(Even more) problems for Kerry...

my Dude... at 52 when wood turns to steel... I feel pretty damned bold

 

Cronkite wasn't sitting next to Johnson in the briefing room, so he had no idea what the Administration's position on the chance of victory in Vietnam from their perspective.

This broadcast was on the afternoon of the Tet Offensive. It was HIS assessment, not the Administration's assessment. And I would submit to you that Cronkite's statement had as much to do with their position as anything. They're politicians, seeing how the wind is blowing is what they do.

Cronkite says the war is unwinnable. That seriously undermines public support. Without public support, it all swirls down the toilet from there. Had Cronkite actually made the correct call on that broadcast (the Vietnamese threw everything they had at us and it was a resounding failure), you don't get the same outcome. After all, Cronkite wasn't some local news flunkie, he was probably the most respected and watched newsman in the United States at the time. He most definitely had the power to shape public opinion.

According to Mr. Giap, when that came out of his mouth, they went from "we're fooked, we'd best talk about surrender or peace" to "Hey, we can win this thing." Yes, they knew they'd suffer huge losses to do it, but victory was possible. Huge losses with a possibility of victory is one thing. Huge losses and no hope of victory whatsoever is entirely another. They were willing to sustain those kinds of losses if victory was possible. They were not willing to do so if it wouldn't do any good. And yet again, Roger, this time with emphasis, it's not my assessment of the facts, it's Mr. Giap's assessment of the facts. Now, 30 years after the fact, the "enemy" told us what he thought at the time.

Look at WWII in Europe. The Allies had been advancing steadily after Normandy. Then there was that little unpleasantness called The Battle of the Bulge, where we were beaten back, suffered huge losses, and had a whole slew of troops captured. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it was nothing but a momentary setback because Hitler gambled on capturing Allied supplies and such and he failed to do so. Militarily, it was a failure. We regrouped, pushed them back, and continued our march into Germany and victory. That parallels Tet pretty well.

As for 1 million US dead, that would have never happened. We lost 400,000 in WWII. 2.5X the number of casualties in Vietnam was an impossibility.

As for the History Channel and TV wisecrack, I was home for about six months with a broken foot. Digital cable and PS2 was my friend.

 

First, I presume that a box of Kleenex and a bottle of hand lotion were your real best friends for those unfortunmate six months.

Second, there's nothing like a couple of percocet to make the History Channel even more interesting than it really is.

Third, I don't get your point about Tet v. Bulge, but its early and I'm not caffinated yet.

Fourth, I don't blame the messenger of truth for the loss of that war. Johnson and his advisors had already determined that the war was unwinnable. The American people were rallying against it.

The Vietnam War was the stupidest thing taht we did since slavery, and you are blaming Cronkite for losing it? PUUUHLEEEEZE!!!

Let's get someone who has time to actually read Giap or whoever made this claim before we go any further.

If anyone can tell me the name of the book and the actual author, I will buy it.

This is a very interesting thread, more so that most of the BS we spew. But I'm still going to step on MTK's hurt foot the next time I see him! (OK, the first time I see him. )

 

For the umpteenth time, It isn't MY IDEA. It came FROM THE VIETNAMESE. Right out of Giap's mouth, to my ears, via the wonderful folks at the History Channel. I even watched him say it, so I'm positive they didn't overdub the words while he was talking about his case of bunions he developed in the war.

The war had been over for over 30 years or more when he said it. The man has no reason to lie that I can see, and that's what he said.

If you don't like it, take it up with him. Tell him he's full of shit or you don't believe it. I have no reason to doubt what he said. You apparently do. I don't know how I can make that any more clear.

 

I think we need to spray both of you guys with a hose.

 

Far too Freudian.

 

Yeah? So what?

 

My question: who would be the "hoser" and who would be the "hosee?"

 

A couple of books for the library:

Lewis Sorley, "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam", (Harvest Books, 2000), ISBN 0156013096.

Michael Lind, "Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict", (Free Press, 2002), ISBN: 0684870274.

-peekay

 

yeah but you were eating Perc's for pain at the time, right? (and I bet Dick Cheney was standing behnd him drinking a glass of water?)

 

Actually, this one was fairly recent, so there were no percs involved.

Not to mention that after a few months of them, they don't have nearly the same effect. I was eatin' Darvocets by the handful towards the end.

 

OK Rush, Whatever you say.