Vietnam, Revisionist History

[Tim Gratz]

John, I think one answer at least is that BG was talking about "tactical" versus "strategic" nuclear weapons, the former being used against enemy military forces on the battlefield and causing a narrowly defined area of damage. Earlier in his autobiography BG states that in the campaign he had discussed as a "theoretical possibily" that the American military might use tactical nuclear weapons. He further states that as earluy as Oct 7 1958 an American general who had headed NORAD stated his command had been authorized to fire a nuclear weapon in combat. BG says he was raising the issue so that it could be publicly discussed and debated and he states unequivocally: "Never once did I advocate the use of such [nuclear] weapons.

"Goldwater" by Barry M. Goldwater, pages 196-198.

Of course the LBJ campaign crucified BG re his discussion of nuclear weapons. BG asserts that it misrepresented him. He states that he watched Bill Moyers on television lecturing about "truth, the public triust, a fairer and a finer America." He concludes: "Every time I see him, I get sick to my stomach and want to throw up." He says that Ben Bradlee "now describes the two Moyers bomb ads as 'a f****** outrage. I was outraged by them." And he quotes David Broder: "We [the media] presented a scary picture of Goldwater. . . . Our characterization of him as an extermist was a terible distortion."

John, your article posted as I was composing. In the obituary to which you linked it states:

Mr. Goldwater and his supporters argued strenuously that the senator had never suggested that atomic weapons actually be used, but the remark only provided fuel for his critics who contended the next year that electing Mr. Goldwater president could only increase the likelihood of a nuclear disaster.

The daisy ad was no doubt an outrage but BG probably left himself open to such an attack by discussing as a "possibility" something he states he was not advocating. Given his reputation for candor, I take him at his word that he was not in fact "advocating" even the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Paul Rigby]

Goldwater's statement needs to be divided in two. "I never discussed nor advocated the use of nuclear weapons with Johnson or anyone else in authority." That is probably correct. Historians have not accused Goldwater of discussing the use of nuclear weapons with Johnson.

The second part of the statement "I supported a total conventional air, ground and sea war" is clearly false. You will find more information on Goldwater's views on the use of nuclear weapons in his Washington Post obituary:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...goldwater30.htm

A germane contemporary account:

The Washington Daily News, 11 June 1964, p.39

GOP Lemming Season

By Richard Starnes

Barring an unexpected onset of sanity at San Francisco, the lemming wing of the GOP will prevail and the Republicans will nominate Sir Barry of Goldwater to lead them to disaster in November.

The mind reels at the desolate vistas thus laid open before it. Scrubbing up the image of Sir Barry will plainly be the order of business as soon as the final dirge is sung at the Cow Palace; and this is a task formidable enough to tax the skill of the most expert political resurrection men on earth.

Sir Barry’s intellect is not the most nimble of instruments, and one must anticipate that his retreats from previous positions will be accompanied by more pratfalls than have been witnessed since Sliding Billy Watson careened into his last bass drum.

Already, one can hear some wretched journalist from some left-wing blatt asking: “Please, sir, just what is your position on selling the TVA? On using atomic bombs as weed killers in Viet Nam? On repudiating the Louisiana Purchase? Abolishing the income tax? School prayer? UN? Civil Rights? Anything?”

Questions of this nature are more or less germane to the perpetuation of the Republic, and Sir Barry must contrive to answer them. His replies, moreover, will have to square with what he has uttered heretofore, no small task, and he must try to conduct his strategic retreats without prompting John Birchers and other such dismal filberts to arraign him as a commysmp. And, of course, the matter of rearranging the features of the candidate must not be so transparently cynical that enlightened Republicans gag at it.

Sir Barry’s appeal must be broadened beyond the spectrum of Republican philosophy dominated by the hirsute viragoes in ankle-high sneakers, and chinless old boys in leather puttees and overseas caps. Doing it without revealing the chameleon syndrome is a job to strain the powers of a more agile wit than is here being discussed.

What, for example, does he really think about using atomic weapons in Southeast Asia? He was, unfortunately, misquoted in early accounts of his recent television gaffe on the subject, but the fact remains that he did allude to the possible use of nuclear weapons, and it wasn’t the first time. If he didn’t mean to hold out a tantalizing bait to the hard-liners, why mention it at all? Sir Barry has a record of brandishing atomic weapons that is enough to make any thoughtful person blanch at the idea of giving him custody of the push-button for four years.

On Nov. 15, 1961, for example, the Los Angeles Times quoted him as saying that low-yield nuclear devices could have been used in Laos “to defoliate the rain forests.” On May 20, 1963, Newsweek had him saying: “I’d drop a low-yield atomic bomb on the Chinese supply lines in North Viet Nam, or maybe shell ‘em with the Seventh Fleet.”

He has also been quoted within the past 12 months as advocating that NATO commanders be authorized to use tactical nuclear weapons on their own initiative.

There is, indeed, scarcely a subject at issue in mid-century America that Sir Barry has not hip-shot to death with a drum-fire of glib solutions. Reading his record on the UN, for example, it is difficult to draw any conclusions but that deep down inside where the real Sen. Goldwater broods and where the problems are easy and solutions fall off the vines, he believes the UN to be “unworkable” and would like to get the United States out of it.

Similarly, on the recognition of Russia: “I have always favored withdrawing recognition from Russia” (Sept. 2, 1963) but (Jan. 5, 1964), “There would be some qualifications on that. I would use the effort as a bargaining effort with the Soviet Union to try to get some things accomplished…”

[John Simkin]

Reposted in an attempt to get an answer:

BG had advocated "Why not victory" over the Communists rather than merely containment. RR essentially followed the policies advocated by BG in the early 1960s, and they worked.

It is still unclear how Barry Goldwater would have won the Vietnam War in two years. What has Ronald Reagan got to do with US policy in Vietnam?

You still ignore my point about China and the Cold War.

Nor have you admitted the truth about the statement made by Goldwater about the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

[Tim Gratz]

Both BG and RR understood the importance of taking the fight to the enemy.

LBJ handcuffed the military and tried, with disastorous results, to micromanage the war. BG was of course a General in the AF (Well, at least a full colonel--I'll need to check that fact). If my memory serves me, LBJ had no military experience whatsoever.

Had Hanoi been bombed in 1965 as Dresden was in WWII, the Vietcong would have quickly capitulated. But we fought what was essentially a defensive war in the South. Had Lincoln followed that tactic in the US Civil War, farmers in the great plains states would probably be using slaves today.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Both BG and RR understood the importance of taking the fight to the enemy.

LBJ handcuffed the military and tried, with disastorous results, to micromanage the war. BG was of course a General in the AF (Well, at least a full colonel--I'll need to check that fact). If my memory serves me, LBJ had no military experience whatsoever.

Had Hanoi been bombed in 1965 as Dresden was in WWII, the Vietcong would have quickly capitulated. But we fought what was essentially a defensive war in the South. Had Lincoln followed that tactic in the US Civil War, farmers in the great plains states would probably be using slaves today.

As members know, I am no fan of LBJ’s Vietnam policy. However, to argue that the reason why the USA lost in Vietnam was because LBJ did not fight an aggressive war is ridiculous. The reason why LBJ did not invade or heavily bomb North Vietnam is that it risked China getting involved in the conflict.

Remember what happened in Korea? On 15th September, 1950, Douglas MacArthur landed American and South Korean marines at Inchon, 200 miles behind the North Korean lines. The following day he launched a counter-attack on the North Koreans. When they retreated, MacArthur's forces carried the war northwards, reaching the Yalu River, the frontier between Korea and China on 24th October, 1950.

Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, told MacArthur to limit the war to South Korea. MacArthur disagreed, favoring an attack on Chinese forces. Unwilling to accept the views of Truman and Acheson, MacArthur began to make inflammatory statements indicating his disagreements with the United States government.

MacArthur gained support from right-wing members of the Senate such as Joe McCarthy who led the attack on Truman's administration. McCarthy accused members of the administration of being “communists”.

In April 1951, Truman removed MacArthur from his command of the United Nations forces in Korea. McCarthy now called for Truman to be impeached and suggested that the president was drunk when he made the decision to fire MacArthur: "Truman is surrounded by the Jessups, the Achesons, the old Hiss crowd. Most of the tragic things are done at 1.30 and 2 o'clock in the morning when they've had time to get the President cheerful."

While this conflict was taking place in the United States, the Chinese government sent 180,000 men to North Korea. This back-up enabled North Korean forces to take Seoul for a second time in January 1951. The United States army was forced to retreat back into South Korea.

Republicans attacked Truman for giving into the Chinese. However, when Eisenhower replaced Truman he did not order an invasion of North Korea. He knew that there was no way the United States could win a land war against the Chinese. Nor did Eisenhower order an invasion of North Vietnam before he left office in 1960. Like North Korea, North Vietnam bordered on China. Eisenhower knew that if he did invade, millions, and I do mean millions, of Chinese troops would have taken on the US army.

Even Goldwater realised that the US could not invade or begin a heavy bombing campaign on North Vietnam. However, he thought there was enough politically illiterate American to vote him into office by putting forward such a policy. JFK had more respect for the intellectual abilities of the American public and told his advisers that he would win easily if Goldwater became the Republican candidate in 1964. He was of course right. Unfortunately, it was LBJ who had the pleasure of exposing Goldwater’s ridiculous but highly dangerous foreign policy.

Nor did Ronald Reagan order the invasion of North Korea or Vietnam. Instead, like the Hollywood hero he was, he ordered the invasion of Grenada. Like all bullies he knew the size of the enemy he was willing to take on.