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

[Robert W]

You shouldn't be in Korea, i already said why the Chinese got involved because they felt threatened by American forces arriving on their border, you keep making the same mistake like in Ukraine threatening the Russian border with Nato, WTF don't you just stay home?

I have been to Europe. But so far, Never have I been to Korea. I do not play a role in this governments decisions. Clearly you sympathize with the Chinese. Me, not at all. Russia gets the blame for all of it's incursions into Ukraine. Ukraine did not invite them to invade, did not invite Russia to conquer Crimea nor invite them to screw all over Donbass, etc.

 

[Hector12]

American troops on the Chinese border they would see as a threat.

When Gen. MacArthur's successful Inchon landing forced a retreat of North Korean troops from the Pusan Perimeter Zhou Enlai told India, which had diplomatic relations with India and the United States, that China would not oppose the presence of South Korean troops in North Korea, but that China would not let American troops reach the Yalu River.

China had valid security concerns because in 1931 Japan invaded China by crossing the Yalu river.

Walter Lippmann said the United States and South Korea should conquer the southern half of North Korea, while leaving the northern half as a buffer zone between China and the United States.

MacArthur thought China was bluffing, and issued a demand for unconditional render from North Korea. China was not bluffing, and the Korean War continued for another three years.

A more restrained policy by Gen. MacArthur could have achieved a far better conclusion to the Korean War with much less cost. What remained of North Korea would have been too weak to again threaten South Korea.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The option of invading China ended up a 'no go.'

 

[Hector12]

You shouldn't be in Korea, i already said why the Chinese got involved because they felt threatened by American forces arriving on their border, you keep making the same mistake like in Ukraine threatening the Russian border with Nato, WTF don't you just stay home?

There are no NATO forces in Ukraine. Russia's invasion was completely unprovoked.

 

[Hector12]

The option of invading China ended up a 'no go.'

I have read that an older and wiser Douglas MacArthur told Lyndon Johnson, "Son, don't get involved in a war on the continent of Asia."

 

[Deadstick]

There are no NATO forces in Ukraine. Russia's invasion was completely unprovoked.

Pull the other one, at the very least they provide intel targeting info weapons which some will be operated by Nato, and many so called mercenaries have been killed, how many are sheep dipped Nato we may never know.

 

[Deadstick]

I have been to Europe. But so far, Never have I been to Korea. I do not play a role in this governments decisions. Clearly you sympathize with the Chinese. Me, not at all. Russia gets the blame for all of it's incursions into Ukraine. Ukraine did not invite them to invade, did not invite Russia to conquer Crimea nor invite them to screw all over Donbass, etc.

If you had watched the Carlson interview you would have got some answers, but you probably won't like the answers because it doesn't fit the narrative coming out of Washington.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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 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.

Selection from Eisenhower's Memoires

msuweb.montclair.edu

This myth was debunked decades ago, but I it's still repeated by some liberals. The myth is based on a deceptively cherry-picked quote from Eisenhower's book Mandate for Change. I quote from Dr. Robert F. Turner's book Myths of the Vietnam War (1972):

Another very popular myth — related to both the 1956 elections and the "Ho Chi Minh as George Washington" myth, is the "Eisenhower quote." As Senator Wayne Morse phrased it in 1965:

"Undoubtedly, the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh would have won such a free election. President Eisenhower declares in his Mandate for Change that all the experts he talked to in that period believed Ho would get at least eighty percent of the vote."

Other critics quote directly from President Eisenhower's memoirs. Felix Greene, for example, writes:

"The reason the US refused to allow elections was abundantly clear. No one who knew the conditions in Vietnam was in any doubt that, if elections were held, Ho Chi Minh would be elected by an overwhelming majority of the people."

He then (mis-) quotes Eisenhower:

I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held . . . possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh. (President Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, p. 372.)

It is instructive to compare what President Eisenhower really said with what Greene and the others quote:

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 eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. (Emphasis added to denote omissions).

Thus, (1) President Eisenhower was talking about an election which might have taken place in 1954, not 1956 (and the situation in both North and South Vietnam during this two-year period changed significantly to Ho Chi Minh's disadvantage, as will be shown shortly); and (2) he was talking about a contest between Ho and the French puppet Bao Dai. There is little question that Ngo Dinh Diem would have defeated Bao Dai by eighty percent of the vote, too. The "feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for" was largely the result of having a choice between a French puppet and a Communist dictator, when the majority of Vietnamese really wanted a true nationalist. (pp. 32-33)

 

[Robert W]

If you had watched the Carlson interview you would have got some answers, but you probably won't like the answers because it doesn't fit the narrative coming out of Washington.

I plan to watch it. Been too busy so far.

 

[Robert W]

When Gen. MacArthur's successful Inchon landing forced a retreat of North Korean troops from the Pusan Perimeter Zhou Enlai told India, which had diplomatic relations with India and the United States, that China would not oppose the presence of South Korean troops in North Korea, but that China would not let American troops reach the Yalu River.

China had valid security concerns because in 1931 Japan invaded China by crossing the Yalu river.

Walter Lippmann said the United States and South Korea should conquer the southern half of North Korea, while leaving the northern half as a buffer zone between China and the United States.

MacArthur thought China was bluffing, and issued a demand for unconditional render from North Korea. China was not bluffing, and the Korean War continued for another three years.

A more restrained policy by Gen. MacArthur could have achieved a far better conclusion to the Korean War with much less cost. What remained of North Korea would have been too weak to again threaten South Korea.

Let's us try to see this as Douglas MacArthur saw it. Doug's experience at that point was his success at Inchon. Due to that, the lower part of Korea also was taken over by his force. And they were racing like they were greyhounds at a race. Doug could have finished had Truman backed him. Doug needed more forces at the top of Korea than he had. This allowed China to attack our military forces. China waged war very different. They would sacrifice troops all day long. And not mind them dying.

 

[Robert W]

This myth was debunked decades ago, but I it's still repeated by some liberals. The myth is based on a deceptively cherry-picked quote from Eisenhower's book Mandate for Change. I quote from Dr. Robert F. Turner's book Myths of the Vietnam War (1972):

Another very popular myth — related to both the 1956 elections and the "Ho Chi Minh as George Washington" myth, is the "Eisenhower quote." As Senator Wayne Morse phrased it in 1965:

"Undoubtedly, the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh would have won such a free election. President Eisenhower declares in his Mandate for Change that all the experts he talked to in that period believed Ho would get at least eighty percent of the vote."

Other critics quote directly from President Eisenhower's memoirs. Felix Greene, for example, writes:

"The reason the US refused to allow elections was abundantly clear. No one who knew the conditions in Vietnam was in any doubt that, if elections were held, Ho Chi Minh would be elected by an overwhelming majority of the people."

He then (mis-) quotes Eisenhower:

I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held . . . possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh. (President Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, p. 372.)

It is instructive to compare what President Eisenhower really said with what Greene and the others quote:

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 eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. (Emphasis added to denote omissions).

Thus, (1) President Eisenhower was talking about an election which might have taken place in 1954, not 1956 (and the situation in both North and South Vietnam during this two-year period changed significantly to Ho Chi Minh's disadvantage, as will be shown shortly); and (2) he was talking about a contest between Ho and the French puppet Bao Dai. There is little question that Ngo Dinh Diem would have defeated Bao Dai by eighty percent of the vote, too. The "feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for" was largely the result of having a choice between a French puppet and a Communist dictator, when the majority of Vietnamese really wanted a true nationalist. (pp. 32-33)

I believe Americans should buy books on this topic and engage in wholesale reading.
For example my book is called a great book about that war and it is by Stanley Karnow and has tons of good material including photos of the parties involved. It has 750 pages so be prepared to learn actual facts and spend time learning that Ho Chi Minh was no hero, he was educated in France, in Russia and of course in Vietnam. He as we find here in America had both friends and enemies in Vietnam.

 

[Flash]

According to Robert McNamara, LBJ's Secretary of Defense, LBJ never had any intention of winning the war. He was trying to send a message to the communists in the PRVN government that their aggression wouldn't be tolerated. If anyone should know LBJ's intentions, it would be McNamara since he was involved in every one of them.

That is even worse.

He sacrificed 56,000 American lives as a message?

If that is true then he is even more of a douchebag than I could have imagined.

His tactics in Vietnam were a disaster. Fighting the war on the Communist's terms.

Nixon had it right by withdrawing combat troops and then bombing the hell out of he sonofabitches until they cried "uncle" and agreed to the Paris Peace Accords that acknowledged the sovereignty of South Vietnam. However, our filthy ass Libtards gave that success away and then went out and made stupid movies about how we how our asses were kicked. Uneducated low information Moon Bats only know about Vietnam from what they saw in the movies.

Liberals in general and Democrats specifically always fuck up everything they touch.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Hitler was on a Global rampage invading all over Europe, the Vietnamese had no intention of invading anywhere they just wanted to liberate their own Country, why people can't get that i have no idea.

Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrong

They were not ONE country. North vietnam attacked and invaded south vietnam which was a legitimate seperat nation

So much for your ignorant bullshit

 

[Soupnazi630]

You must be retarded, i already proved it was Diem who refused the election.

That is a bald faced lie

You posted nothing whatsoerver proving any such thing

back to you spinning boy

 

[Deadstick]

Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrong

They were not ONE country. North vietnam attacked and invaded south vietnam which was a legitimate seperat nation

So much for your ignorant bullshit

Give it a rest you arsehole, that is why they were going to have a election to unify the Country, the election Diem refused.

 

[Deadstick]

Because you keep willfully ignoring the glaring fact that you are wrong

They were not ONE country. North vietnam attacked and invaded south vietnam which was a legitimate seperat nation

So much for your ignorant bullshit

Read this you clown.

1956 in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Soupnazi630]

Give it a rest you arsehole, that is why they were going to have a election to unify the Country, the election Diem refused.

Just admit it douchebag you are wrong and full of crap

It was minh who refused it and then became the aggressor no matyter how much you butch and scream to the contrary

 

[Soupnazi630]

Read this you clown.

1956 in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I did read it ASSWIPE

and it does not prove anything to the contrary of what i taught you

 

[Hector12]

Let's us try to see this as Douglas MacArthur saw it. Doug's experience at that point was his success at Inchon. Due to that, the lower part of Korea also was taken over by his force. And they were racing like they were greyhounds at a race. Doug could have finished had Truman backed him. Doug needed more forces at the top of Korea than he had. This allowed China to attack our military forces. China waged war very different. They would sacrifice troops all day long. And not mind them dying.

Communist China would not have allowed the United States to conquer all of North Korea without a fight.

 

[Deadstick]

I did read it ASSWIPE

and it does not prove anything to the contrary of what i taught you

The only thing you taught me is how stupid some people are and you take the biscuit.