4 ms·

I'm seeing a body of growing evidence that the long-term fracture was due to the War in Vietnam: * it created anti-government groups like the Weathermen * it

I'm seeing a body of growing evidence that the long-term fracture was due to the War in Vietnam: * it created anti-government groups like the Weathermen * it spurred activist groups on campuses around the country to stage admin building take-overs, sit-ins, and attempts to disruption to the war draft * it created a group of Veterans-- like John Kerry-- who came back and described for the general public horrific war crimes committed by U.S. servicepeople * it created an even larger group of veterans who came back and described a war which-- even if the serviceperson believed in the aims of the U.S. gov't-- was clearly unwinnable All of those things led to the use of federal resources domestically to try to quell the growing anger and violence against the war. There is just no other way the national guard would be deployed and end up firing on students without the war. Without that war, you would have had an older population who thought the younger generation was naive, wrong, lude, and in some cases immoral. With the war you had one side thinking the other was becoming a growing existential domestic threat to the country. Sound familiar? edit: clarification edit 2: Don't forget that toward the end of his life, MLK Jr. spoke out against the war and ended up splitting his own base. (Oddly the article doesn't mention that.)

cafard 9y ago
> There is just no other way the national guard would be deployed and end up firing on students without the war. Oh? The Michigan National Guard did quite a bit of shooting during the Detroit riots of 1967.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Looters versus unarmed peaceful protest in broad daylight? And I think it was even common sense back then that breaking curfew was dangerous.
supreme_sublime 9y ago
> it created an even larger group of veterans who came back and described a war which-- even if the serviceperson believed in the aims of the U.S. gov't-- was clearly unwinnable Was it really "unwinnable"? I watched "Vietnam in HD" which is a fantastic series if you're into that kind of thing. It is a difficult watch at times. What I gathered from that is most people seemed to blame the "seek and destroy" tactic. This involved prioritizing destroying enemy encampments, but not actually taking territory. There didn't seem to be line advancements or attempts to create new bases further into enemy territory. I'm not a military strategist, and I have no idea the kinds of logistics required for it. I do know that it seemed to kill morale for soldiers to go take a hill, and then abandon it for the enemy to go back and take once again. Essentially taking the same ground over and over again. It seems like a lesson in futility.
- IronWolve 9y ago
  Correct, if crushing the enemy was the goal, the only way to win was to take over cities, land and controlling as an occupying force. The military had oppressive and crippling rules of engagement put on them when fighting a guerrilla style war. The alternative with political pressure would have been to work with China and Russia which at the time, communism was the biggest threat, so that wasn't an option. https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-U-S-have-won-the-Vietnam-War https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-U-S-have-won-the-Vietnam...
- tptacek 9y ago
  It was unwinnable not because of the tactics used but because the war was a hollow gesture: we weren't supporting a viable, legitimate RVN, but rather a corrupt government that lacked the support of its people (and, at times, actively persecuted important factions of its people).
- bradford 9y ago
  I don't think it was winnable. Based off of experience in Korea, US didn't want China to enter the war. To avoid this, the US couldn't commit to full-scale of invasion of North Vietnam, which I believe would have been necessary for victory. Without a full scale invasion, they thought that they could 'tickle' the enemy into submission by aerial bombing of the North combined with ground-army defense of the south. I believe they were over optimistic. It's easy to say "yeah, if the US had more manpower and/or crossed into North Vietnam and/or used different tactics we could have won!" and maybe that's true, but proponents of this view often fail to consider the entry of China as a possible outcome.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    That's certainly true. It was definitely a proxy war and iirc the North definitely received, at a minimum, support from China. I'm not incredibly well versed on the subject, especially the geopolitics at the time. Perhaps with all of that considered, the US was hamstrung a bit.
- Zigurd 9y ago
Anechoic 9y ago
Don't forget that toward the end of his life, MLK Jr. spoke out against the war and ended up splitting his own base. MLK's speaking out against the war was unpopular, but do you have any references that show he actions split his "base"? That's interesting since I was under the impression that the war was deeply unpopular with blacks.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  He talks about it in his speeches, and it's also worth noting that his base was not only composed of black people >I remember so well when I first took a stand against the war in Vietnam. The critics took me on and they had their say in the most negative and sometimes most vicious way. One day a newsman came to me and said, "Dr. King, don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and people who once respected you have lost respect for you. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?" I looked at him and I had to say, "Sir, I’m sorry you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion." Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus. -Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution, 1968
dsnuh 9y ago
I watched Vietnam In HD (great series) and I came away with many of the same observations that you did. Do you feel like this was also a generation that missed their chance to be "men"? What I mean by that is that in all past memory, men had gone off to battle and were welcomed home as heroes. This was different, and I feel like in some ways led to the emasculation of the American male. They missed their chance to be heroes like their fathers had been in WWII. The women's rights movement also started at the same time. It was a complete upset to the social norms that had been established in society.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  There’s nothing great about war, war is misery, death and suffering. Anyone who didn’t have to take part in one is lucky.
  - dsnuh 9y ago
    Oh definitely, I wasn't advocating for war, but I think it is it clearly something that attitudes changed about inexorably after Vietnam.
    - dsnuh 9y ago
      An interesting take on war from a semi-modern perspective is _War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning_ by Chris Hedges.
      - Synaesthesia 9y ago
        I still want to read that, having read most of his books. He’s a fantastic author.
- Clubber 9y ago
  A contributing factor to this phenomenon is the overwhelming presence of news cameras in that war. In previous US wars, the news was censored under war time powers. In Vietnam, citizens watched every night in gory, uncensored detail, what was actually happening. Of course time takes it's toll as the war drug on with no meaningful resolution.
Clubber 9y ago
Here's a fun fact: Jimi Hendrix was a paratrooper in the early 60s and supported it in it's early stages. Of course later he abandoned his support for the war as many did.

cafard 9y ago

> There is just no other way the national guard would be deployed and end up firing on students without the war. Oh? The Michigan National Guard did quite a bit of shooting during the Detroit riots of 1967.

Feniks 9y ago
Looters versus unarmed peaceful protest in broad daylight? And I think it was even common sense back then that breaking curfew was dangerous.

supreme_sublime 9y ago

> it created an even larger group of veterans who came back and described a war which-- even if the serviceperson believed in the aims of the U.S. gov't-- was clearly unwinnable Was it really "unwinnable"? I watched "Vietnam in HD" which is a fantastic series if you're into that kind of thing. It is a difficult watch at times. What I gathered from that is most people seemed to blame the "seek and destroy" tactic. This involved prioritizing destroying enemy encampments, but not actually taking territory. There didn't seem to be line advancements or attempts to create new bases further into enemy territory. I'm not a military strategist, and I have no idea the kinds of logistics required for it. I do know that it seemed to kill morale for soldiers to go take a hill, and then abandon it for the enemy to go back and take once again. Essentially taking the same ground over and over again. It seems like a lesson in futility.

IronWolve 9y ago
Correct, if crushing the enemy was the goal, the only way to win was to take over cities, land and controlling as an occupying force. The military had oppressive and crippling rules of engagement put on them when fighting a guerrilla style war. The alternative with political pressure would have been to work with China and Russia which at the time, communism was the biggest threat, so that wasn't an option. https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-U-S-have-won-the-Vietnam-War https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-U-S-have-won-the-Vietnam...
tptacek 9y ago
It was unwinnable not because of the tactics used but because the war was a hollow gesture: we weren't supporting a viable, legitimate RVN, but rather a corrupt government that lacked the support of its people (and, at times, actively persecuted important factions of its people).
bradford 9y ago
I don't think it was winnable. Based off of experience in Korea, US didn't want China to enter the war. To avoid this, the US couldn't commit to full-scale of invasion of North Vietnam, which I believe would have been necessary for victory. Without a full scale invasion, they thought that they could 'tickle' the enemy into submission by aerial bombing of the North combined with ground-army defense of the south. I believe they were over optimistic. It's easy to say "yeah, if the US had more manpower and/or crossed into North Vietnam and/or used different tactics we could have won!" and maybe that's true, but proponents of this view often fail to consider the entry of China as a possible outcome.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  That's certainly true. It was definitely a proxy war and iirc the North definitely received, at a minimum, support from China. I'm not incredibly well versed on the subject, especially the geopolitics at the time. Perhaps with all of that considered, the US was hamstrung a bit.
Zigurd 9y ago

Anechoic 9y ago

Don't forget that toward the end of his life, MLK Jr. spoke out against the war and ended up splitting his own base. MLK's speaking out against the war was unpopular, but do you have any references that show he actions split his "base"? That's interesting since I was under the impression that the war was deeply unpopular with blacks.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
He talks about it in his speeches, and it's also worth noting that his base was not only composed of black people >I remember so well when I first took a stand against the war in Vietnam. The critics took me on and they had their say in the most negative and sometimes most vicious way. One day a newsman came to me and said, "Dr. King, don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and people who once respected you have lost respect for you. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?" I looked at him and I had to say, "Sir, I’m sorry you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I’ve not taken a sort of Gallup Poll of the majority opinion." Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus. -Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution, 1968

dsnuh 9y ago

I watched Vietnam In HD (great series) and I came away with many of the same observations that you did. Do you feel like this was also a generation that missed their chance to be "men"? What I mean by that is that in all past memory, men had gone off to battle and were welcomed home as heroes. This was different, and I feel like in some ways led to the emasculation of the American male. They missed their chance to be heroes like their fathers had been in WWII. The women's rights movement also started at the same time. It was a complete upset to the social norms that had been established in society.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
There’s nothing great about war, war is misery, death and suffering. Anyone who didn’t have to take part in one is lucky.
- dsnuh 9y ago
  Oh definitely, I wasn't advocating for war, but I think it is it clearly something that attitudes changed about inexorably after Vietnam.
  - dsnuh 9y ago
    An interesting take on war from a semi-modern perspective is _War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning_ by Chris Hedges.
    - Synaesthesia 9y ago
      I still want to read that, having read most of his books. He’s a fantastic author.
Clubber 9y ago
A contributing factor to this phenomenon is the overwhelming presence of news cameras in that war. In previous US wars, the news was censored under war time powers. In Vietnam, citizens watched every night in gory, uncensored detail, what was actually happening. Of course time takes it's toll as the war drug on with no meaningful resolution.

Clubber 9y ago

Here's a fun fact: Jimi Hendrix was a paratrooper in the early 60s and supported it in it's early stages. Of course later he abandoned his support for the war as many did.