"Did the news media, led by Walter Cronkite, lose the war" Topic

…in Vietnam?

"Until 1968, Walter Cronkite believed what his government told him about the Vietnam War. He was an old-school journalist, a patriot, a man who came of age covering World War II as a wire-service reporter and then taking over as the anchor of "The CBS Evening News" at the height of the Cold War. Like most journalists of his generation, he embraced the fight against communism and understood why the United States had intervened in the war raging in Vietnam.

When he'd visited Vietnam on a reporting trip early in the war, he'd been annoyed by the attitude of the young reporters who seemed to be "engaged in a contest among themselves to determine who was the most cynical," he wrote in his autobiography.

Cronkite's nightly newscasts helped shape public opinion about Vietnam, which became known as "the living-room war," in the words of Michael Arlen of the New Yorker. Until 1968, network news operations tended to edit out the blood and gore and avoid direct criticism of military operations while American lives were on the line. There was no government censorship, but negative news reports infuriated President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and he didn't hesitate to let the networks know it…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well it certainly didn't help … E.g. Many reporters, including him said how bad we lost Tet in '68. Where in reality we almost completely took out the VC. And it inflicted so heavy losses on the North. It took the NVA until the Year of the Rat in '72 to be able to go on an major offensive.

Cronkite was a commie and did his part to win the war. He was very helpful.

Let's just say if the battle of the bulge had the same type coverage, the Russians would have met us at the Rhine.

The issue wasn't that we lost Tet. The issue was that the Government & Westmoreland were constantly telling us that the "light was at the end of the tunnel," or "we are reaching the tipping point," etc. It was a "we'll be home by Christmas" moment, when the credibility of the government was very much eroded by the fact that they were telling us that the Commies were beaten, until they launched the biggest military offensive up to that time…

Damon.

Yep, as Legion 4 correctly points out, they didn't help the American side any.

Kind of off-topic, but compare Tet with Battle of the Bulge. At least at first, it was the same thing, yes?. Many were extremely surprised by the all-but beaten German Army initially kicked our butt! I don't recall that era of journalists (Walter Cronkite included) abandoning the war effort?

In WWII there was also a very clear & concrete goal: beat Germany (& Japan). You could literally track progress by looking at a map. In Vietnam, you could only rely on what the government was telling you. And when Tet happened & all the government's stories about how things were almost over was shown to be wildly inaccurate, people (& Walter Cronkite) lost faith in not only what the government was saying, but whether they even knew what they were doing.

The US has always believed in the concept of the "just war;" that the efforts we were undergoing were for the right reasons, that the loss of life was sacrificed for a just cause. It's hard to argue whether WWII was not a just cause, especially with what we discovered after. But Vietnam arguably very much was not.

Furthermore, what exactly did victory look like? In WWII it looked like destroyed the capacity of the Germans & Japanese to wage war, & toppled the governments in place. In Vietnam, it was…what? Propping up an extremely corrupt government that it was doubtful they could continue to stand without further US intervention or aid? For the average SVN rice farmer, the difference between the North & the South was academic: they were equally bad, but in different ways.

So, yes, I would argue there was a significant difference between Tet & The Bulge.

Damon.

"Furthermore, what exactly did victory look like?"

My guess would be like Korea. A free democracy in the south and communist dictatorship in the north.

Years ago I read a book about Hue. A Marine officer did an interview with Cronkite during a lull in the fighting. He was very surprised when he heard from his family about how brave he was. They were impressed that he stood there nonchalantly in a combat zone talking to a reporter. Later he discovered that the interview had combat sounds dubbed in to make it appear that the interview was taking place in an active combat environment.

Him and Jane!

In my opinion the American public would have eventually stopped supporting the war, with or without Cronkite's reporting. Neither the Johnson or Nixon administrations were willing to take the giant step that would have been needed to win….invading the north. Would there have been a war with China? Who knows.

Of course there was a very simple and painless thing that could have ended the war in weeks or days. Cut off the funding…to the communists. Yes, the USA funded both sides of the war just as we had in Korea and as we did with ISIS. America underwrote the USSR its entire existence with not only grain shipments and financial aid but huge loans that were never expected to be payed back (and of course weren't). And if you doubt this read the meticulously researched books of Anthony Sutton. The communist Vietnamese war effort depended on Soviet arms and money and the Soviet Union could not have produced those arms nor had that money without American aid. Turn off the financial aid and not only would the war in Vietnam have ended pronto but the USSR would have also collapsed in short order.

Short answer – no.

Long answer – Nooooooooooo!

Joking aside this is another zombie theory that just will not die.

At most, it was a marginal factor in the course of the war.

I have said this here before – The US achieved its war aims by 1968. There was nothing to be gained by invading and overthrowing the North or by propping up the south indefinitely and far too much to lose.

Post '68 the only war aim was to save face/prestige.

BTW – Anthony C Sutton's work does not hold a lot of water either – I'd never heard of him but a quick google search does not lend much credence to his ideas.

Sorry Skarper, but I am laughing out loud at you.

"I'd never heard of him but a quick google search…"

Are you for real?

Laugh all you like. Doesn't bother me.

Good. I'm posting more in the spirit of good natured ribbing rather than trying to be hurtful or confrontational or anything that will land me in the doghouse.

Plus, my claim will anger just about everyone no matter their political leanings although how anyone can be that naïve in this day and age mystifies me.

Ideally people will look into Sutton's work and judge for themselves.

I suspect him to be a conspiracy theorist from my quick investigation. Others are free to differ.

The Chinese had some 500,000 troops in North Vietnam, acting in support roles so that North Vietnamese could fight in the South. The possibility of conflict with China would have been not just possible, but likely had we invaded the North.

Damon.

@Garand – dead right. This risk of war – perhaps nuclear war – was very high, almost inevitable. There was just nothing to be gained from running such a risk.

I commented on this before … as did Skarper … TMP link

And I say again – Well it certainly didn't help … E.g. Many reporters, including him said how bad we lost Tet in '68. Where in reality we almost completely took out the VC. And it inflicted so heavy losses on the North. It took the NVA until the Year of the Rat in '72 to be able to go on an major offensive.

My guess would be like Korea. A free democracy in the south and communist dictatorship in the north.

Agree completely.

The NLF was eliminated in all but name by the Tet offensive. Perhaps that was the NVA's plan all along.

It's been done before, like when the Poles rose up in Warsaw while the Soviets stood by and watched.

I can't see any evidence the south of Vietnam would ever have become a free democracy. Let's not forget South Korea was a brutal military dictatorship until 1987.

If the US had stayed in past 1972 and maintained the GVN in place then a long bloody stalemate would have ensued – more like Afghanistan than South Korea.

Imperfect as the current situation is – it's better than all credible alternatives. This is my opinion after living 12 years in Vietnam and 3 years in South Korea.

Others are welcome to their own points of view.

The NLF was eliminated in all but name by the Tet offensive. Perhaps that was the NVA's plan all along.

It's been done before, like when the Poles rose up in Warsaw while the Soviets stood by and watched.

Exactly. It meant that the North could unify the country on their own terms, & not have to share power (or deal with the fallout of locking the VC out).

Damon.

I'm familiar with the 'let the NLF get killed off' theory and it is plausible.

I think it is a stretch though. It would have been quite easy to eliminate any opposition once the country was under the control of Hanoi. As such, while we can't disprove it, neither do I accept it wholesale. It's possible but not probable in my opinion.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Yes, the North did not want have to Nationalist from the South in the VC. After the US/SEATO leaves. As many in the VC were not Communist, just didn't want more "round-eyes" "invading" their land. The North was more than glad to push the VC forward into the Tet Offensive.

South Korea was a brutal military dictatorship until 1987.

I served with a forward deployed US ARMY Mech Bn in 3d Bde, 2ID for 22 months from '84-'85. With 2 tours on the DMZ. I never saw any sign of this "brutal dictatorship". And I had been to Seoul many times … Just my observations …

It's documented fact nonetheless.

Funny how folks bad mouth a man who went on missions with the 8th Air Force in WWII to report exactly what was happening and to experience what our young men were going thru.

Whatever the impact of Cronkite's reporting he didn't do anything wrong. The substance of his reporting is not in question. There may have been another side to the story but that is the nature of journalism.

It was an open secret within the military that they were not on course to 'win' and had to get out somehow.

Post Vietnam the US have been scrupulous to prevent free reporting from their war zones. A few very brave journalists go in alone but the vast majority are 'embedded'.

Vietnam was unique in that there were reporters running al over the place, talking to troops and reporting what they found out. Even then, the VAST majority never left the safety of the major cities.

I just listened to an audio book of 'Dispatches' [Michael Herr]. I'd read it before. It's a riveting account and very informative.

What makes me mad about Cronkite is not only his staged coverage of Tet wearing a bulletproof vest and helmet when he was on camera when he wasn't near any fighting among other things.

He should have understood what Tet a desperate at by an enemy who is losing the war and decides on a roll of the dice to try and turn things around. After all he was there and reported on the Battle of the Bugle, the exact type of battle.

It's documented fact nonetheless.

Nonetheless … I never saw anything like that when I was in the ROK.

He should have understood what Tet a desperate at by an enemy who is losing the war and decides on a roll of the dice to try and turn things around.

Yes, pretty much everything the NVA captured was lost in short order. The losses to both the VC and NVA were very severe. The VC was almost eliminated as a viable force. And it took the NVA until '72 to rebuild to go on a major offensive again. Bottom line Tet was a loss on the battlefield for the VC and NVA.

"South Korea was a brutal military dictatorship until 1987."

True or not, North Korea remains a communist slave state with no hope of gaining freedom and prosperity in the foreseeable future.

Very true !

The nature of the appalling North Korean state is not in question.

What is less known is that South Korea had serious human rights issues right up until the late 1980s.

My point, such as it is, is that if the GVN had survived post 1975 it would not necessarily have turned into anything akin to the modern South Korea. Every indication is that it would have remained a brutal dictatorship for 30-40 years at least.

The Republic of Vietnam has never been remotely comparable to North Korea, though there are issues for sure.

Yes anyone who studies history knows there are very few clean hands. Again as we see throughout history it comes down to us vs them. Regardless who "they" are.

Being an old Cold War Warrior there are still a number of nations from back then I don't trust and still consider "enemies". I'm am not alone in that belief. Almost daily they make it clear, by their actions, etc.

As well as the current plethora of religious fanatic fundamentalists groups in the continuing GWoT. I enjoy hearing about every time they get "Droned" or CAS'd …

@ Skarper, So, we're going to ignore the tens of thousands of Southerners who disappeared into NVs re-education camp were they were fed a starvation diet and tortured, large numbers of which were never seen again. Or the famine that resulted from the forced collectivization of the Southern rice farmers. And other abuse's that were so bad that many thousands of South Vietnamese put themselves and their families at great risk trying to escape Vietnam.

No need to ignore those aspects of the aftermath of the war.

Would it have been any better if the GVN had continued in place? What if the North had been invaded and taken over by the GVN? We'll never know. When wars are over suffering always continues for a time.

It's still wrong to make comparisons with the Korean war and the situation on the Korean peninsular. It's a totally different situation.

North Korean Communists invade non-Communist South Korea …

North Vietnamese Communists invade non-Communist South Vietnam …

Hmmmm ?

When wars are over suffering always continues for a time.

The cane, crutches and walker I was give by the VA were all made in Vietnam. I'm sure the Vietnam Vet's see the irony in that …

I believe North Vietnam had collective farming and reeducation issues before their invasion of the south commenced.

I'm not sure what type of government the south would have had in the present if the US had continued to support it. Still, look at South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan today; however long it took I think their success speaks for itself.

Yes, the underlining trend there … they are not Communists … And 3 out of the 4 were supported by the US …

link

Wolfhag

The South Vietnamese Government wasn't to conquer the North. The North was trying to conquer the South. You seem to have a problem understanding the difference.

If the South had won I doubt they would have felt the need for re-education camps. They certainly had never shown interest before or during the war in collectivization forced or otherwise.

I'll leave you guys to it…..have fun.

Wolf & jdginaz +1