Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by paulon87 (U2081296) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  How far was USA military involvement in Vietnam during the presidency of Johnson the consequence of the policies pursued by his predecessors?
  
  What side of the argument do you guys agree with; on one hand LBJ may have just fell victim to the quagmire effect and it was too late for LBJ to withdraw military intervetion in Vietnam.
  
  Then again on the other hand it may have just been of Johnsons own doing. His southern hunting background and with a point to prove.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Thursday, 22nd September 2005

  I've just finsished reading a biography of LBJ by Robert Dallek which is a shortened version of Dallek's definitve 2 volume biography of Johnson. He certainly thinks that the quagmire of Vietnam was Johnson's doing and that he could have ended American involvement much earlier.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by paulon87 (U2081296) on Saturday, 24th September 2005

  Thanks a lot. I'm currently studying for the question in my first post as it's my personal project for my A Level.
  
  Is this the book you were speaking of?
  

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Saturday, 24th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='paulon87' USERID='2081296'>How far was USA military involvement in Vietnam during the presidency of Johnson the consequence of the policies pursued by his predecessors?<BR /><BR />What side of the argument do you guys agree with; on one hand LBJ may have just fell victim to the quagmire effect and it was too late for LBJ to withdraw military intervetion in Vietnam.<BR /><BR />Then again on the other hand it may have just been of Johnsons own doing. His southern hunting background and with a point to prove.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Dear Paulon,<BR /><BR />I strongly opposed the war in Vietnam at that time. Bt the truth is that the climate of opinion got LBJ to pursue that war strenously. It was a time when the US considered China as the main enemy and they thought that the whole of Asia would go communist under China. They thought that Vietnam was just a satellite of China.<BR /><BR />We can now clearly see that this was wrong thinking. The then Press and even some of the best people in Johnson's administration bought all that crap; people like his Chief of Staff McGeorge Bundy and his brother at State who was responsible for policy in South East Asia, William Bundy to name a few. Then there was his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and his Military advisor General Maxwell Clark. They always saw Vietnam through Rose colored glasses. In the press there were two Herald Tribune columnist, The Alsop brothers, very powerful both, who were egging the administration towards war ever since the Eisenhower admnistaration.<BR /><BR />In the face of this kind of climate poor Johnson tried to pursue the war with all means at his disposal. Johnson was wise enough to start moving away from the war towards the end of his tenure. If he had remained President the war may have ended a few years sooner and with less loss of prestige for America.<BR /><BR />I was involved in the student protests at that time but in hindsight I think Johnson was a good President and was victim of the circumstances of other peoples' creation.<BR /><BR />Tas

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Saturday, 24th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='paulon87' USERID='2081296'>Thanks a lot. I'm currently studying for the question in my first post as it's my personal project for my A Level.<BR /><BR />Is this the book you were speaking of?<BR /><LINK href="none">http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141019654/qid=1127565738/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6168192-6755037</LINK></QUOTE><BR /><BR />Yes it is.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 25th September 2005

  Dear Tas,before Johnson came at the White House J.F. Kennedy had confirmed already the despatch in Nam the first 7,ooo American soldiers for the purpose of'protection American military bases therein'.It was a despairing compromise...of course
  if we would be recognized the fact that the only one leader in S. Nam who was able to gain a control over American military help for S. Nam was 'cleared off' from the Nam's political stage by the CIA in Autumn 1963...And it was done
  by the Kennedy's order .....Here is my sourses of info:Henry Craft,The Tuesday Cabinet : Deliberation and Decision in Peace and War under Lyndon B.Johnson(N.Y. 1970) and Doris Kearns,Lyndon Johnson and The American Dream(N.Y.,1976). Yevgen. P.s.Was Nam(and N. Korea) sattellites of China and Russia or not,to the big account, it was the outcome of Yalta.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Sunday, 25th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='OUNUPA' USERID='2078829'>Dear Tas,before Johnson came at the White House J.F. Kennedy had confirmed already the despatch in Nam the first 7,ooo American soldiers for the purpose of'protection American military bases therein'.It was a despairing compromise...of course <BR />if we would be recognized the fact that the only one leader in S. Nam who was able to gain a control over American military help for S. Nam was 'cleared off' from the Nam's political stage by the CIA in Autumn 1963...And it was done <BR />by the Kennedy's order .....Here is my sourses of info:Henry Craft,The Tuesday Cabinet :<BR /><BR /> Deliberation and Decision in Peace and War under Lyndon B.Johnson(N.Y. 1970) and Doris Kearns,Lyndon Johnson and The American Dream(N.Y.,1976). Yevgen. P.s.Was Nam(and N. Korea) sattellites of China and Russia or not,to the big account, it was the outcome of Yalta.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Dear Onupa,<BR /><BR />As I said, the thinking then, whether Democrat or Republican was that China was the fount of all evil and must be stopped in every way. Since we had successfully contained Stalin's Russia after WW2 we thought that was the best policy vis a vis China. We never understood the differences between Russia and China and between China and Vietnam. Sometimes our very policies would cause the effect that we were trying to prevent.<BR /><BR />The whole business of our policy to contain China started a long time before Johnson, in the period of Eisenhower and perhaps even earlier in the period of Truman. We were adamant and regarded China as our absolute adversary. I guess it was because China had beaten our protege Chiank Kai Shek and we could not forgive that once removed defeat of our policies. We never considered that Chiang was totally corrupt and absolutely dictatorial. That China needed its revival, its own cultural revolution. China paid a heavy price due to the policies of Mao but it has at last joined the progressive side of the league of nations.<BR /><BR />We were locked in our policy of absolute hatred of China until Nixon extracted us from those moribund policies.<BR /><BR />In such an environment all our leaders were caught in a kind of mire; Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Truman. This shows the importance of not hanging on to an 'idee fixe', but to have fluid, progressive policies to suit circumstances.<BR /><BR />You talk about Yalta. It is common to see people blame the West for Yalta. Consider the circumstances: At that time all the major fighting against the Nazi war-machine was being done by the Russians. The Russians were beating back several hundred SS and other German divisions. We had been very late with starting the second front. And if you looked at the war as a whole, we were fighting a very small part of it. How could we get all we wanted at Yalta. People conveniently forget all that and the fact that the cold war had not yet started. It started with a speech that Churchill gave at a University in America when he first talked about the Iron Curtain.<BR /><BR />Tas

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 25th September 2005

  Churchill gave 'his speech' more earlier than the 5th of March,1946...He did it in 1917.Soviet version of 'socialism&communism' is nothing more than the CORRUPTION on the state level.It is the key word to get the right meaning of each one of these words,friend.Now the post-soviet countries of the former USSR are dealing with this thing....without those visible results.And I guess you know why,Tas....It is a lie that US lost their war in Nam....she just was not to be prepared to win it for the account of her citizens and their lives. That's all.My real name is Yevgen and thanks for your wise 'Churchill's' thoughts.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Sunday, 25th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='Tas' USERID='1753225'><QUOTE' USER='OUNUPA' USERID='2078829'>Dear Tas,before Johnson came at the White House J.F. Kennedy had confirmed already the despatch in Nam the first 7,ooo American soldiers for the purpose of'protection American military bases therein'.It was a despairing compromise...of course <BR />if we would be recognized the fact that the only one leader in S. Nam who was able to gain a control over American military help for S. Nam was 'cleared off' from the Nam's political stage by the CIA in Autumn 1963...And it was done <BR />by the Kennedy's order .....Here is my sourses of info:Henry Craft,The Tuesday Cabinet :<BR /><BR /> Deliberation and Decision in Peace and War under Lyndon B.Johnson(N.Y. 1970) and Doris Kearns,Lyndon Johnson and The American Dream(N.Y.,1976). Yevgen. P.s.Was Nam(and N. Korea) sattellites of China and Russia or not,to the big account, it was the outcome of Yalta.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Dear Onupa,<BR /><BR />As I said, the thinking then, whether Democrat or Republican was that China was the fount of all evil and must be stopped in every way. Since we had successfully contained Stalin's Russia after WW2 we thought that was the best policy vis a vis China. We never understood the differences between Russia and China and between China and Vietnam. Sometimes our very policies would cause the effect that we were trying to prevent.<BR /><BR />The whole business of our policy to contain China started a long time before Johnson, in the period of Eisenhower and perhaps even earlier in the period of Truman. We were adamant and regarded China as our absolute adversary. I guess it was because China had beaten our protege Chiank Kai Shek and we could not forgive that once removed defeat of our policies. We never considered that Chiang was totally corrupt and absolutely dictatorial. That China needed its revival, its own cultural revolution. China paid a heavy price due to the policies of Mao but it has at last joined the progressive side of the league of nations.<BR /><BR />We were locked in our policy of absolute hatred of China until Nixon extracted us from those moribund policies.<BR /><BR />In such an environment all our leaders were caught in a kind of mire; Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Truman. This shows the importance of not hanging on to an 'idee fixe', but to have fluid, progressive policies to suit circumstances.<BR /><BR />You talk about Yalta. It is common to see people blame the West for Yalta. Consider the circumstances: At that time all the major fighting against the Nazi war-machine was being done by the Russians. The Russians were beating back several hundred SS and other German divisions. We had been very late with starting the second front. And if you looked at the war as a whole, we were fighting a very small part of it. How could we get all we wanted at Yalta. People conveniently forget all that and the fact that the cold war had not yet started. It started with a speech that Churchill gave at a University in America when he first talked about the Iron Curtain.<BR /><BR />Tas</QUOTE><BR /><BR />In what way is China "progressive"? It now has a growing economy but only at the price of no workers' rights, no environmental protection. Not to mention that the Communist Party has maintained its dictatorial hold on power - no elections, censorship, imprisonment of dissidents. Mao was much worse than Chiang. Try reading "Mao - the untold story".

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Sunday, 25th September 2005

  Hi Allanro,
  
  You are making the same mistake that is very common in the West: It is our way or no way. You do not seem to understand how complex it is for a society to throw off a moribund culture full of deadend streets as China's culture was and India's still is. You have not seen the photos in Edgar Snows book of people being shot by the Kuomintang under Chiang kai shek on the Streets of Nanking and Shanghai.
  
  The difference between Chiang and Mao was that under Chiang there was massive corruption, Warlords all over China and China was going nowhere. True Mao caused a lot of suffering to the Chinese people but now China is slowly joining the World of Developed nations. It still has a long way to go but you can already hope to see light at the end of the tunnel.
  
  China is a true economic success story, the first among the third World. It's holdings of U.S. Dollars today is so vast that it is the true creditor of the U.S. and our high standard of living is in some part due to China financing our massive national debt.
  
  Tas

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by allanro (U1966688) on Monday, 26th September 2005

  As I said I agree that China's economic growth is impressive although so is India's. But you should not shrug off the vicious nature of the Chinese regime by saying that's just their way. We wouldn't want to live under such a regime so why should they?
  
  I don't hold any brief for Chiang but Mao was worse and he certainly did nothing for China's economic growth. China now could have economic growth under a more democratic regime but the CP wants to keep control and will do anything to ensure that.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 26th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='paulon87' USERID='2081296'>How far was USA military involvement in Vietnam during the presidency of Johnson the consequence of the policies pursued by his predecessors?<BR /><BR />What side of the argument do you guys agree with; on one hand LBJ may have just fell victim to the quagmire effect and it was too late for LBJ to withdraw military intervetion in Vietnam.<BR /><BR />Then again on the other hand it may have just been of Johnsons own doing. His southern hunting background and with a point to prove.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Recommended reading;" Vietnam--A History" by Stanley Karnow. Viking Press.<BR /><BR />Under LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Incident was fabricated--that US naval vessels were attacked by N. Vietnamese gunboats. No basis in fact. <BR /><BR />Johnson made the statement,"I'll be damned if I'll be the first American president to lose a war."

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by paulon87 (U2081296) on Monday, 26th September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='jberie' USERID='1767537'>Recommended reading;" Vietnam--A History" by Stanley Karnow. Viking Press.<BR /><BR />Under LBJ the Tonkin Gulf Incident was fabricated--that US naval vessels were attacked by N. Vietnamese gunboats. No basis in fact. <BR /><BR />Johnson made the statement,"I'll be damned if I'll be the first American president to lose a war." </QUOTE><BR /><BR />Thanks for that <SMILEY TYPE='smiley' H2G2='Smiley#smiley'/><BR /><BR />I've been doing a load of reading, just building up knowledge really, it all seems to be falling into place and I can base a good argument. <BR /><BR />That quote by Johnson was fuelled by the stalemate theory since no President wanted to be 'the one that lost the war' however on the other hand what traits in his personality and past actions by LBJ showed that he went into the war naively and aggressively?<BR /><BR />I could really do with some help on how LBJ was personally.

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by paulon87 (U2081296) on Saturday, 1st October 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='paulon87' USERID='2081296'><BR />Thanks for that <SMILEY TYPE='smiley' H2G2='Smiley#smiley'/><BR /><BR />I've been doing a load of reading, just building up knowledge really, it all seems to be falling into place and I can base a good argument. <BR /><BR />That quote by Johnson was fuelled by the stalemate theory since no President wanted to be 'the one that lost the war' however on the other hand what traits in his personality and past actions by LBJ showed that he went into the war naively and aggressively?<BR /><BR />I could really do with some help on how LBJ was personally.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Bump.<BR /><BR />Can anyone help please? Thanks in advance! <SMILEY TYPE='smiley' H2G2='Smiley#smiley'/>

  Link to this forum: President Johnson pushed into Vietnam or was he just too aggressive?

  Report message14

Back to top