Top 5 Books On JFK & Vietnam

[Gerry Down]

Was the JFK assassination related to JFKs policy towards Vietnam?

For someone not familiar on the detail of JFK and his policy towards continuation of the Vietnam war, which 5 books would you recommend? Here is my presumed top 5 books and reasons why:

1. JFK  And Vietnam by John Newman: Newman explains why he thinks JFK wanted for the U.S. to fully get out of Vietnam by 1965.
2. The Kennedy Withdrawal by Marc Silverstone : This book posits the theory that JFK was planning on removing all military personnel from Vietnam by 1965 but was planning on continuing military and economic aid thereafter (much like how Biden is providing economic and military aid to Ukraine now). This seems to be a slightly different idea to John Newmans theory that JFK was planning a full and total withdrawal. Therefore this book would be good to read in addition to John Newmans book.
3. Masters of War by Robert Buzzanco: Buzzanco offers an opposing view to Jim DiEugenios position (who aligns to John Newmans position) and therefore would be worth a read to see where he is coming from. Jim D and Buzzanco recently did a debate which showed just how different their views on this issue are: https://youtu.be/OAgrAdx0wMg
4. Swords And Ploughshares by Maxwell Taylor: As Taylor was one of JFKs right-hand men in relation to policy towards the Vietnam war, I’d imagine this book would be good to read to get his input.
5. In Retrospect by Robert McNamara: Like Taylor, as McNamara was one of JFKs right-hand men in relation to policy towards the Vietnam war, I’d imagine this book would be good to read to get his input.

What do you think? If someone wanted to make up their own mind on JFK and his policy towards Vietnam, would these 5 books provide enough info for them to form an educated opinion?

Edited April 7, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Michael Griffith]

As of today, surely the definitive book on the subject is Dr. Marc Selverstone's recent and widely acclaimed work The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam (Harvard University Press, 2022). Here is an insightful one-hour interview with Dr. Selverstone that was done after his book was published--it will give you a good idea of the book's contents and of Selverstone's approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZKe68bwTk

And let's be clear: Selverstone is a Kennedy admirer. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. 

One big issue in discussing JFK and Vietnam is semantics. I've covered this at length in another thread, so I'll only summarize the issue here. When JFK talked about "combat troops" or "ground troops," he was referring to soldiers who were members of what are termed "regular infantry units" in military terminology. JFK did not want to send regular infantry troops to South Vietnam, but he had no problem sending other types of combat soldiers to Vietnam. Several thousands of the 17,000 "military advisers" whom he sent to South Vietnam were combat troops, and some of those troops took part in battles against Communist forces. Over 1,000 of those personnel were elite combat troops who served in Special Forces/Green Beret/Force Recon units. 

Some JFKA researchers make much of the fact that earlier in the war, when the situation was deemed dire, JFK refused to approve sending combat troops, i.e., infantry troops, to South Vietnam. This is true. However, these researchers tend to ignore the fact that, at the same time, JFK agreed to substantially increase the number of non-infantry combat troops in South Vietnam. Again, he drew the line at sending regular infantry units to South Vietnam, but he was quite willing to send other types of combat troops, and he did so several times during his time in office. 

Another big issue, and big problem, is distinguishing between a conditional withdrawal and an unconditional abandonment/total disengagement. There is a huge difference between the two. Far too often, some JFKA conspiracy theorists use these terms interchangeably. They point to evidence that JFK wanted to withdraw from South Vietnam and then act like this proves he intended to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. Yes, JFK did indeed want to withdraw American troops from South Vietnam as soon as possible, but only if he could do so without handing over the country to the Communists. And, crucially, his withdrawal plan called for continuing military and economic aid to South Vietnam. It even called for leaving behind a 1,500-man contingent of support troops for supply purposes. James K. Galbraith, an ardent Kennedy-would-have-withdrawn-no-matter-what scholar, acknowledges this fact:

          Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. ("JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation," The Nation, 11/22/2013, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/).    

Even if one wants to ignore the weight of the evidence and argue that JFK's withdrawal plan was unconditional, i.e., that he would have carried out the withdrawal regardless of the conditions on the ground, the fact remains that his plan also called for a continuation of military and economic aid to South Vietnam and for keeping 1,500 support troops in country. That is a far cry from his alleged willingness to abandon South Vietnam after the election. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

For someone not familiar on the detail of JFK and his policy towards continuation of the Vietnam war, which 5 books would you recommend? Here is my presumed top 5 books and reasons why:

1. JFK  And Vietnam by John Newman: Newman explains why he thinks JFK wanted for the U.S. to fully get out of Vietnam by 1965.
2. The Kennedy Withdrawal by Marc Silverstone : This book posits the theory that JFK was planning on removing all military personnel from Vietnam by 1965 but was planning on continuing military and economic aid thereafter (much like how Biden is providing economic and military aid to Ukraine now). This seems to be a slightly different idea to John Newmans theory that JFK was planning a full and total withdrawal. Therefore this book would be good to read in addition to John Newmans book.
3. Masters of War by Robert Buzzanco: Buzzanco offers an opposing view to Jim DiEugenios position (who aligns to John Newmans position) and therefore would be worth a read to see where he is coming from. Jim D and Buzzanco recently did a debate which showed just how different their views on this issue are: https://youtu.be/OAgrAdx0wMg
4. Swords And Ploughshares by Maxwell Taylor: As Taylor was one of JFKs right-hand men in relation to policy towards the Vietnam war, I’d imagine this book would be good to read to get his input.
5. In Retrospect by Robert McNamara: Like Taylor, as McNamara was one of JFKs right-hand men in relation to policy towards the Vietnam war, I’d imagine this book would be good to read to get his input.

What do you think? If someone wanted to make up their own mind on JFK and his policy towards Vietnam, would these 5 books provide enough info for them to form an educated opinion?

You forgot to reference the critically important primary source material on this subject (prior to 1964) by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty-- the Joint Chiefs Liaison to the CIA who worked directly with Edward Lansdale and the CIA's Saigon Station for many years, and with the JFK administration until December of 1964.

Prouty also co-authored the Pentagon Papers and the 1963 McNamara-Taylor Report.

He was a participant/observer of the history of JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

His work has been misrepresented and Swift-Boated-Vetted for years by CIA propagandists, after he provided firsthand witness testimony about the CIA, JFK, and Vietnam.

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy: Prouty, L. Fletcher, Stone, Oliver, Ventura, Jesse: 9781616082918: Amazon.com: Books

Edited April 6, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

You forgot to reference the critically important primary source material on this subject (prior to 1964) by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty-- the Joint Chiefs Liaison to the CIA who worked directly with Edward Lansdale and the CIA's Saigon Station for many years, and with the JFK administration until December of 1964.

Prouty also co-authored the Pentagon Papers and the 1963 McNamara-Taylor Report.

He was a participant/observer of the history of JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

His work has been misrepresented and Swift-Boated-Vetted for years by CIA propagandists, after he provided firsthand witness testimony about the CIA, JFK, and Vietnam.

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy: Prouty, L. Fletcher, Stone, Oliver, Ventura, Jesse: 9781616082918: Amazon.com: Books

Oh, gosh. Not this nonsense again. You are embarrassing the case for conspiracy.

Prouty did not work with Lansdale or the CIA Saigon station chief "for many years." Lansdale transferred him out of his department because he was a NUTJOB.

Prouty did not co-author the Pentagon Papers or the Taylor-McNamara Report. 

As I have pointed out to you before, and as you keep lamely labeling as "CIA disinformation," Prouty's NUTTY statements are well documented. Their existence cannot be disputed--they come from his own writings and interviews. His ARRB interview is available for all to read. His ties with seedy, extremist right-wing groups, one of which disputed the Holocaust, are a matter of record. 

If there were a CIA team tasked with spreading loony claims in the JFK research community to discredit the case for conspiracy, they would consider Prouty's nutty claims a gift from heaven. 

[Jeff Carter]

On 4/6/2023 at 10:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, gosh. Not this nonsense again. You are embarrassing the case for conspiracy.

Prouty did not work with Lansdale or the CIA Saigon station chief "for many years." Lansdale transferred him out of his department because he was a NUTJOB.

Prouty did not co-author the Pentagon Papers or the Taylor-McNamara Report. 

As I have pointed out to you before, and as you keep lamely labeling as "CIA disinformation," Prouty's NUTTY statements are well documented. Their existence cannot be disputed--they come from his own writings and interviews. His ARRB interview is available for all to read. His ties with seedy, extremist right-wing groups, one of which disputed the Holocaust, are a matter of record. 

If there were a CIA team tasked with spreading loony claims in the JFK research community to discredit the case for conspiracy, they would consider Prouty's nutty claims a gift from heaven. 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Jeff Carter
not relevant

[James DiEugenio]

This is why I have my problems with Mr. Down. And I wonder why he does things like this. 

You cannot put Newman first and Selverstone's piece of rubbish second since they are in opposition to each other.  So why even start something like this unless you ae trying to be provocative?

I just reviewed Selverstone's wacky book and that review will be up soon.

Buzzanco's book is not about JFK and Vietnam. 

The Five best ones on that subject are:

JFK and Vietnam by John Newman (2017 edition)

American Tragedy by David Kaiser

Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein

VIrtual JFK by James Blight (This is really an oral history, but it has loads of documents in the back.)

Death of a Generation by Howard Jones

The reasons these are the best is because they use newly declassified documents and tapes to show how Kennedy had planned on getting out of Vietnam. And how that was then stopped and reversed by LBJ. And that is what caused probably the most divisive and polarizing conflict since the Civil War. Along with the eventual deaths of 5.8 million people in Southeast Asia. Over a war that should have never been fought.

Edited April 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Gerry Down]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why I have my problems with Mr. Down. And I wonder why he does things like this. 

You cannot put Newman first and Selverstone's piece of rubbish second since they are in opposition to each other.  So why even start something like this unless you ae trying to be provocative?

I just reviewed Selverstone's wacky book and that review will be up soon.

Buzzanco's book is not about JFK and Vietnam. 

The Five best ones on that subject are:

JFK and Vietnam by John Newman

American Tragedy by David Kaiser

Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein

VIrtual JFK by James Blight

Death of a Generation by Howard Jones

I'm trying to get numerous opposing views on the topic so that I can then take that info and form my own opinion on the matter.

Didn't JFK do this very thing? He didn't surround himself with a bunch of yes men but instead listened to people with different ideas. Kennedy would then make an informed decision based on what he'd heard.

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

You cannot put Newman first and Selverstone's piece of rubbish second since they are in opposition to each other.  So why even start something like this unless you ae trying to be provocative?

I just reviewed Selverstone's wacky book and that review will be up soon.

I'm sorry, but you are simply not qualified to be passing this kind of judgment on Dr. Selverstone's book.

One, your reading on the Vietnam War has been sparse and very one sided, as is apparent from your replies to me on the Vietnam War in other threads, where you repeated claims that were debunked years ago (some of them were debunked literally decades ago), and where you cited far-left books that even many liberal scholars recognize as problematic. You cited Nick Turse's scandalous book, which even Neil Sheehan condemned as shoddy, and you were unaware that Turse and his publisher were forced to issue a retraction when confronted with indisputable evidence of falsehood in the book. You obviously had never heard of any of the important disclosures from released/newly translated North Vietnamese sources (because far-left authors have ignored them). 

Two, you approach the issue of the Vietnam War from a rigidly ideological perspective that seems to render you incapable of being objective on the subject. When I first told you about Selverstone's book, you said the book would not be credible because you believed that Selverstone was a right-winger, since he works at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, when in fact Selverstone is a JFK admirer and a centrist. The mere fact that you would attack a book you hadn't read because you believed the author was a conservative says volumes about your own political bias. 

Selverstone's book is superior to Newman's solid book, partly because he uses sources that Newman did not use (some of them were not available yet). Also, Selverstone addresses Newman's key arguments. Newman's book is a solid, credible work and contains important information not covered in previous books on the subject, but Selverstone's book is a cut above any other book on JFK and Vietnam published to date. 

Scholars from all across the spectrum on the Vietnam War have praised Selverstone's book, yet you conclude that it is "a piece of rubbish." REALLY??? A "piece of rubbish"??? Honestly, such a comment shows that you really have no business passing judgment on the book in a public forum.

I can only imagine how you are going to deal with (i.e., casually dismiss or ignore) the mountain of evidence that Selverstone presents in his book. The problem is that you are so inadequately read on the war, so ideologically rigid, and so emotionally committed to the far-left version of the war, that you are in no position to fairly and credibly judge Selverstone's scholarship. 

You have done great work on the JFK case. Some of your JFKA research has been historic and outstanding. But, when it comes to the Vietnam War and JFK's Vietnam policy, you are out of your depth. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

Unreal.  So, Michael Griffith thinks that James DiEugenio is "out of his depth" on JFK's Vietnam policy, eh?

That's like arguing that Eric Foner is out of his depth on Reconstruction.

Meanwhile, why hasn't this Vietnam thread been removed from the JFK Assassination board, like the bona fide JFK assassination thread about Fletcher Prouty?

[Gerry Down]

Trying to understand JFKs Vietnam policy in order to see if it is what led to his assassination. That's John Newman and Jim Ds main contention - the whole assassination leads back to his Vietnam policy.

[James DiEugenio]

The very idea that Mike says Selverstone is a JFK admirer shows how biased he is.

Selverstone has an agenda from his opening chapter.  He tries to say that JFK was a Cold Warrior, which is  false.  And this is one of the points I go after him on.  Selverstone completely distorts books he has read in order to make that phony judgment. 

Books like Robert Rakove's Kennedy, Johnson and the Non Aligned World. The whole point of that book is to show how Kennedy battled Foster Dulles  and Ike in the fifties to try and come up with an alternative foreign policy.  Kennedy himself said this to Harris Wofford, namely that if Symington or LBJ won the nomination, we might as well be working for Acheson and Dulles.  We had to break out of the Cold War paradigm.

And JFK did just that in Congo, the Middle East, Indonesia and Indochina.  Ike told JFK the day before the inauguration, that he had to go all the way In Laos. JFK did not do that.  He went for a neutral solution.

But Selverstone is even worse than that.  He calls Kennedy's civil rights program, "halting".  Which is loony.  Kennedy did more for civil rights in three years than FDR, Truman and Ike did in three decades. And I proved that.

Selverstone's book is not an attempt to tell the truth about Kennedy and Vietnam.  Its part of the Culture Wars, just like Burns and Novick's pitiful series was. 

Stay tuned.

Edited April 7, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Gerry Down]

On 4/6/2023 at 4:47 PM, Michael Griffith said:

As of today, surely the definitive book on the subject is Dr. Marc Selverstone's recent and widely acclaimed work The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam (Harvard University Press, 2022). Here is an insightful one-hour interview with Dr. Selverstone that was done after his book was published--it will give you a good idea of the book's contents and of Selverstone's approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZKe68bwTk

And let's be clear: Selverstone is a Kennedy admirer. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. 

One big issue in discussing JFK and Vietnam is semantics. I've covered this at length in another thread, so I'll only summarize the issue here. When JFK talked about "combat troops" or "ground troops," he was referring to soldiers who were members of what are termed "regular infantry units" in military terminology. JFK did not want to send regular infantry troops to South Vietnam, but he had no problem sending other types of combat soldiers to Vietnam. Several thousands of the 17,000 "military advisers" whom he sent to South Vietnam were combat troops, and some of those troops took part in battles against Communist forces. Over 1,000 of those personnel were elite combat troops who served in Special Forces/Green Beret/Force Recon units. 

Some JFKA researchers make much of the fact that earlier in the war, when the situation was deemed dire, JFK refused to approve sending combat troops, i.e., infantry troops, to South Vietnam. This is true. However, these researchers tend to ignore the fact that, at the same time, JFK agreed to substantially increase the number of non-infantry combat troops in South Vietnam. Again, he drew the line at sending regular infantry units to South Vietnam, but he was quite willing to send other types of combat troops, and he did so several times during his time in office. 

Another big issue, and big problem, is distinguishing between a conditional withdrawal and an unconditional abandonment/total disengagement. There is a huge difference between the two. Far too often, some JFKA conspiracy theorists use these terms interchangeably. They point to evidence that JFK wanted to withdraw from South Vietnam and then act like this proves he intended to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. Yes, JFK did indeed want to withdraw American troops from South Vietnam as soon as possible, but only if he could do so without handing over the country to the Communists. And, crucially, his withdrawal plan called for continuing military and economic aid to South Vietnam. It even called for leaving behind a 1,500-man contingent of support troops for supply purposes. James K. Galbraith, an ardent Kennedy-would-have-withdrawn-no-matter-what scholar, acknowledges this fact:

          Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. ("JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation," The Nation, 11/22/2013, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/).    

Even if one wants to ignore the weight of the evidence and argue that JFK's withdrawal plan was unconditional, i.e., that he would have carried out the withdrawal regardless of the conditions on the ground, the fact remains that his plan also called for a continuation of military and economic aid to South Vietnam and for keeping 1,500 support troops in country. That is a far cry from his alleged willingness to abandon South Vietnam after the election. 

Thanks for that Selverstone YouTube interview link. Must have a look.

What are your top 5 book choices? 

I guess you've studied this area for a long time and so have probably formed a set opinion which means your book recommendations are likely to match that opinion. I haven't formed an opinion yet which is why my top 5 books are a bit diverse.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, here is another humdinger from Selverstone.

He uses another author to label Newman, a radical!

That is about the last word I would use to call John.  He is neither a radical writer or politically.  If anything he is a conservative in that aspect.

My reply to this, which I cut out of my review is, to borrow from Mike Parenti, sometimes reality is radical.

John's was the first book to cut through all the BS and folklore that traditional historians and LBJ and Rostow had used to camouflage a simple fact: that there was no continuity between Kennedy and Johnson. 

Selverstone actually tries to say that there actually was!  He just walks by the meaning of that tape, or does not mention the letter that LBJ sent to Big Minh for New Year's 1964. Something Kennedy would never have done.

Edited April 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

While not specifically about JFK and Vietnam I think JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass is worthy of this conversation if not the list.  

It does have a Chapter titled JFK and Vietnam, where I first read of NSAM 263 and much more.  I still don't think I've ever read anywhere else more detail about Mike Mansfield's role over the years.

It has another chapter titled Saigon and Chicago.  Where I first read of the Diem Coup, Lodge, the CIA.  Also, that the first Vietnam War protest occurred in August 1963 and was covered by ABC.  JFK had to have been aware of it.  It was in NYC, two Catholics like him in front of the South Vietnam observer of the UN's residence.  For nine days, then joined on the tenth day by 250 more Catholics.

Having previously read this prompted me to later buy John Newman's JFK and Vietnam.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

Yes Ron, you could say that about the Douglass book, and its good in that regard.

When you see my review of Selverstone's pastiche, I used Jim for a couple of footnotes.

One of the best things in JIm's  book is his examination of the beginnings of the riot at Hue in August of 1963..

I thought that was  excellently done.  He clearly suggests that the explosive used in the first explosion was likely from the CIA.

If he is right about that, its an example of life imitating art. Its out of Graham Greene.  And it translates as the CIA wanting to get rid of Diem.   I mean remember the famous Richard Starnes column?

But in my listing above, I limited myself to only the books that were exclusively about Kennedy and Vietnam.  That is a genre that did not exist prior to Oliver Stone's film and the first edition of Newman's book. And that, in and of itself, tells you a lot about how bad the historians were on the subject.  It was inexcusable.  And that is one reason they did not like Stone's film.  Same with the journalists and newspapers.  Except for bits and pieces that were never collated, they also ignored the sea change that took place once Johnson  arrived back in Washington.  

According to Peter Scott, who is another valuable source on this, there was no big meeting set for VIetnam at that time.  It was only supposed to be JFK and Lodge with the latter getting fired. Johnson made it a big meeting, kept Lodge, and everyone understood from his martial tone that things were going to change in Indochina.  I have stuff in my review about this point.  Scott notes that the very lexicon which LBJ used was unheard of from Kennedy.

 

P.S.  Mike Swanson, who wrote a good book on Laos and Vietnam, Why the Vietnam War?  did not want to review Selverstone's book because it was so bad. Instead he will do a supplement to my review about where Selverstone came from.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio