Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conventional wisdom: demonstrations ended the war in Vietnam, also the draft.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-07-13 08:29 AM
Original message
Conventional wisdom: demonstrations ended the war in Vietnam, also the draft.
Background


The French got involved in Indochina in the 1850s, some say the 1840s. It took the French until 1893 to achieve "pacification." (Lovely word for full subjugation of a colonized peoples until they mostly stop fighting back, no?)

The Japanese invaded Indochina. The Vichy French government began collaborating with the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII.

The Allies supposedly decided the fate of Indochina during the Potsdam Conference of July and early August 1945. (No one had enough other things on their minds during the summer of 1945, I suppose).

Allied Chiefs of Staff at the Potsdam Conference decided to temporarily partition Vietnam at the 17th parallel (Da Nang) for the purposes of operational convenience.

It was agreed that British forces would take the surrender of Japanese forces in Saigon for the southern half of Indochina, whilst Japanese troops in the northern half would surrender to the Chinese.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Conference


Nuclear bombing of Japan began a few days after the end of the Potsdam Conference, whereupon Japan withdrew.

The British moved in to work with the French to keep the Vietnamese under French control.


After the Potsdam Conference

My guess is that the US probably started spending on Vietnam sometime during 1945 or 1946, if not sooner, although I think the official version might put is somewhat later. In any event, under Truman, the US funded hundreds of millions of dollars for the French to try to hang on to Vietnam.



British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French.<77> Soon thereafter, the Viet Minh began a guerrilla war against the French Union forces, beginning the First Indochina War.

The war spread to Laos and Cambodia, where Communists organized the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Serei, both of which were modeled on the Viet Minh.<78> Globally, the Cold War began in earnest, which meant that the rapprochement that existed between the Western powers and the Soviet Union during World War II disintegrated. The Viet Minh fight was hampered by a lack of weapons; this situation changed by 1949 when the Chinese Communists had largely won the Chinese Civil War and were free to provide arms to their Vietnamese allies.<78>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

In 1950 (if not sooner), the US started sending "military advisors" to Vietnam (and also began the Korean "Police Action" in June of 1950, ending that in 1953, without war ever having been declared).

Escalation continued through the Kennedy Administration, albeit nowhere near the extent the Vietnam "Era" would see under Johnson and Nixon. According to an interview of his brother and closest advisor, Bobby Kennedy, JFK had no intention to disengage from Vietnam.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm


The Johnson and Nixon Years

Johnson became President, of course, following assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963.

Anti-war demonstration began to make the mass media in the Spring of 1964, so my guess is that the very first ones began before that. However, Spring of 1964 would probably have coincided with the end of the Presidential primaries.

Johnson soundly defeated Barry Goldwater in November of that year. Ironically, the insinuation that Goldwater would put the US into nuclear war. The Vietnam " Era" continued to escalate.

In February, 1968, with the Presidential primaries either underway or just concluded, Walter Cronkite gave his report on Vietnam, after having traveled there. Supposedly, Lyndon Johnson then said, "If I have lost Cronkite, I've lost the nation. However, that particular quote may be apochryphal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite

In March 1968 after having won the Democratic primary, Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not run for President.

Richard M. Nixon ran for President, claiming to have a plan to end the Vietnam Era honorably, and defeated Hubert H. Humphrey, Johnson's Vice President.

The war continued.

The Kent State shootings occurred May 4, 1970.

In 1972, Richard M. Nixon defeated the peace candidate, George McGovern. The only state McGovern carried was Massachusetts, giving that state, now my home, the reputation of being the bluest state in the nation. McGovern did not even carry his home state. (As an aside, at this time, conservative Democrats made a bid to take over the Party, but did not manage to do so until after Mondale lost to Reagan.) In fairness, I do not believe that the war was the reason for Nixon's victory.

Nixon's secret war activities in the area once known as French Indochina, specifically, his secret bombings of Cambodia, led to passage of the first war powers resolution in US history, intended to curb Presidents (stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The Case Church amendment ended funding for the Vietnam War.

The Amendment was defeated 48-42 in the U.S. Senate in August 1972, but revived after the 1972 election. <snip>

When it became apparent that the Amendment would pass, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, <2> lobbied frantically to have the deadline extended.<3> It passed the United States Congress in June by a margin of 278-124 in the House, and 64-26 in the Senate.<4> Both of these margins were greater than the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto.<4> Although U.S. ground forces had been withdrawn earlier under a policy called Vietnamization, bombing continued until August 15, 1973, the deadline set by the Amendment.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case%E2%80%93Church_Amendm...
.
The Vietnam Era (a war never having been declared, as with Korea) officially ended with capture of Saigon in 1975.


The war ended five years after Kent State, over 25 years after US involvement in "French Indochina" began and about a century and a quarter after French involvement in Indochina began.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Other sources consulted, but not posted above

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._inv...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft-card_burning


So, what do we think?

Did demonstrations that began around 1964 end US involvement in Vietnam in 1973 to 1975, or did it only seem that way to the people who were demonstrating, those who wanted the war to end and those desperately wishing to believe that Washington, D.C. gives a crap what the general populace thinks when it comes to big money and power things like war? (Bear in mind, the pols are always polling, so they always know what the pollsters think we think.)

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-07-13 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Despite the title of the OP, I never mentioned ending the draft.
I guess the post got away from me. And I spent too long on it. My apologies.

Maybe I will hit the draft on this thread or another on a different day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-07-13 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Public sentiments on the war did
eventually catch up with those of the anti-war people. I was a high school student during the 1960s. If I could recognize the domino theory as so much bullshit I guess the rest of the population could too.

I passed my physical. I remember the weird day when I traveled by bus to the place where they did the physicals. It was not unlike Alice's Restaurant. Although I didn't see a group W bench. My number turned out to be a low one - 97. They did not take quite that high, but it was too close for comfort. So I managed to avoid the great patriotic war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-07-13 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wow, From what you've posted, I assumed that maybe your leg injury
Edited on Mon Oct-07-13 10:42 PM by No Elephants
had made you 4F.

I don't understand what you mean about Alice's Restaurant, but that must have been so scary.

During the course of the research that I did for the OP, I read that Mohammed Ali had originally failed the test on the basic educational skills requirements, but qualified after they lowered the requirements.

My question was not intended to go so much to what public opinion was, but to whether anything that the public really stopped the war (or the draft). I know that is conventional wisdom. And I believe that government would love to have us believe that because it gives us a sense of having some control and they love us to think we are in control. I think that may be a reason we hear so much about being a democracy, when we never have been and never will be.

I am just not sure whether or not the conventional wisdom is so or not. I have not made up my mind, though.

I have not gotten to the draft yet, but that bit at least I am fairly certain the general public had nothing to do with, except that perhaps the draft card burnings may have given the plutocrats ideas. I believe the idea behind eliminating the draft was detaching the emotions of the general public from whatever wars the US might want to start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g (George HW Bush: New world order)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o (same topic)

(Both the above videos are brief.)


Well, eliminating the draft and radically changing how mass media covers wars.

Not to mention that allowing the consolidation of media despite antitrust concerns was a stroke of genius.


I think they succeeded pretty well.

Media helps them beat the drums for going into war, instead of questioning why we are going. (If questions are raised, it seems as though it's to allow govt to answer them and, hopefully, put the issue to rest. Few piercing follow up questions, etc., yet looking as though you are doing some serious, penetrating journalism. Tim Russert was the master of that.)

Once we're involved, we hear precious little from the media about casualties, battles, etc. Nothing on a daily basis, that's for sure. George Steph is the only broadcaster I know of who even gives us a weekly casualty count.

Not at all the way it was done during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, when war news was in every radio and TV news program every single day.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0yhHHPc7IU (George Carlin--the "club" is coming for your Social Security. They want it bad--and other pearls of wisdom)

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/... (2009 pre-inauguration interview: Barack Obama pledges entitlement reform.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-08-13 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Delayed thought:
Public opinion is not that hard to sway, if you control mass media. The media blitz on the war in Iraq and the need for the bailout are examples of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-08-13 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Even during the Vietnam War
the media was pro-war. It was more subtle then and there actually were some liberal people with a little influence on content. But protestors against the war were always shown in a negative light. Now anti-war demonstrations are not shown at all. This illustrates how far to the right the media has moved today. The media is now in lock step. MSNBC has enough liberal content to make the viewer believe they are getting the real unbiased thing. But they are not. This country is in real trouble and it sure ain't because Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim socialist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC