Did Johnson and Nixon have Nazi-esque, militaristic, pro-war rallies?

[Jara sang]

During the Viet Nam War like Bush is doing for the Iraq War? I don't really remember that they did. I guess the military industrial complex did learn something from Viet Nam: You need a well oiled propaganda machine to spew out lies and accuse citizens of being traitors if they don't back your murderous policies. Anything this misadministration says about "securing our freedoms" is a lie. Bush obviously does not represent me, he never speaks at a rally that I could even remotely attend. Whenever he speaks to a crowd of people it's always the military who have been ordered to clap and applause. Bush is not my President.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Yeah, those German guys knew how to do it! We WILL NOT TOLERATE a

Propaganda GAP!

[demnan]

2. Not Johnson, but Nixon did

Although compared to today he did relatively little of the grovelling flag waving that * has done.

[Sanity Claws]

4. I don't remember any rallies by Nixon in front of the troops

The troops were drafted and into fragging. Did he really rely on them to be friendly?

[TahitiNut]

11. Nixon was elected on a "peace with honor" (withdraw troops) posture.

I know. I was in Viet Nam when he took office.

A common "travel poster" was a depiction of LBJ and "Lovely Southeast Asia" tourism spoof. A whole lot of troops ascribed their draft and assignment to Viet Nam largely to LBJ's policies. I was one. In those days, liberals could vote for Nixon -- the alignment of liberal v. conservative wasn't as clearly draw between parties until after Nixon's "Southern Strategy" - where the conservative wing of the Democratic Party was largely drawn over to the Republicans. That was also a time, of course, where lots of "conservatives" didn't believe in "foreign wars."

[Sanity Claws]

13. He took office in January 1969

I was thinking about by 1973, the first year of his second term, where Bush is now.

[H2O Man]

3. There came a time

when LBJ began to appear mainly in front of military audiences. But as someone recently noted (I think it was Seymour Hersch), LBJ was aware that he was trapped. Bush is not conscious of this in the way LBJ was.

Another significant difference is that while George is sure he is doing God's work, LBJ felt like he was in hell.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I don't remember anything like what Bush has been doing.

Johnson always seemed conflicted, and by the time Nixon took office the war had become so controversial that he generally avoided the most blatant pro-war public events. I do think, though, that Bush has been recycling some of Nixon's speeches with all that stay the course crap.

[tx_dem41]

6. Two things...LBJ started the official Vietnam war based on a lie...

spewed by a propaganda machine, and Nixon and his "silent majority" based their whole anti-antiwar effort on branding protestors as traitors. So, this is nothing new short of snappier visuals.

[TomInTib]

8. Remember the "Hardhat" vs the "Hippies" thing?

The wardogs managed to mobilize the blue collar types into a pretty vicious pro-war bunch.
They would try to break up anti-war rallies, start fights and other pathetic crap.
But I don't remember any specific pro war organized demonstrations like we see now.
Of course, we didn't have Clear Channel then, either.

[tx_dem41]

10. Yes, I do remember that...now that you reminded me. n/t

[TahitiNut]

12. That's a distortion of historical facts.

The U.S. was involved in Viet Name ever since Dien Bein Phu in the 50s.
The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was reported in August 1964, about three years after the U.S. military was actively involved in fighting in Viet Nam. The most reliable information does NOT indicate any intention to fabricate the "incident" and instead points to a screw-up with intelligence and reporting. That the "incident" was used opportunistically is, of course, obvious. Politics is nothing if not opportunistic, At best, it can be said that the Gulf of Tonkin was used to escalate U.S. involvement. It was NOT the sole rationalization. We had mutual defense treaty agreements with South Viet Nam and SEATO. The Viet Nam war, no matter how much of a clusterfuck it was for many reasons, was far more legitimate than either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Here's a nearly decent summary ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

[kenny blankenship]

7. This won't entirely answer your question

but rent the DVD of the 1974 documentary Hearts and Minds
It won't entirely give you the flavor of the early 70s Nixon period--but it is an invaluable document all the same. Much of the documentary follows or interviews 2 ex pilots. One flew 198 missions and is opposed to the war. He describes his journey from highly technical aerial killer to war opponent. The other guy--this is part of the story which gets to your question-- was shot down and spent some years in the Hanoi Hilton. This particular flyer is shown taking part in parades as a guest of local officials and giving talks to schoolchildren, and he is 100% propagandizing for the war and quite explicitly trying to prepare little children and their mothers for the next one. It almost seems as though he is preparing them for a continuation of the same war.
Now what's germane to your question is this, it's never drawn out in detail for you but clearly this second flyer, a Navy Lieutenant, is giving these addresses at the behest of and with the help of various levels of government. This is like a new carreer for him. It's all been coordinated for him. The other flyer--who is one of many military men who speak out against the VN war experience one way or another in the film--is clearly all on his own, without the arms of the state wrapped around him, giving him a financial fallback after the end of the war. Did the executive branch propagandize the people for the war? Oh hell yes. But it was different--it was an all-over kind of thing. It was more organic. Military offices coordinating patriotic displays with local government at the urging of executive branch. Now the War-Chimp goes more through the electronic media to infect the mind of the masses. They don't have to have an all-pervasive culture of war effort / final victory involving different organs and levels of community like the administration(s) of the VN era sought to create. For one thing those different levels of community have been flattened out by the evolution of tele-culture. So, Bushler stands up and howls for blood at one photo op rally or another with a captive audience or an invitation-only audience and this gets repeated endlessly on television.

[maxrandb]

9. No! But Hitler did!!! n/t

[bigmonkey]

14. I don't remember any.

But I do remember that he had new uniforms made for the White House guards that made them look like palace guards for some sort of despot. Golden epaulets and everything. People hated it, too imperial.