Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War

[David Lifton]

No Text.  Sorry.

[Michael Griffith]

On 8/27/2022 at 5:20 PM, Joseph McBride said:

 Michael is trying quixotically to defend the indefensible

by leaving out many of the key facts, including why

we really were in Vietnam. Johnson himself in phone

conversations with Sen. Richard Russell in the first

part of 1964 admitted the war could not be won but

he was powerless not to expand it. Ask yourself why.

You can hear those conversations online. And Russell,

an expert on foreign affairs who knew about Vietnam,

unlike many others at the high levels in the US government,

correctly predicted the war would take ten years, cost

50,000 American lives, and would be lost. Johnson recklessly

forged ahead anyway, because that's what his backers

in the military-industrial complex put him in office to do. He

knew it was a tragic dilemma, and it wound up costing

him the presidency as well as many of his Great Society

programs. His failure to call for a tax increase to wage

the war until it was too late (because if he did

so, he would have had to admit what we were

doing there and would have exacerbated the

national debate that was belatedly brewing up) caused immense harm to

the American economy. And there were three or four million

Asian deaths for which he and later Nixon were responsible.

Michael should ask herself why Nixon prolonged the war

after being elected on hints (false) that he would end it.

I offered a partial answer earlier that Michael ignores.

And you keep ignoring the clear evidence that the war was entirely winnable, as was proved by Operation Linebacker II in 1972, when we brought North Vietnam to the verge of collapse in less than two weeks by finally doing most of the things that the JCS and CINCPAC had been recommending since 1965. Are you aware that we now know from North Vietnamese sources the devastating, crushing effects of Linebacker II and that Hanoi was panicked, desperate, and on the verge of collapse? 

I am not the least bit surprised that LBJ and some other senior Democrats harbored the erroneous belief that the war was unwinnable. LBJ and McNamara were the ones who imposed the disastrous, nonsensical restrictions that prevented a swift military victory in Vietnam. Again, look what happened when Nixon lifted most of those restrictions with Linebacker II. 

If LBJ and McNamara had been in charge of the Korean War, and if there had been an anti-war movement in the 1950s identical to the one of the 1960s and 1970s, and if our news media had lied about the Korean War the way they lied about the Vietnam War, we would have lost the Korean War. There would be no South Korea, and the people in the southern part of Korea would be suffering under the same type of repressive communist rule that the people of Vietnam and North Korea now suffer under.

It is truly sad to see liberals minimizing the brutality of Vietnam's communist government on the grounds that, gee, the government has allowed some American fast-food chains and other Western businesses to operate in the country. Well, shucks, by that warped, immoral reasoning, Putin's pre-2021 Russia wasn't all that bad because Russia allowed American fast-food chains to operate in the country. Ditto for China's brutal regime--it must not really be all that bad because there are lots of American fast-food restaurants in China. 

Have you or any of your fellow Vietnam War critics here bothered to read or watch anything that presents the other side of the story? I've read the Hastings, Karnow, Halberstam, Sheehan, and Valentine books on the war, among others. How many pro-Vietnam War books have you read? Have you even bothered to watch the two-part AIM documentary Television's Vietnam, which I've linked in previous replies? How about the video of Selverstone's 2016 presentation? Anything?

If you cared enough to at least read one or two of the better scholarly books that defend the Vietnam War, you would learn about the vast wealth of material from North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese sources that utterly destroys the liberal version of the war. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

Winnable? Hmm. What would that have looked like? Permanent US military presence? Don’t you believe, as JFK did, that third world revolutions were attempts to get rid of imperialist occupations? Or are you in favor of US imperial interests? You seem mired in colonialist thinking. Do we invade every country whose form of government we dislike? 

[Sean Coleman]

no…….just those with oil.

or…to prevent a domino effect.

or….if the commies take over.

or…………..

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And you keep ignoring the clear evidence that the war was entirely winnable, as was proved by Operation Linebacker II in 1972, when we brought North Vietnam to the verge of collapse in less than two weeks by finally doing most of the things that the JCS and CINCPAC had been recommending since 1965. Are you aware that we now know from North Vietnamese sources the devastating, crushing effects of Linebacker II and that Hanoi was panicked, desperate, and on the verge of collapse? 

I am not the least bit surprised that LBJ and some other senior Democrats harbored the erroneous belief that the war was unwinnable. LBJ and McNamara were the ones who imposed the disastrous, nonsensical restrictions that prevented a swift military victory in Vietnam. Again, look what happened when Nixon lifted most of those restrictions with Linebacker II. 

If LBJ and McNamara had been in charge of the Korean War, and if there had been an anti-war movement in the 1950s identical to the one of the 1960s and 1970s, and if our news media had lied about the Korean War the way they lied about the Vietnam War, we would have lost the Korean War. There would be no South Korea, and the people in the southern part of Korea would be suffering under the same type of repressive communist rule that the people of Vietnam and North Korea now suffer under.

It is truly sad to see liberals minimizing the brutality of Vietnam's communist government on the grounds that, gee, the government has allowed some American fast-food chains and other Western businesses to operate in the country. Well, shucks, by that warped, immoral reasoning, Putin's pre-2021 Russia wasn't all that bad because Russia allowed American fast-food chains to operate in the country. Ditto for China's brutal regime--it must not really be all that bad because there are lots of American fast-food restaurants in China. 

Have you or any of your fellow Vietnam War critics here bothered to read or watch anything that presents the other side of the story? I've read the Hastings, Karnow, Halberstam, Sheehan, and Valentine books on the war, among others. How many pro-Vietnam War books have you read? Have you even bothered to watch the two-part AIM documentary Television's Vietnam, which I've linked in previous replies? How about the video of Selverstone's 2016 presentation? Anything?

If you cared enough to at least read one or two of the better scholarly books that defend the Vietnam War, you would learn about the vast wealth of material from North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese sources that utterly destroys the liberal version of the war. 

 

 

Just spit-balling. You compare Vietnam to Korea... Isn't this apples and oranges? Wasn't Korea a battle between a communist north and a non-communist south? As I recall, much of the resistance in South Vietnam came from their fellow South Vietnamese, who wanted a reunited communist country. Am I wrong on this? Were the South Vietnamese united in their resistance to the north? 

As far as winnable... You keep talking about North Vietnam as if it was this pesky dog that Nixon almost brought to heel... You keep leaving out that Russia and China were backing this dog, and had bet the future of their revolution on this dog... Were they really just gonna walk away from North Vietnam? Or are you saying that "winning" the war meant the continuation of two Vietnams...which would be a draw...not a win... And if so who was gonna run South Vietnam? None of the governments we'd supported had had the widespread backing of the people... To my understanding Diem was probably the closest and we know what happened to him... Or do we? I seem to recall that even Nixon agreed that the main impetus in his overthrow and assassination was Lodge, Nixon's running mate in 1960. And I seem to recall that one of Diem's biggest supporters was LBJ. So if we're linking the downfall of South Vietnam back to the coup in 63, we can't exactly claim this was another failure of the left. Right?

[James DiEugenio]

A crucial difference between Korea and Vietnam was the fact that the Viet Minh/Viet Cong were a quite potent force in the south.

They were quite influential in the French Indochina War and just as effective, if not more so, during the American intervention.

In fact, one of the serious problems with the American intervention is that there was always a dispute about just how potent and numerous the Viet Cong were.  This was the basis for the lawsuit of Westmoreland vs CBS over the documentary  "The Uncounted Enemy".  In every substantial way, the general lost that action.  The substance was that Westmoreland kept on using false figures to underestimate just how prevalent and fast growing the Viet Cong were. This happened in 1968 and 1969, and was an echo of what happened under JFK. As with Kennedy, it was done in order to spread a myth of success that was not really there. A veteran CIA analyst, Sam Adams, thought this was false and his figures proved it.  He concluded that the war was not winnable.  Adams later wrote a book about this called War of Numbers.

Edited August 29, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

Using an anti-communist mind-set, one could suppose the coup and subsequent massacres of suspected leftists in Indonesia 1965 was a success. The ensuing strict codification of laissez-faire “free-market” economics in Indonesia provides a counter-point to Vietnam’s experience of public ownership and regulation. In direct comparison, Vietnam’s metrics in living standards, life expectancy, social development, physical infrastructure, and general quality of life far exceed that found in Indonesia. Ask any traveller who has been to both Hanoi and Jakarta.

[James Wilkinson]

On 8/27/2022 at 1:20 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I find it troubling that some here seem to think that handing over 18 million South Vietnamese to communist tyranny was the right thing to do. For all its flaws and corruption, SV’s government was vastly better than NV’s brutal regime.

I find it troubling to refer to respecting the self-determination of decolonized peoples as "handing (them) over," which implies that there was ever a justification for us to maintain such a grip on them in the first place. There can never be any post-facto justifications for the brutal history of European colonialism, which masked its drive to expropriate and exploit others' natural resources under white-supremacist rhetoric of developing ones so-called "inferiors."

It would be intellectually dishonest to argue on behalf of a colonial system or even mindset without acknowledging, let alone assenting to, its racist underpinnings -- just as bombing millions of noncombatants to death will always constitute a war crime.

You seem to think that mainstream historians and right-wing historians are talking past one another, when the reality is that the arguments advanced by "conservative" historians have been largely dismissed because they're simply not supported by the weight of the evidence. Cherry-picking this cable or that dispatch out of context isn't how serious scholarly work is supposed to be done.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Mr. Wilkinson. 

Seymour Topping told JFK in 1951 that, when he first got to Saigon, the Vietnamese really liked Americans.

But now that we were backing the French, the feeling toward Americans had become reversed.

This is one of the reasons I think JFK told Schlesinger that he was opposed to direct American intervention.  He said, it could not be perceived as a white man's war.

[James DiEugenio]

8 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Using an anti-communist mind-set, one could suppose the coup and subsequent massacres of suspected leftists in Indonesia 1965 was a success. The ensuing strict codification of laissez-faire “free-market” economics in Indonesia provides a counter-point to Vietnam’s experience of public ownership and regulation. In direct comparison, Vietnam’s metrics in living standards, life expectancy, social development, physical infrastructure, and general quality of life far exceed that found in Indonesia. Ask any traveller who has been to both Hanoi and Jakarta.

And remember, Nixon visited Jakarta and tried to celebrate that as a triumph of Japanese style democracy and free enterprise.   LOL!

I  was glad we got this story into the long version, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.  With Lisa Pease and Brad Simpson.  I really think that is the first time that particular story was ever told. 

BTW, the DVD is number 3 this week at Amazon documentaries.  This means that in six weeks it has been No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 4, No. 6 and No .3.

But remember, there is no interest in the JFK case out there.

Uh huh, sure.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

To his great credit, even Stanley Karnow, in his monumental and highly acclaimed Vietnam: A History, was willing to acknowledge the brutality that the communists imposed on the South Vietnamese after South Vietnam fell. Even though his book was originally published as a companion volume for PBS's Vietnam series, he did not whitewash the terrible fate that befell South Vietnam: the executions, the reeducation camps, the massive confiscation of property, and the enormous exodus of refugees who fled the country rather than live under communist rule (aka the "boat people"). He called communist Vietnam a "gulag." 

Of course, there are probably well over 100,000 Vietnamese boat people still alive in the U.S. who could provide plenty of information about the oppression and terror that the communists inflicted on the South. How many people know that thousands of former South Vietnamese refugees in America held two large protests against Ken Burns' Vietnam documentary after it was broadcast? They considered its portrayal of South Vietnam as slanderous, and they viewed its portrayal of communist North Vietnam as disgraceful. 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

In fact, if you read NSAM 263, you see that JFK approved the recommendations contained in McNamara and Taylor’s report in the same paragraph that mentions the 1,000-man withdrawal, and those recommendations make it undeniably clear that NSAM 263 was never intended to initiate a complete disengagement from South Vietnam regardless of the conditions on the ground. Let’s first read the relevant portion of NSAM 263:

At a meeting on October 5, 1963,[2] the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

Okay, now let’s read those recommendations:

b. Noted the President's approval of the following statement of U.S. policy which was later released to the press: [3]

"1. The security of South Viet Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet Nam to deny this country to Communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet Nam.

"2. The military program in South Viet Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

"3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet Nam are capable of suppressing it.

"Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet Nam can be withdrawn.

"4. The political situation in South Viet Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

"5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."

Even the first draft of NSAM 273, which said nothing about U.S. troops, and which LBJ revised before JFK was even buried, made it clear that the U.S. would continue to aid South Vietnam:

“1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. . . .

“7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action.”

All of this dovetails perfectly with what Bobby said about JFK’s intentions in his April 1964 oral interview.

Refreshingly, paragraph 10 shows that JFK and his advisers knew that the Viet Cong were a creature and puppet of North Vietnam, contrary to liberal anti-war mythology about the Viet Cong:

10. In connection with paragraphs 7 and 8 above, it is desired that we should develop as strong and persuasive case as possible to demonstrate to the world the degree to which the Viet Cong is controlled, sustained, and supplied from Hanoi, through Laos and other channels.

I’ll take Bobby’s April 1964 statements over anything McNamara said. And I, again, point out that even when Bobby turned against LBJ’s war effort, he never claimed that JFK planned on totally disengaging from Vietnam regardless of the consequences. I also point out, again, that Schlesinger and Sorenson said nothing—not one word—in their 1965 memoirs about any intention for a complete pullout or complete disengagement from South Vietnam.

McNamara was willing to give up on South Vietnam early on, before we had launched a single air raid into North Vietnam, before we had done any damage to a single high-value target in North Vietnam, and, crucially, before we had done anything to stop the flow of weapons and supplies to North Vietnam from the Soviets and the Chinese.

I guess McNamara’s version of a fair fight was to abandon South Vietnam while doing nothing to stop the Soviets and the Chinese from giving North Vietnam massive amounts of weapons and supplies. Well, that’s exactly what McNamara’s fellow Democrats did soon after the Paris Peace Accords, slashing aid to South Vietnam and then making it clear with the Case-Church Amendment in mid-1973 that the U.S. would not intervene to stop another North Vietnamese invasion.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

JFK had nothing to do with NSAM-273.

 

[James DiEugenio]

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

TO:      Secretary of State
         Secretary of Defense
         Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

 

SUBJECT: South Vietnam

 

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

 

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

 

After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon. McGeorge Bundy

 

Copy furnished: Director of Central Intelligence
Administrator, Agency for International Development 11/21/63

[James DiEugenio]

From the McNamara Taylor Report

First mention:

A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

 

Second Mention:

In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Third Mention:

In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Edited August 31, 2022 by James DiEugenio