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

[Deadstick]

Wrong.

We did not wipe out the jungle with chemical agents and people suffer there due to poverty and communism, which is redundant.

The reason we dropped on empty jungles was that Johnson was micromanaging the war from the white house.

Typically our intelligence would spot a potential enemy target which was mobile such as an encampment or cluster of parked vehicles. Before attacking with aircraft permission had to be requested all the way up the chain to Johnson. He would then consult with friends and business execs and eventually send permission back down. By the time the aircraft got the order to attack the target, it was gone. So the bombs landed on a whole lot of nothing.

The chenical agents you are referring to were defoliants which only temporarily wilted leaves. They did not kill people.

I didn't know agent Orange was a Communist, are you retarded? have a pint of agent Orange on me.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The people that took over were the Vietnamese, there were more bombs dropped on South East Asia than all the bombs dropped by all sides in WW2 so two million is quite believable, Laos was bombed to oblivion, it's the American way bringing democracy to the world since the 1800s.

The only part of Laos that was bombed was the Ho Chi Minh trail which ran through unpopulated jungle. The only reason the US was bombing Laos was because the Laotian government was failing to enforce its neutrality by allowing the VC and NVA to not only pass through carrying supplies but establish bases there.

 

[JoeB131]

The only part of Laos that was bombed was the Ho Chi Minh trail which ran through unpopulated jungle. The only reason the US was bombing Laos was because the Laotian government was failing to enforce its neutrality by allowing the VC and NVA to not only pass through carrying supplies but establish bases there.

Oh, that makes it okay then.

 

[sparky]

Oh, that makes it okay then.

It was used to make us look bad Joe

~S~

 

[whitehall]

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.

After the war V.C. Giap admitted that he was out of soldiers and support for the revolution after the V.C. defeat. Cronkite and liberals gave him breathing room for a new offensive.

 

[Hector12]

After the war V.C. Giap admitted that he was out of soldiers and support for the revolution after the V.C. defeat. Cronkite and liberals gave him breathing room for a new offensive.

The War in Vietnam was a war of attrition. In a war of attrition the first side that gets tired of the war loses. The Watergate Scandal made it impossible for President Ford to counter the Communist offensive of 1965, and guaranteed the Communist victory.

 

[JoeB131]

The War in Vietnam was a war of attrition. In a war of attrition the first side that gets tired of the war loses. The Watergate Scandal made it impossible for President Ford to counter the Communist offensive of 1965, and guaranteed the Communist victory.

I think you got your dates mixed up there.

Assuming you meant the offensive of 1975, the US was well out according to the Paris Peace Accords. Ford had no intention of intervening again.

The thing was, Nixon knew he was selling the South out at the Paris Conference. He just wanted enough time to pull American Troops out to save face.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

They were invaded by North Vietnam. never by the US
It was never a civil war

What the ****? We had over half a million mostly drafted soldiers based there by 1968! With the constant rotations in and out there were many many more who served and got “educated” in Vietnam, and millions were radicalized in the U.S. at the same time. The Pentagon Papers revealed to the country that our leaders actually knew early on we could not win, but lied to us because once committed they found it impossible to admit it was a terrible mistake…

50 thousand U.S. dead, so many more injured and traumatized. The “Great Society” died in the jungles of Vietnam. Three million Vietnamese dead on all sides. Peasants were driven from their ancestral villages and “collectivized” in “strategic hamlets” by the South Vietnamese military and U.S. CIA advisers. Almost all who served unwillingly were traumatized and many refused to fight, preferring to get high, or drunk. Most early super-“patriotic” gung-ho types learned the truth the hard way, if at all. Some still cling to the German-like “stab-in-the-back” thesis that they were betrayed by liberals and communists in the U.S.A.

Sure, at first in Saigon — where Catholics and other anti-Communists had fled from Hanoi & the North after the French colonialists were defeated in their own Indochina War (financed by the U.S.) — some Vietnamese there, seeing the rising American presence, actually thought the communists had to lose:

The Americans, after all, had conquered the world. Defeated the Japanese. They were so tall! They had unlimited guns, helicopters, bombers, ships, napalm! Money for bribes, for the economy, for women and “entertainment.” But it was all for naught, and even our planes and helicopters were shot out of the sky at high rates by Soviet supplied anti-aircraft — though the North was bombed “back into the Stone Age.” The Tet Offensive showed nowhere in South Vietnam was really pacified, the war wasn’t limited to “the jungles” and our enemy was fanatical in its hatred of us and desire for genuine independence.

Even the Anerican rulers and establishment journalists / propagandists like Walter Cronkite eventually realized this land war in Asia could never be won by the U.S. But Kissinger knew it could be “managed.” Indeed, as the Sino-Soviet split revealed, there were bigger more important fish to fry, especially as Indonesia had been stabilized for the West through civil conflict and mass murder. Any good historian could see the Vietnamese Communist nationalists were afraid of China. Maoist China could be used against Russia-aligned Vietnam and Vietnam could be used against China … with a better policy and an end to the war.

 

[whitehall]

The War in Vietnam was a war of attrition. In a war of attrition the first side that gets tired of the war loses. The Watergate Scandal made it impossible for President Ford to counter the Communist offensive of 1965, and guaranteed the Communist victory.

Hard to imagine how a 3rd rate burglary could have impacted American foreign policy but that's the way it worked out.

 

[Hector12]

I think you got your dates mixed up there.

Assuming you meant the offensive of 1975, the US was well out according to the Paris Peace Accords. Ford had no intention of intervening again.

The thing was, Nixon knew he was selling the South out at the Paris Conference. He just wanted enough time to pull American Troops out to save face.

You are correct.

 

[Soupnazi630]

What the ****? We had over half a million mostly drafted soldiers based there by 1968! With the constant rotations in and out there were many many more who served and got “educated” in Vietnam, and millions were radicalized in the U.S. at the same time. The Pentagon Papers revealed to the country that our leaders actually knew early on we could not win, but lied to us because once committed they found it impossible to admit it was a terrible mistake…

50 thousand U.S. dead, so many more injured and traumatized. The “Great Society” died in the jungles of Vietnam. Three million Vietnamese dead on all sides. Peasants were driven from their ancestral villages and “collectivized” in “strategic hamlets” by the South Vietnamese military and U.S. CIA advisers. Almost all who served unwillingly were traumatized and many refused to fight, preferring to get high, or drunk. Most early super-“patriotic” gung-ho types learned the truth the hard way, if at all. Some still cling to the German-like “stab-in-the-back” thesis that they were betrayed by liberals and communists in the U.S.A.

Sure, at first in Saigon — where Catholics and other anti-Communists had fled from Hanoi & the North after the French colonialists were defeated in their own Indochina War (financed by the U.S.) — some Vietnamese there, seeing the rising American presence, actually thought the communists had to lose:

The Americans, after all, had conquered the world. Defeated the Japanese. They were so tall! They had unlimited guns, helicopters, bombers, ships, napalm! Money for bribes, for the economy, for women and “entertainment.” But it was all for naught, and even our planes and helicopters were shot out of the sky at high rates by Soviet supplied anti-aircraft — though the North was bombed “back into the Stone Age.” The Tet Offensive showed nowhere in South Vietnam was really pacified, the war wasn’t limited to “the jungles” and our enemy was fanatical in its hatred of us and desire for genuine independence.

Even the Anerican rulers and establishment journalists / propagandists like Walter Cronkite eventually realized this land war in Asia could never be won by the U.S. But Kissinger knew it could be “managed.” Indeed, as the Sino-Soviet split revealed, there were bigger more important fish to fry, especially as Indonesia had been stabilized for the West through civil conflict and mass murder. Any good historian could see the Vietnamese Communist nationalists were afraid of China. Maoist China could be used against Russia-aligned Vietnam and Vietnam could be used against China … with a better policy and an end to the war.

None of tyhat addresses the fact that they were not invaded by us but by the communist aggressors.

The North was NOT bombed into the stone age. They were bombed but never to the extent that we bombed coungtries in WWII. Their cities and infrastructure remained intact.

No one claimed that any where was pacified before tet. The mistake was not follwing up the massive communist defeat with a full on offensive to finish them off.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Oh, that makes it okay then.

Yes it does.

Bombing the enemy supply lines is very OK

 

[Soupnazi630]

I didn't know agent Orange was a Communist, are you retarded? have a pint of agent Orange on me.

My post was clear .

The communists killed them agent orange did not

 

[Soupnazi630]

Are you a slow learner, or do you have reading comprehension problems?

I am better informed than you

You have failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary

 

[Hector12]

I am better informed than you

You have failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary

Vietnam was unimportant to our security or our economy. The vast majority of the the Vietnamese supported the Communists. What don't you understand about that?

 

[Hector12]

None of tyhat addresses the fact that they were not invaded by us but by the communist aggressors.

The North was NOT bombed into the stone age. They were bombed but never to the extent that we bombed coungtries in WWII. Their cities and infrastructure remained intact.

No one claimed that any where was pacified before tet. The mistake was not follwing up the massive communist defeat with a full on offensive to finish them off.

Soupnazi630, it is impossible to reason with you about a needless, immoral war. You deserve nothing but crude satire. This song expresses how preposterous the War in Vietnam was. I apologize for the use of the f word, but servicemen use it frequently. Country Joe probably learned to use that word when he was in the Navy.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Vietnamese have resisted being dominated by outsiders for a very, very long time. The U.S totally mishandled its position in the area after WWII and became involved in a hopeless task organized and run by witless, misguided bureaucrats. It was a tragic waste of life, treasure and faith in our system.
When we consider that there was never a definition of what "winning" would have been, there was never a prospect of anything other than loss.

 

[Hector12]

We lost the War in Vietnam because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported the enemy we were fighting. Their willingness to die for their country surpassed our desire to kill them.

 

[Deadstick]

Vietnam was unimportant to our security or our economy. The vast majority of the the Vietnamese supported the Communists. What don't you understand about that?

Actually the Liberation fight in Vietnam was always more about the Nationalists struggle over decades.

 

[Deadstick]

We lost the War in Vietnam because the vast majority of the Vietnamese supported the enemy we were fighting. Their willingness to die for their country surpassed our desire to kill them.

It only went on so long because of the industrial military complex, at the time the US was almost in a civil war over that disgusting war, i have family in America at the time Cousin of mine was drafted into the Marines and sent over there, sad to say i think he was a real believer because he stayed in the Marines and went back for a second time, it was clear to anyone with half a brain the US were onto a loser, all they had to do was study the history of Vietnam.