Walter Cronkite's Ridiculous Spin on the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's just hogwash. Such incidents were not the norm. They happened, and they were not rare, but they were not the general rule either.

Furthermore, there was just as much corruption in the Hanoi government as there was in the Saigon government, if not much more. Compared to other Asian nations, South Vietnam's corruption ranked somewhere in the middle.

Of course, corruption was the norm, and you just dismissed yourself from this discussion.

Corruption in SV was enough to map a line to failure at the country level.

 

[Blaster]

Cronkite was trusted by millions of American viewers despite reporting lies and half truths. The media has never been honest.

 

[Hector12]

That's just hogwash. Such incidents were not the norm. They happened, and they were not rare, but they were not the general rule either.

Furthermore, there was just as much corruption in the Hanoi government as there was in the Saigon government, if not much more. Compared to other Asian nations, South Vietnam's corruption ranked somewhere in the middle.

The lesser of two evils was not worth our defense.

 

[Hector12]

Cronkite was trusted by millions of American viewers despite reporting lies and half truths. The media has never been honest.

Walter Cronkite did not lie about anything. His judgement was that the War in Vietnam was lost, and unworthy of the expense and danger it would take us to turn the situation around.

 

[Blaster]

Walter Cronkite did not lie about anything. His judgement was that the War in Vietnam was lost, and unworthy of the expense and danger it would take us to turn the situation around.

It wasn't his place to become a commentator but rather an unbiased news reporter. Many people were against the Vietnam involvement and didn't need his perspective.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No people need Blaster's perspective.

 

[Hector12]

It wasn't his place to become a commentator but rather an unbiased news reporter. Many people were against the Vietnam involvement and didn't need his perspective.

But we sure did benefit from it.

 

[Blaster]

But we sure did benefit from it.

I am too young to remember Cronkite but my dad always considered him a big bag of hot air and an arrogant SOB.

 

[Hector12]

I am too young to remember Cronkite but my dad always considered him a big bag of hot air and an arrogant SOB.

President Johnson thought differently. He said, "When I lost Cronkite I lost the electorate."

 

[Blaster]

President Johnson thought differently. He said, "When I lost Cronkite I lost the electorate."

Cronkite was the Democrats best asset.

 

[Hector12]

Cronkite was the Democrats best asset.

And a valued Democrat asset.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A few points in response to some recent replies:

-- Yes, there was considerable corruption in the Saigon government, but there was just as much corruption in the Hanoi government, if not more, and the Saigon government was far less oppressive than the Hanoi regime, by any honest, rational standard.

-- There was enormous corruption in the South Korean government during the Korean War (and for many years afterward), and South Korea’s government was even more oppressive than the Diem and Thieu governments in South Vietnam.

Luckily, however, Department of Defense and State Department officials, and nearly all members of Congress, were wise enough to recognize that South Korea’s government, for all its many sins, was far better than North Korea’s government. And, luckily, our news media did not harp on South Korea’s faults and did not ignore North Korea’s far more serious crimes.

The South Korean government under Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) was more oppressive and brutal than the Diem and Thieu governments in South Vietnam. For example, in just two incidents, one before the Korean War (the Jeju Island uprising) and the other soon after the war started (the Bodo League massacre), the Rhee government killed over 100,000 people, most of whom were unarmed civilians and many of whom had no actual connection with the Communists.

Yet, the Rhee government, as bad as it was, was not nearly as brutal as Kil Il-Sung’s Communist regime in North Korea.

The South Korean government remained an oppressive, autocratic state until 1987. Rhee resigned in 1960 and was eventually replaced by General Park Chung Hee, who came to power in a military coup 13 months after Rhee resigned. Park was a ruthless military dictator, but he allowed a lot more freedom than did the North Korean regime.

If the anti-war crowd had been in charge and had judged South Korea in the same draconian way they judged South Vietnam, they would have cut off all aid to South Korea, would have withdrawn American troops from South Korea, and would allowed North Korea to take over.

-- Even most anti-war radicals do not argue that we should not have intervened after North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, given the fact that South Korea became a thriving democracy, and that North Korea remained a brutal Stalinist state.

-- The Korean War caused a larger percentage of civilian deaths than either the Vietnam War or World War II, even though it only lasted three years. If the Vietnam War had caused the largest percentage of civilian deaths, the anti-war folks would be citing that fact as another reason we never should have intervened to save South Vietnam in the first place.

-- Regarding the Communist talking point that Ho Chi Minh was very popular and that Eisenhower said Ho would have gotten 80% of the vote in an election:

One, as I’ve documented, Ike was talking about the period during the war with the French when Bao Dai was the French-installed figurehead of the State of Vietnam and Ho ruled the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and about a hypothetical election between Ho and Bao Dai during that period.

Well, yeah, of course Ho would have soundly beaten Bao Dai during the war! Just about any nationalist figure would have beaten Bao Dai at the time. Similarly, if a free and fair election had been held in Germany in early 1941, Hitler would have won by a landslide.

But by 1956, after many more Vietnamese had recognized the Communists’ brutal and oppressive agenda, Ho Chi Minh would have had a hard time winning an election just in North Vietnam, much less in South Vietnam.

Furthermore, anyone who really believes that Ho would have allowed a free and fair election in North Vietnam in 1956 is drinking some serious Kool-Aid and is ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence. I again recommend Pierre Asselin’s book Hanoi’s Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965, and Christopher Goscha’s book The Road to Dien Bien Phu: A History of the First War for Vietnam. I would also recommend William Duiker’s book The Communist Road to Power in Vietnam and Guenter Lewy’s book America in Vietnam. All of them are available on Amazon, including in digital form (Kindle).

-- Anti-war folks from the ’60 and ‘70s now seem to forget, or hope that Gen Xers and Millennials don’t know about, many of the anti-war movement’s claims and actions. Some worthwhile reminders:

* Many, many anti-war demonstrations included the proud display of the Viet Cong flag. In many, many anti-war rallies, there were far more Viet Cong flags than American flags.

For those who don’t know, the Viet Cong were as vicious and cruel as ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Viet Cong murdered tens of thousands of civilians, including the targeted assassination of school teachers, nurses, doctors, and aid workers.

* Many, many anti-war demonstrations included signs and posters praising Ho Chi Minh.

* Prominent anti-war leaders claimed that reports of American POWs being tortured by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were either fabrications or gross exaggerations. Such anti-war leaders as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda claimed that North Vietnam’s treatment of POWs was exemplary and humane.

* Anti-war activists exploded in outrage when Nixon allowed American forces to finally attack North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia. Those sanctuaries had also been used for years as staging points for attacks on American and South Vietnamese forces.

The anti-war folks never once protested the fact that the North Vietnamese had taken over a long strip of territory in eastern Cambodia next to the border with South Vietnam and that the sanctuaries in that territory had been used to kill American soldiers, but they were outraged that Nixon took action against those sanctuaries.

By the long-accepted international rules of war, not to mention the natural right of self-defense, American forces had every right to attack those sanctuaries.

* Many, many anti-war activists claimed that the Saigon government was worse than the Hanoi government, and that Communist rule of South Vietnam would be an improvement for the South Vietnamese people.

* Many, many anti-war activists swallowed and repeated Hanoi’s lie that Hanoi had no interesting in conquering and absorbing South Vietnam and that South Vietnam would be allowed a substantial degree of self-government and autonomy once the Americans were gone.

Yet, when Hanoi quickly and completely broke this promise and raped and absorbed South Vietnam after Saigon fell, the anti-war movement did not hold a single demonstration to protest this action.

 

[Hector12]

A few points in response to some recent replies:

-- Yes, there was considerable corruption in the Saigon government, but there was just as much corruption in the Hanoi government, if not more, and the Saigon government was far less oppressive than the Hanoi regime, by any honest, rational standard.

-- There was enormous corruption in the South Korean government during the Korean War (and for many years afterward), and South Korea’s government was even more oppressive than the Diem and Thieu governments in South Vietnam.

Luckily, however, Department of Defense and State Department officials, and nearly all members of Congress, were wise enough to recognize that South Korea’s government, for all its many sins, was far better than North Korea’s government. And, luckily, our news media did not harp on South Korea’s faults and did not ignore North Korea’s far more serious crimes.

The South Korean government under Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) was more oppressive and brutal than the Diem and Thieu governments in South Vietnam. For example, in just two incidents, one before the Korean War (the Jeju Island uprising) and the other soon after the war started (the Bodo League massacre), the Rhee government killed over 100,000 people, most of whom were unarmed civilians and many of whom had no actual connection with the Communists.

Yet, the Rhee government, as bad as it was, was not nearly as brutal as Kil Il-Sung’s Communist regime in North Korea.

The South Korean government remained an oppressive, autocratic state until 1987. Rhee resigned in 1960 and was eventually replaced by General Park Chung Hee, who came to power in a military coup 13 months after Rhee resigned. Park was a ruthless military dictator, but he allowed a lot more freedom than did the North Korean regime.

If the anti-war crowd had been in charge and had judged South Korea in the same draconian way they judged South Vietnam, they would have cut off all aid to South Korea, would have withdrawn American troops from South Korea, and would allowed North Korea to take over.

-- Even most anti-war radicals do not argue that we should not have intervened after North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, given the fact that South Korea became a thriving democracy, and that North Korea remained a brutal Stalinist state.

-- The Korean War caused a larger percentage of civilian deaths than either the Vietnam War or World War II, even though it only lasted three years. If the Vietnam War had caused the largest percentage of civilian deaths, the anti-war folks would be citing that fact as another reason we never should have intervened to save South Vietnam in the first place.

-- Regarding the Communist talking point that Ho Chi Minh was very popular and that Eisenhower said Ho would have gotten 80% of the vote in an election:

One, as I’ve documented, Ike was talking about the period during the war with the French when Bao Dai was the French-installed figurehead of the State of Vietnam and Ho ruled the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and about a hypothetical election between Ho and Bao Dai during that period.

Well, yeah, of course Ho would have soundly beaten Bao Dai during the war! Just about any nationalist figure would have beaten Bao Dai at the time. Similarly, if a free and fair election had been held in Germany in early 1941, Hitler would have won by a landslide.

But by 1956, after many more Vietnamese had recognized the Communists’ brutal and oppressive agenda, Ho Chi Minh would have had a hard time winning an election just in North Vietnam, much less in South Vietnam.

Furthermore, anyone who really believes that Ho would have allowed a free and fair election in North Vietnam in 1956 is drinking some serious Kool-Aid and is ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence. I again recommend Pierre Asselin’s book Hanoi’s Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965, and Christopher Goscha’s book The Road to Dien Bien Phu: A History of the First War for Vietnam. I would also recommend William Duiker’s book The Communist Road to Power in Vietnam and Guenter Lewy’s book America in Vietnam. All of them are available on Amazon, including in digital form (Kindle).

-- Anti-war folks from the ’60 and ‘70s now seem to forget, or hope that Gen Xers and Millennials don’t know about, many of the anti-war movement’s claims and actions. Some worthwhile reminders:

* Many, many anti-war demonstrations included the proud display of the Viet Cong flag. In many, many anti-war rallies, there were far more Viet Cong flags than American flags.

For those who don’t know, the Viet Cong were as vicious and cruel as ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Viet Cong murdered tens of thousands of civilians, including the targeted assassination of school teachers, nurses, doctors, and aid workers.

* Many, many anti-war demonstrations included signs and posters praising Ho Chi Minh.

* Prominent anti-war leaders claimed that reports of American POWs being tortured by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were either fabrications or gross exaggerations. Such anti-war leaders as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda claimed that North Vietnam’s treatment of POWs was exemplary and humane.

* Anti-war activists exploded in outrage when Nixon allowed American forces to finally attack North Vietnamese sanctuaries in eastern Cambodia. Those sanctuaries had also been used for years as staging points for attacks on American and South Vietnamese forces.

The anti-war folks never once protested the fact that the North Vietnamese had taken over a long strip of territory in eastern Cambodia next to the border with South Vietnam and that the sanctuaries in that territory had been used to kill American soldiers, but they were outraged that Nixon took action against those sanctuaries.

By the long-accepted international rules of war, not to mention the natural right of self-defense, American forces had every right to attack those sanctuaries.

* Many, many anti-war activists claimed that the Saigon government was worse than the Hanoi government, and that Communist rule of South Vietnam would be an improvement for the South Vietnamese people.

* Many, many anti-war activists swallowed and repeated Hanoi’s lie that Hanoi had no interesting in conquering and absorbing South Vietnam and that South Vietnam would be allowed a substantial degree of self-government and autonomy once the Americans were gone.

Yet, when Hanoi quickly and completely broke this promise and raped and absorbed South Vietnam after Saigon fell, the anti-war movement did not hold a single demonstration to protest this action.

So what? It was their war. We should not have gotten involved.

 

[Soupnazi630]

So what? It was their war. We should not have gotten involved.

Our treaty required at least some level of involvement.

We had more reason to be there than WWI

 

[Soupnazi630]

Walter Cronkite did not lie about anything. His judgement was that the War in Vietnam was lost, and unworthy of the expense and danger it would take us to turn the situation around.

he did not lie but he was massively wrong.

The war was not lost at that point.

 

[Hector12]

Our treaty required at least some level of involvement.

We had more reason to be there than WWI

The treaty we should have honored was the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Of course, corruption was the norm, and you just dismissed yourself from this discussion.

Corruption in SV was enough to map a line to failure at the country level.

He did not say corruption was not the norm he said those specific incidents were not the norm and he is correct.

Try reading comprehension class

 

[Soupnazi630]

The treaty we should have honored was the Geneva Agreement of 1954.

We never signed it hence no we had no reason to honor it

It wass a worthless agreement which ho chi minh violated

 

[Hector12]

We never signed it hence no we had no reason to honor it

It wass a worthless agreement which ho chi minh violated

Vietnam was unimportant to our security or our economy, SEATO was a worthless treaty. How many other SEATO signers helped us in Vietnam?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Vietnam was unimportant to our security or our economy, SEATO was a worthless treaty. How many other SEATO signers helped us in Vietnam?

It was a valuable and important treaty for a region whjcih was impostant to our secutity and evonokmy youer claim is a proven lie

the Australians fought with us the indonesians fought with us the south koreans fought with us and others..