · February 23, 2005, 7:40pm

Nope, I didn’t write post 69. I disagree with it. I have read quotes from NVA high level officers who were interviewed after the war that had it not been for the war protestors after the Tet offensive, they probably would have lost the war. The Tet offensive was a devastating military loss to the VC and the NVA, but they saw that the US support for the war was crumbling and it gave them encouragement to continue it.

originaloog · February 23, 2005, 8:05pm

No, I did not support the Viet Nam war and attended some protests. I attended Ohio State at the time an the Ohio National Guard were called onto the campus. The student body and some faculty were in an uproar. But in the Engineering College it was like nothing was happening! At one point there was tear gas fired, but again not much more than a wiff in the engineering buildings. Out of curiosity I attended one SDS meeting and found the discussion to be lacking any common sense. Needless to say, i never went to another.

I have to admit that the killings at Kent State a few months later shook me up.

gianscolere1 · March 3, 2005, 11:54pm

Hi-

Tonight, i re-read this entire thread and would like to quote the following people (if i may). if you approve, i will follow up with a PM. the problem is the only way i can cite you is if you reveal your first and last name (unless MLA citation allows surname initials).

NJRes
Digmedia
Tookie
Calmom
Momrath
Mackinaw
Yulsie
Drusba

thanks to all. the statements i chose seemed the most relevant to my captions, not that others weren’t helpul (they were).

I distinctly remember being in favor of the Vietnam war when I was in 8th grade. I remember the class voting, raising hands - most were in favor. Back then my presumption was that my government does the right thing so therefor the war must be the right thing. As I got older (and wiser?) and closer to draft age, my view slowly shifted. I figured that the war had been going on for so long with no positive results it must be a bad idea after all. NJRes

The sixties and early seventies hold a lot of different memories for people, but if you did not live it (or survive it, as I would say), the depth of feelings cannot be conveyed. It was so much more than the clothes or the music or the politics or the demonstrations or the assasinations or the racial changes. It was a strange time in American history, and many of the memories are bitter rather than nostalgic. No history book or film will ever come close to understanding what it was like. digmedia

I can still remember sitting down to dinner every night and watching the News and they always showed the North Vietnamese that had been killed. I don’t know if they showed so much of it to make it seem like we were winning or whether they wanted us to get sick of the whole thing. BTW, I still have my POW bracelet. tookie

Nixon escalated the war and initiated a secret, massive bombing campaign in Cambodia, beginning in spring of 1969. In 1970, after a coup deposing Prince Sihanouk (who had fallen out of favor with the US), Nixon decided to invade Cambodia, announcing the actions in a televised speech on April 30, 1970. This sparked massive protests – hundreds of universities were shut down as thousands protested. Students protesters were gunned down at Kent State and Jackson State colleges. Before the week was over nearly 100,000 protesters had converged upon the White House. Congress passed a law forbidding Nixon from taking further action in Cambodia. The troops were withdrawn, but bombing continued.

Nixon also escalated bombing in Vietnam, with a massive Christmas bombing campaign. In 1971, South Vietnamese forces invaded Laos. In 1972, the US mined Haiphong Harbor and intensified bombing of North Vietnam. calmom

All of these movements are interrelated. The civil rights movement preceded the war, but Viet Nam was the first time that the military was fully racially integrated – with mixed success. African Americans benefited from the opportunity but also died in greatest numbers because they were less able to avoid the draft. Viet Nam became THE issue that the baby boomers on fire with revolutionary ideas – like free-speech, free-love, feminism – latched onto with a passion. momrath

I was in college at the time of the Kennedy assassination, which was in some respects the critical moment that led, in due course, to the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam. McNamara’s account in “The Fog of War” rings true to me in many ways, including the myths that grew up about the immediate threat to America and the “domino theory,” as well as the fact that the Johnson administration essentially faked the evidence of the N. Vietnamese attack on the U.S. Navy that provided the “casus belli” for American escalation. The dubious nature of that evidence was well documented by critics such as I.F. Stone (in “I.F. Stone’s Weekly,” to which I subscribed at the time).

And so I and many other college students at the time came to distrust our President and the powers-that-be in a more profound way than had been the long-time fashion of being “skeptical” about strong government. In short, we didn’t accept the lies put out by the government that justified the escalation of the war (not to mention the misperceptions of the situation there – again documented in “The Fog of War” and many other sources). --mackinaw

Over 58000 dead of our beloved youth, my peers, my friends, my brothers. The collective consciousness of the US will never completely recover from Viet Nam until all of us are dead. Conscription is one of the most dreaded and arbitrary powers of governments - “hey you, that’s right, you - you’re cannon fodder.” I’ve got my sign ready for the first protest if and when they try to foist the draft on us again. “Hell no, they won’t go!” yulsie

As for the vast majority of Americans during the time period, the Vietnam War was a daily news event, but not something that consumed their everyday lives. Those with passion, or, in the case of many students, those in need of a purpose, actively joined in demonstrations and protests and made it a cause, but they were a minority. For most people, it was a topic of discussion once in a while, but, as is the case of Iraq, not a topic that caused you to divert much of your time from your everyday life. Nixon called them the “silent majority,” but he was wrong to assume they all supported the war. Instead, they were just mostly ambivalent.

The so-called movement differed from all prior dissenters in wars in two major ways – there became far more of them and the press carried it on TV constantly (which itself resulted in their being far more of them). It was the first war with virtually instant TV coverage both of what was happening in Vietnam and at home and protesting the war became not just nightly news but part of the nightly TV programs although often as satire (e.g., Smothers Brothers and That Was the Week That Was). Without the press to cover it constantly on TV, the movement would likely have died – witness today the Iraq war protests; they hardly get mentioned on page 2 and also demonstrating or protesting is no longer an activity that causes significant public interest, partly because the other side, the police, are now trained to allow rather than prevent and the police usually avoid getting out of hand, i.e., there is now little of interest that occurs at a demonstration to broadcast it on the six o’clock news; in 1968 we had the police pummeling demonstrators, now that is news. Today’s leaders of the protest just cannot get the press coverage to attract the mass joiners they need. --drusba

calmom · March 4, 2005, 1:01am

Gian,
The quote from me above is different from some of the others - because I elected not to share my personal experiences & views, but rather post a factual, historical statement in response to someone else who posted that they did not remember what Nixon did concerning the war in his first term.

So basically, every fact in my quote is something that could easily be picked up on the internet. When I posted, I did in fact do some quick research - I never would have remembered exact dates on my own. I’m suggesting that rather than quote me for your paper, that you simply check my facts by doing some Google searches for relevant terms and dates, and then quote the source of those facts.

Did you support the Vietnam War?

CONNECT WITH US