Walter Cronkite's Ridiculous Spin on the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam

[mikegriffith1]

Imagine if shortly after the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, an American newsman had announced on TV that perhaps we needed to seek a negotiated end to WWII because the Germans had launched a massive attack that no one thought possible?

This is not too drastically different from what Walter Cronkite did on February 27, 1968, less than four weeks after the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong subordinates launched their disastrous Tet Offensive on January 30. Here are the two most often-quoted statements from Cronkite's commentary:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

You would never guess from Cronkite's spin that the Communists had suffered a horrendous military defeat, suffering staggering losses while failing to seize nearly all of the towns and cities they had targeted (and the few places they did manage to seize were retaken in a matter of weeks).

We now know from North Vietnamese sources that the Tet Offensive was a desperate gamble that Hanoi's leaders took because they realized they were losing the war. Also, the North Vietnamese had assumed that once the offensive began, the majority of South Vietnamese would rise up and help them overthrow the Saigon government, but the vast majority of South Vietnamese remained loyal to their government.

Walter Cronkite and most of the rest of the news media turned the Communists' crushing military defeat into a key propaganda victory for the Communist war effort.

The Tet Offensive Revisited: Media's Big Lie

 

[Dekster]

Imagine if shortly after the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, an American newsman had announced on TV that perhaps we needed to seek a negotiated end to WWII because the Germans had launched a massive attack that no one thought possible?

This is not too drastically different from what Walter Cronkite did on February 27, 1968, less than four weeks after the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong subordinates launched their disastrous Tet Offensive on January 30. Here are the two most often-quoted statements from Cronkite's commentary:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

You would never guess from Cronkite's spin that the Communists had suffered a horrendous military defeat, suffering staggering losses while failing to seize nearly all of the towns and cities they had targeted (and the few places they did manage to seize were retaken in a matter of weeks).

We now know from North Vietnamese sources that the Tet Offensive was a desperate gamble that Hanoi's leaders took because they realized they were losing the war. Also, the North Vietnamese had assumed that once the offensive began, the majority of South Vietnamese would rise up and help them overthrow the Saigon government, but the vast majority of South Vietnamese remained loyal to their government.

Walter Cronkite and most of the rest of the news media turned the Communists' crushing military defeat into a key propaganda victory for the Communist war effort.

The Tet Offensive Revisited: Media's Big Lie

"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." LBJ

This wasn't "spin". Cronkite was about the last one to climb on the bandwagon. LBJ knew he was screwed at that point and announced he wouldn't run again.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Imagine if shortly after the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, an American newsman had announced on TV that perhaps we needed to seek a negotiated end to WWII because the Germans had launched a massive attack that no one thought possible?

This is not too drastically different from what Walter Cronkite did on February 27, 1968, less than four weeks after the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong subordinates launched their disastrous Tet Offensive on January 30. Here are the two most often-quoted statements from Cronkite's commentary:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

You would never guess from Cronkite's spin that the Communists had suffered a horrendous military defeat, suffering staggering losses while failing to seize nearly all of the towns and cities they had targeted (and the few places they did manage to seize were retaken in a matter of weeks).

We now know from North Vietnamese sources that the Tet Offensive was a desperate gamble that Hanoi's leaders took because they realized they were losing the war. Also, the North Vietnamese had assumed that once the offensive began, the majority of South Vietnamese would rise up and help them overthrow the Saigon government, but the vast majority of South Vietnamese remained loyal to their government.

Walter Cronkite and most of the rest of the news media turned the Communists' crushing military defeat into a key propaganda victory for the Communist war effort.

The Tet Offensive Revisited: Media's Big Lie

At that time Lyndon Baines Johnson realized that his reelection hopes were dashed to pieces all because of that news broadcast.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine if shortly after the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, an American newsman had announced on TV that perhaps we needed to seek a negotiated end to WWII because the Germans had launched a massive attack that no one thought possible?

This is not too drastically different from what Walter Cronkite did on February 27, 1968, less than four weeks after the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong subordinates launched their disastrous Tet Offensive on January 30. Here are the two most often-quoted statements from Cronkite's commentary:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

You would never guess from Cronkite's spin that the Communists had suffered a horrendous military defeat, suffering staggering losses while failing to seize nearly all of the towns and cities they had targeted (and the few places they did manage to seize were retaken in a matter of weeks).

We now know from North Vietnamese sources that the Tet Offensive was a desperate gamble that Hanoi's leaders took because they realized they were losing the war. Also, the North Vietnamese had assumed that once the offensive began, the majority of South Vietnamese would rise up and help them overthrow the Saigon government, but the vast majority of South Vietnamese remained loyal to their government.

Walter Cronkite and most of the rest of the news media turned the Communists' crushing military defeat into a key propaganda victory for the Communist war effort.

The Tet Offensive Revisited: Media's Big Lie

More of Mormon Mike's twisted history.

Here's why Tet should have been the end of Vietnam, instead of letting it drag on for another five bloody years.

Because at the end of the day, the NVA and Vietcong were able to launch an offensive with such effectiveness.

A comparison to the Battle of the Bulge is comparing apples and oranges. It had only been six months after D-Day and had already cleared the Axis from most of France, Italy, and the Low Countries while the USSR (which was doing most of the heavy lifting) had pushed the Axis out of the Balkans and were driving into Poland. Germany was finished and everyone knew it.

Now, compare that to our efforts in Vietnam. We had been propping up various Generals in the South since the 1963 coup, and 5 years later, the regime we were propping up had gained no support from the Vietnamese people. In short, all that blood and treasure spent, and we were nowhere near achieving our objectives. We were never going to invade North Vietnam as that would have brought Russia and China into the war. (And we all saw how well that went in Korea). Our own leaders admitted that if a real free election were held, Ho Chi Mihn would win easily because he was a bona fide national hero and the people we propped up were a bunch of French Quislings.

Both parties knew we were on a fool's errand, but neither party wanted to be accused of "losing Vietnam" the way that Truman was accused of "losing China".

 

[mikegriffith1]

More of Mormon Mike's twisted history.

Here's why Tet should have been the end of Vietnam, instead of letting it drag on for another five bloody years.

Because at the end of the day, the NVA and Vietcong were able to launch an offensive with such effectiveness.

And our resident Chinese Communist spokesman pipes up to repeat the spin that Mao's China and the Hanoi regime peddled at the time.

"Launch an offensive with such effectiveness"?! Some of the Communist units attacked 24 hours prematurely because of a calendar mix-up! This gave the Americans and ARVN crucial time to prepare for further attacks.

The NVA and the VC got slaughtered in massive numbers and failed to take nearly all of their objectives. The few objectives they managed to take were retaken in short order, with massive additional Communist losses.

A comparison to the Battle of the Bulge is comparing apples and oranges. It had only been six months after D-Day and had already cleared the Axis from most of France, Italy, and the Low Countries while the USSR (which was doing most of the heavy lifting) had pushed the Axis out of the Balkans and were driving into Poland. Germany was finished and everyone knew it.

Huh, did you even bother to read the entire OP? Let me repeat the point that we now know that Hanoi's thugs launched the Tet Offensive because they concluded that they were losing the war and had to take a desperate gamble.

Now, compare that to our efforts in Vietnam. We had been propping up various Generals in the South since the 1963 coup, and 5 years later, the regime we were propping up had gained no support from the Vietnamese people.

False. This is the Communist line. You didn't bother to read the article I linked in the OP, did you?

I might add that even North Vietnamese sources confirm that by late 1971, the Communists had lost control of most of the countryside, towns, and cities in South Vietnam.

In short, all that blood and treasure spent, and we were nowhere near achieving our objectives. We were never going to invade North Vietnam as that would have brought Russia and China into the war.

Actually, no, Russia and China would not have entered the war if we had invaded North Vietnam. I know you've done little or no reading on the Vietnam War, but this myth was debunked many years ago.

You might start by reading Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen's 2012 book Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam and/or Dr. George Veith's 2021 book Drawn Swords in a Distant Land, which make extensive use of released/newly translated North Vietnamese sources. You'll discover that, among other things, Mao made it clear early on that China would not enter the war unless American forces entered Chinese territory, and the Soviets had zero interest and zero intention of directly entering the war.

Your crowd claimed for years that if we ever bombed Hanoi and Haiphong and mined Haiphong Harbor, this would cause the Soviets and/or the Chinese to enter the war. Yet, lo and behold, when Nixon heavily bombed Hanoi and Haiphong and mined Haiphong Harbor in late 1972, the Soviets and the Chinese did not enter the war, even though the North Vietnamese begged them to do so.

(And we all saw how well that went in Korea). Our own leaders admitted that if a real free election were held, Ho Chi Mihn would win easily because he was a bona fide national hero and the people we propped up were a bunch of French Quislings.

Oh my goodness. Another long-debunked Communist talking point. Tell me: Why did the Hanoi regime refuse to hold internationally supervised elections? Why did the Hanoi regime decline President Thieu's repeated calls for a national referendum held under international supervision? America and South Vietnam had no objection to a nationwide election held under genuine international supervision, but North Vietnam refused to hold such an election, and then falsely claimed that we were afraid to let the people vote.

If Ho Chi Minh was a "bona fide national hero," why did he impose a brutal police state on North Vietnam after he took power? Why did he find it necessary to jail tens of thousands of dissidents? Why did he shut down every independent newspaper in North Vietnam and take control of all news media and schools? Why did he prevent tens of thousands of North Vietnamese, if not more, from leaving the country and going to South Vietnam during the 300-day period from July 1954 to May 1955 when people were supposed to be able to leave if they wanted to under the Geneva Accords? Huh?

It is just amazing how you invariably and brazenly repeat Communist propaganda on so many historical issues. Of course, you never tell people that you're repeating Communist talking points.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Imagine if shortly after the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, an American newsman had announced on TV that perhaps we needed to seek a negotiated end to WWII because the Germans had launched a massive attack that no one thought possible?

This is not too drastically different from what Walter Cronkite did on February 27, 1968, less than four weeks after the North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong subordinates launched their disastrous Tet Offensive on January 30. Here are the two most often-quoted statements from Cronkite's commentary:

To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

You would never guess from Cronkite's spin that the Communists had suffered a horrendous military defeat, suffering staggering losses while failing to seize nearly all of the towns and cities they had targeted (and the few places they did manage to seize were retaken in a matter of weeks).

We now know from North Vietnamese sources that the Tet Offensive was a desperate gamble that Hanoi's leaders took because they realized they were losing the war. Also, the North Vietnamese had assumed that once the offensive began, the majority of South Vietnamese would rise up and help them overthrow the Saigon government, but the vast majority of South Vietnamese remained loyal to their government.

Walter Cronkite and most of the rest of the news media turned the Communists' crushing military defeat into a key propaganda victory for the Communist war effort.

The Tet Offensive Revisited: Media's Big Lie

Go Cluck With the Chickenhawks

The Old Right will soon crash and burn, just like Deserter Dubya's HeirGuard jet should have.

 

[Oddball]

"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." LBJ

This wasn't "spin". Cronkite was about the last one to climb on the bandwagon. LBJ knew he was screwed at that point and announced he wouldn't run again.

Tet wasn't lost....Cronkite's big know-nothing ass lost it.

 

[hjmick]

Big difference between World War II and Vietnam...

 

[whitehall]

Cronkite was acknowledged as the most trusted man in the media at the time. The problem was that there was no other voice in the media. Just when Americans finally defeated the V.C. after Tet, Cronkite deemed the victory to be a stalemate and the crazy commie supported American left wing declared the American victory to be a defeat. The democrat majority in congress decided to pull the plug rather than giving Nixon a win and Cronkite and the liberal media decided to grasp defeat from the arms of victory.

 

[JoeB131]

Mormon Mike is amusing to read, he lives in Bizarro World...

Huh, did you even bother to read the entire OP? Let me repeat the point that we now know that Hanoi's thugs launched the Tet Offensive because they concluded that they were losing the war and had to take a desperate gamble.

a gamble that paid off. Americans realized the futility of the thing. Westy and LBJ told them that they had it completely under control, and Tet proved they didn't.

False. This is the Communist line. You didn't bother to read the article I linked in the OP, did you?

I might add that even North Vietnamese sources confirm that by late 1971, the Communists had lost control of most of the countryside, towns, and cities in South Vietnam.

Naw, I don't bother reading most of your crazy OP's. You live in a world where the Rape of Nanking didn't happen, OJ was innocent, and Joseph Smith wasn't a kiddie diddling con-artist.

Conkrite didn't lose the war, Westmoreland and LBJ did. Deal with it.

Nobody likes their country being overrun with foreigners. We didn't learn this lesson 120 years ago in the Philippines, 60 years ago in Vietnam or 20 years ago in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Actually, no, Russia and China would not have entered the war if we had invaded North Vietnam. I know you've done little or no reading on the Vietnam War, but this myth was debunked many years ago.

Again, that's what they thought about Korea. What someone might do in an escalation is something that's great, but WWI showed us how fast these things can get completely out of control.

Your crowd claimed for years that if we ever bombed Hanoi and Haiphong and mined Haiphong Harbor, this would cause the Soviets and/or the Chinese to enter the war. Yet, lo and behold, when Nixon heavily bombed Hanoi and Haiphong and mined Haiphong Harbor in late 1972, the Soviets and the Chinese did not enter the war, even though the North Vietnamese begged them to do so.

They didn't have to. They realized by 1972 Nixon was desperately trying to save face at that point before selling out the French Quislings. We had been bombing Hanoi since 1965. We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we did on Germany and Japan combined in WWII, and still these brave people fought on.

Oh my goodness. Another long-debunked Communist talking point. Tell me: Why did the Hanoi regime refuse to hold internationally supervised elections? Why did the Hanoi regime decline President Thieu's repeated calls for a national referendum held under international supervision? America and South Vietnam had no objection to a nationwide election held under genuine international supervision, but North Vietnam refused to hold such an election, and then falsely claimed that we were afraid to let the people vote.

Except, it wasn't Ho who canceled the National election, it was Diem in 1956 because Ho would have won. He also canceled local village elections because, again, the Viet Mihn would have won.

If Ho Chi Minh was a "bona fide national hero," why did he impose a brutal police state on North Vietnam after he took power? Why did he find it necessary to jail tens of thousands of dissidents? Why did he shut down every independent newspaper in North Vietnam and take control of all news media and schools? Why did he prevent tens of thousands of North Vietnamese, if not more, from leaving the country and going to South Vietnam during the 300-day period from July 1954 to May 1955 when people were supposed to be able to leave if they wanted to under the Geneva Accords? Huh?

Because he was a communist. Didn't take away from the fact that he fought the good fight against the French, the Japanese and then the Americans.

The thing is, before JFK had him whacked, Diem did just as many dumb things, trying to remake the mostly Buddhist country into a Catholic one

It is just amazing how you invariably and brazenly repeat Communist propaganda on so many historical issues. Of course, you never tell people that you're repeating Communist talking points.

History isn't a communist talking point.

Did the commies frame OJ?

 

[JoeB131]

Cronkite was acknowledged as the most trusted man in the media at the time. The problem was that there was no other voice in the media. Just when Americans finally defeated the V.C. after Tet, Cronkite deemed the victory to be a stalemate and the crazy commie supported American left wing declared the American victory to be a defeat. The democrat majority in congress decided to pull the plug rather than giving Nixon a win and Cronkite and the liberal media decided to grasp defeat from the arms of victory.

The problem was, they didn't "defeat" the Viet Cong. Did they strike them a blow, you bet. But they also showed the futility of the effort. The Vietnamese people were never going to fight very hard for the French Quislings we imposed on them.

 

[Hector12]

This page from President Eisenhower's Memoires, Mandate for Change, page 372, shows that he believed Ho Chi Minh would have won any free election in Vietnam in 1954. This is certainly why the U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva Convention of 1954 required it"

"I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the populations would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai."

Source:

from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXI, No. 788 (August 2, 1954), p. 164.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Modern History

-------------

The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference: On Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954

Final declaration, dated July 21, 1954, of the Geneva Conference on the problem of restoring peace in Indochina, in which the representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, France, Laos, the People's Republic of China, the State of Viet-Nam, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America took part...

5. The Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam to the effect that no military base at the disposition of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties...

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary...

7. In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from April 20, 1955, onwards...

Source:

from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXI, No. 788 (August 2, 1954), p. 164.

Internet History Sourcebooks: Modern History

-------------

Vietnam was unimportant to America's economy and security. In Vietnam the United States was in the awkward position of claiming to be fighting for democracy in a country where Ho Chi Minh would have won a fair election under international supervision by a blow out.

The election was not held because Ngo Dinh Diem, who ousted Bao Dai, and ruled South Vietnam as a dictator, did not allow it to be held in South Vietnam, and the United States supported him.

Ho Chi Minh does not deserve to be completely exonerated, however. He could have still allowed the election to be held in North Vietnam. He could have invited journalists to come to North Vietnam from all over the world to verify that the election was an honest one.

He could have governed North Vietnam as a democratic socialist. With his popularity he could have allowed a loyal opposition and an adversary press.

While governing democratically he could have drawn attention to the dictatorial methods Ngo Dinh Diem was using to stay in power in South Vietnam. Eventually Ho Chi Minh could have united Vietnam under his leadership without a war.

Why didn't he do that? Probably because he made the mistake of modeling himself after Vladimir Lenin, the first Communist dictator of the Soviet Union. Lenin knew that he was unpopular in Russia, and that he had to rule as a dictator to stay in power.

 

[AZrailwhale]

More of Mormon Mike's twisted history.

Here's why Tet should have been the end of Vietnam, instead of letting it drag on for another five bloody years.

Because at the end of the day, the NVA and Vietcong were able to launch an offensive with such effectiveness.

A comparison to the Battle of the Bulge is comparing apples and oranges. It had only been six months after D-Day and had already cleared the Axis from most of France, Italy, and the Low Countries while the USSR (which was doing most of the heavy lifting) had pushed the Axis out of the Balkans and were driving into Poland. Germany was finished and everyone knew it.

Now, compare that to our efforts in Vietnam. We had been propping up various Generals in the South since the 1963 coup, and 5 years later, the regime we were propping up had gained no support from the Vietnamese people. In short, all that blood and treasure spent, and we were nowhere near achieving our objectives. We were never going to invade North Vietnam as that would have brought Russia and China into the war. (And we all saw how well that went in Korea). Our own leaders admitted that if a real free election were held, Ho Chi Mihn would win easily because he was a bona fide national hero and the people we propped up were a bunch of French Quislings.

Both parties knew we were on a fool's errand, but neither party wanted to be accused of "losing Vietnam" the way that Truman was accused of "losing China".

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. TET was an immediate and abysmal failure for the communists. It resulted in the total destruction of the Viet Cong and the ruin of the NVA. It also cost the communists the infrastructure they had spent a decade building.

 

[Hector12]

Tet was a propaganda victory for the Communists because Gen. Westmorland and President Johnson had not prepared the American people for an offensive of that magnitude. They kept talking about a "light at the end of the tunnel," as though the War in Vietnam was nearly won.

Instead the Communists fought on for another five years and eventually won total victory, handing the United States a humiliating defeat.

Until Tet most male college graduates thought the War would be over by graduation. Tet meant there was no end in sight. Tet gave energy to the anti war movement.

 

[JoeB131]

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. TET was an immediate and abysmal failure for the communists. It resulted in the total destruction of the Viet Cong and the ruin of the NVA. It also cost the communists the infrastructure they had spent a decade building.

Wow, that's a lot of macho chest-thumping there. I'm guessing you don't have a DD214.

The military aspects were beside the point. It wasn't the ability to hold objectives that was the issue, it was that people really started to question what the hell we were doing over there. They were questioning why the draft was taking poor people while the affluent got into the National Guard (Bush and Quayle), got college deferments (Gingrich and Cheney), or got bullshit medical excuses (Limbaugh). They honestly questioned why the South Vietnamese couldn't fight their own damned war. They were wondering why we were bombing and defoliating a smaller, weaker country for not picking the kind of government we wanted.

Now, if you were to believe Mormon Mike, (A guy who has a website where he claims the Rape of Nanking wasn't that bad, and the Japanese were justified in bombing Pear Harbor), why, this was a fantastic victory, and that dirty Pinko Conkrite stole it from us by asking the obvious question of what the hell we were doing there.

 

[sparky]

Cronkite did better than Westmoreland and McNamara

jmho....

~S~

 

[Seymour Flops]

Cronkite going pro-North Vietnam was the turning point for Democrats. That's when they realized that if they continued to be as strongly anti-Communist as Kennedy and Johnson were, they would lose the mainstream media. It was just called "the media" back then, or "the news." No need to label them "mainstream" because they had no competition. The big three had recently lobbied Congress to set aside the one remaining national broadcast spot for "public television" they knew almost no one would watch, so they were it.

Hard to believe now, but they were even more powerful and homogeneous then than they are now.

It was an incredible about-face for the Democratic Party, from strongly anti-black segregationists, anti-communists, to the buying black votes with welfare and college kid votes with their "the commies ain't so bad" stance.

 

[JoeB131]

Cronkite going pro-North Vietnam was the turning point for Democrats. That's when they realized that if they continued to be as strongly anti-Communist as Kennedy and Johnson were, they would lose the mainstream media. It was just called "the media" back then, or "the news." No need to label them "mainstream" because they had no competition. The big three had recently lobbied Congress to set aside the one remaining national broadcast spot for "public television" they knew almost no one would watch, so they were it.

Hard to believe now, but they were even more powerful and homogeneous then than they are now.

It was an incredible about-face for the Democratic Party, from strongly anti-black segregationists, anti-communists, to the buying black votes with welfare and college kid votes with their "the commies ain't so bad" stance.

The problem with this thinking is that you really believe the issue was "communism" when it was, in fact, nationalism and self-determination.

Ho Chi Mihn was seen as a national hero. He had fought the French and the Japanese, while the people we propped up, "Emperor" Bao Dai, Diem, Ky, and Theiu, were all collaborators with whoever was invading the country this week.

On the American side, you had a criminally unfair draft that conscripted the poor and exempted the rich.

The American people didn't need Conkrite to tell them this was wrong, they just had to look at it to know it was.

 

[sparky]

Cronkite going pro-North Vietnam was the turning point for Democrats

I wouldn't put him in NV's camp Seymour , he wasn't advocating a win for them

He was only pointing out the futility

Which our Generals and Sec of Defense ignored

~S~

 

[Soupnazi630]

The problem with this thinking is that you really believe the issue was "communism" when it was, in fact, nationalism and self-determination.

Ho Chi Mihn was seen as a national hero. He had fought the French and the Japanese, while the people we propped up, "Emperor" Bao Dai, Diem, Ky, and Theiu, were all collaborators with whoever was invading the country this week.

On the American side, you had a criminally unfair draft that conscripted the poor and exempted the rich.

The American people didn't need Conkrite to tell them this was wrong, they just had to look at it to know it was.

Wrong

The issue was communist aggression

The communists from the north WERE the foreign aggressors.

The Tet offensive was a massive defeat for them and cronkite never addressed or made Americans aware of any issues with the draft making him a fool and you a liar