Morris

No that is not correct. The National Archives reports deaths through 1968 as 39,656 and deaths after 1968 as 21,264.

ralper

I stand corrected, but 21,000 deaths is still a lot for a man who won the election based on a campaign promise that he had a plan to end the war.

The deaths after 1968 represent 35% of the American deaths in Vietnam. While not 50%, its still a pretty big number.

Legal Bill

Morris,

I tend to agree that Nixon was not the worst possible choice with respect to the handling of the Vietnam war. Nixon finally ended the war and also opened an era of improved relations with China.

That said, I think his Democratic opponents would have ended the war more quickly and it is pretty well known that both sides played politics with the war in the 1968 election. Humphrey ran agianst the war and called for a stop to the bombing which was contrary to the Johnson administration's plan. As Humphrey gained a bit of ground during the campaign, Johnson suddenly announced a halt to the bombing and a possible peace deal in October (surprise). This was a big 180 degree turn in the Johnson administration's war strategy. In response, it is pretty widely known that Nixon reached out to the then leader of south Vietnam and told him not to make a peace deal until after Nixon's election, because Nixon would get him a better deal. The peace initiative ended, Nixon won the race, and the war continued for another four years.

Morris

I posted to keep the record straight, not because I put Nixon on a pedestal. And also because of sympathetic comments about Johnson, who, after JFK, was responsible for the war. A few years ago one of my younger, close relatives was ragging on Nixon for getting us INTO the Viet Nam war and was quite taken back when corrected with the truth.

Legal Bill

I understand. I was just sharing my thoughts.

windhund116

Prolly one take-home lesson... it's not good to get involved with another area's Civil Wars. Easy to enter, very difficult to exit --- for any political party.

ralper

Episode 4, excellent.

ralper

Just to set the record straight, our involvement in Vietnam began in 1950. Advisors at first, but once we were there we were on a path to escalation. Not to defend Johnson, I'm not a big fan either, but much great legislation occurred during his term in office. As for Nixon, his great accomplishment was China. I have to wonder how much he had to do with it, or if Mao, as I suspect, was ready to open China to the West.

Nixon did end the draft, but I have mixed feelings about it. While I never liked the idea of a draft, by ending it Nixon gave all of the presidents who followed permission to wage war. If there was still a draft, we'd probably long be out of Iraq and Afganistan. Long ago there would have been Vietnam style protests in the streets.

Please don't move this to politics, this is history. If you disagree with me, please answer gently so that we can keep this thread here. There should be and could be some great discussions.

ralper

Lesson number two-never let your inflated ego or hubris make up your mind for you. (Think long and hard before you jump)

dlq04

Rob, you keep saying that but you are the one pushing the buttons to send it there.

In any case, be it Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or whomever - - this is the USA and we all know where the buck stops but never-the-less we don't live in a dictatorship and the man in charge in not a king. Burns at times seems to be suggesting that but we all know it's never that simple.

I've just made it through #3 and I know that shows coming up will be hitting close to home for me and my relatives.

BTW, I voted for Goldwater!