Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The President doesn't have absolute power. Not only Congress and advisers, along with others, but special interests play a huge part. From what I've read he did not know about that coup and was disappointed to learn of it.
His military advisers were telling him to escalate the war but it wasn't what he wanted. He didn't dare make major changes until after he was re-elected.
His own ambassador to Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge along with the President's special adviser and ambassador at large Averell Harriman both knew about it and gave their support for it. Do you really think they didn't inform the president of this?
But if what you say were true I guess when it came to Kennedy, the buck didn't stop with him, it stopped with his advisers which if true, speaks rather poorly of him in other ways.
The President doesn't have absolute power. Not only Congress and advisers, along with others, but special interests play a huge part. From what I've read he did not know about that coup and was disappointed to learn of it.
His military advisers were telling him to escalate the war but it wasn't what he wanted. He didn't dare make major changes until after he was re-elected.
This is not accurate. A little background is in order. President Diem had become President of South Vietnam in an election. His rule of South Vietnam was complicated by the fact that he was Catholic and the majority population of South Vietnam was Buddhist. The longer Diem was President, the more repressive his rule became. His brother, Nhu, was head of the secret police or security police in South Vietnam. His men routinely arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and sometimes killed people who they deemed as opponents of the Diem regime'. By 1963, Diem's unpopularity was beginning to interfere with American policy in South Vietnam.
We cared nothing for internal politics in South Vietnam, other than we needed an effective government that enjoyed a modicum of popular support to oppose the communists. By 1963, it was clear from reports being received from our Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, that Diem was actually becoming an impediment to U.S. goals and policy. There were vivid scenes at this time in Vietnam of Buddhist monks deliberately setting fire to themselves in public as a protest against Diem and his repressive rule.
Our policy of sending military advisers and military aid to South Vietnam, resulted in our political leaders having many contacts within the South Vietnamese military. What is unclear is whether the idea of a coup de tat came directly from the United States or whether it was an idea first suggested by South Vietnamese military figures. What is clear is that the highest levels of our government, including the President, knew about the impending coup'.
The plan always was to offer President Diem safe conduct out of Vietnam to a foreign country. Ambassador Lodge had been instructed to do this by the very highest levels of our government. Its clear that Secretary of State Rusk knew about it and that President Kennedy knew about it too. What went wrong is that Diem and particularly Nhu were hated so much by people within the military that when they had an opportunity to kill him they did so. Diem and Nhu were probably murdered on orders of General Minh.
United States sponsorship of military coups was far from unheard of in 1963. We had literally organized coups that had overthrown the government in both Iran and Guatemala. We had attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro's government through the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but that attempt failed. Today, such policies would be unthinkable. However, in the days of the Cold War these things occurred and most Americans blithely believed their leaders knew best and it would never have occurred to them to question such things. Kennedy knew all this and one of his first acts in office was to approve the ill-fated Bay of Pigs Invasion.
The accounts are that President Kennedy was shocked when he learned of the murder of Diem and Nhu. This reaction is consistent with someone who sets a plan in motion and than it takes an unexpected turn. Had JFK not intended to use American force to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnam, there would have been no need for a coup' and we would not have been so integrally involved in it.
Since JFK was assassinated there is no way to know for certain how his remaining President might have changed American policy in Southeast Asia. He might have tried to fight a more limited war than the LBJ did. However, this is complex in and of itself. The military build up that took place in Vietnam after LBJ became President was not a certainty in the beginning. It took place because of specific actions and problems. First, it is not well known today, but LBJ, before escalating American forces, attempted to make peace with North Vietnam by offering them a huge package of economic aid in return for guarantees they would leave South Vietnam alone. It was only when the North rejected this overture, that LBJ thought in terms of escalation. Second, the North Vietnamese signaled their hostility towards us by a torpedo boat attack on the destroyer Maddox that took place in the Gulf of Tonkin. Circumstances of this are disputed, but it is clear that at least one attack was made on the Maddox by North Vietnamese vessels. Third, Viet Cong forces attempted to attack American air fields and sabotage combat aircraft on the ground. LBJ had to send in forces simply to protect the airfields and installations there.
Many people view LBJ as a sort of hawk who was just waiting in the wings for JFK to be gone to reverse American policy in Vietnam. This is nonsense. LBJ took over a difficult situation in Vietnam in late 1963 when he became President. Undoubtedly, his style influenced much of what he did and some decisions were different than those that JFK would have made. However, the basic course of events would have been the same had JFK remained President. All the problems I've mentioned above would have occurred and I believe, JFK would pretty much have done what Johnson did.
Did you actually read the poll questions? You might want to may attention to gender....because men and women had differing views on JFK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
While we can't know precisely how 1964 would have played out, your claim is false. Period. And there was no downward trend in Kennedy's approval numbers past the summer of 1963,....
There was an upward trend in his disapproval rating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
there were no policy obstacles in Kennedy's way, and Goldwater simply was not a candidate who was every going to win (which signals that the GOP in 1964, unlike you in 2014, knew full well that Kennedy was all but unbeatable). Simply put, outside of your imagination there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Kennedy would have lost his re-election bid.
Kennedy's failure on the Cuban Missile Crisis is an obstacle.
His Southern Democrat opponents in the primary would hammer him on it, and then so would the Republicans.
There's no escaping that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
As for the loss of Southern support, it's hard to imagine Kennedy suffering a worse loss in that regard than Johnson himself,...
Johnson was on the ticket solely to appease the Southern Democrats.
No Johnson, no support in the 1960 Election.
JFK needed the support of the Southern Democrats in 1964 as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
JFK was diagnosed with Addison's in 1947 at the age of 30. His near-death experiences were in the mid-50s; by the time of his Presidency he was in great pain but the disease itself was being managed. The physicians who examined and treated Kennedy in the mid-50s told him in once instance that he be dead within a year, and in another instance advised him that he needed to receive last rites. And they were obviously wrong
Robert Dallek, the Kennedy biographer who was been given exclusive access to President ennedy's medical records:
I have no idea who Dallek is.
I was quoting Dr Feelgood aka Dr Max Jacobsen, who was JFK's personal physician in the White House.
You might remember Dr Feelgood lost his license in the 1970s. His treatments consisted mostly of amphetamines and cortisone.
It's also widely believed that JFK had syphilis.
Another issue that has recently come to light is that JFK had injured himself during one of his many hundreds of extra-marital "sexcapades." Because of that injury, he happened to be wearing a brace on the day he was shot in Dallas, and that would explain some of his body movements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
From what I've read he did not know about that coup and was disappointed to learn of it.
What? JFK authorized it.
Of course he knew about it.
I always refer to "Ngo Diem and his dimwitted side-kick half-brother."
That's a joke.
Diem was the dim-witted idiot and his half-brother was the real president of South Vietnam.
Anyway, Diem and Nhu (his half-brother) were secretly negotiating with North Vietnam to end the conflict. These negotiations were backed by the French.
The last thing JFK would want is to have the rug pulled out from under him and publicly embarrassed by a French-brokered peace agreement.
Murdering Diem was in JFK's best interest, to end the secret negotiations with the North and then allow JFK to string the public along with his "I'm not soft on Communism" thing until after the 1964 Election.
Historically...
Wow .. that's one of the most "far-out" views of history I've ever come across in my entire life.
Far out? Too bad you didn't bother to develop this counter notion, choosing instead to ramble on and on and on and on about some other thing you had on your mind. And no, I meant "sycophants". That's a different word. I'm a grownup, so I wont look to throw catty spelling digs at you as a distraction. I'm more concerned with your detachment from reality than the way you spell your delusions.
Try reading some history OTHER THAN the Left wing self-serving version and remember JFK for what he actually was, instead of as the reinvented progressivist hero the Democrats wanted him to be. By today's standards, JFK would have been so far to the right that the Republicans wouldn't nominate him, much less the Democrats.
The entire history of Vietnam has been reinvented by the Left and the liberals so that the "far out" view has become the mainstream view, unfortunately. Too bad you just buy into it with no critical thinking.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 02-03-2014 at 05:34 AM..
I think he would have died in 66 or 67 of a drug overdoes. He would not have gone up to 500k troops in Vietnam but he would not have pulled out either. The race riots still would have happened since he was very slow in doing much on civil rights.
Considering the absolute veracity with which LBJ pursued the war in Vietnam at a time when most of the nation wanted him to pull out and the fact that Nixon, a Republican, is the one who ended the war; doesn't your theory fall a little short?
Also, JFK was considered a "liberal" in comparison to LBJ within the Democratic party of the early 1960's. Within the party, JFK was a "moderate liberal". LBJ was solidly considered a "conservative moderate" and not liberal at all within the scope of the party. In fact, the liberal wing of the party railed over the selection of LBJ as VP. How do you reconcile that these supposed liberal Marxist killed the liberal to put the conservative one in power?
No. I think my theory is a good one - but hey, it's just one of many floating around out there. LBJ believed Castro was behind the assassination, and I happen to agree with him to some extent about that.
I don't see how these (rather meaningless) designations of "liberal" and "conservative" would have relevance in regards to your question about what the Marxists would do. Marxists aren't liberals in any respect (far from it) and LBJ was no conservative in some respects. I believe the Marxists were in fact behind the JFK assassination because they wanted us out of Vietnam, and they believed removing JFK was the best way to precipitate that occurence. LBJ was the VP... what could they do? In my mind though, JFK would have been a much bigger obstacle for them on the Vietnam question.
JFK was a staunch opponent of communism and a defender of American values for the preservation of Democracy around the world against totalitarian aggression. That is not "liberal" in either the modern sense or the sense of the 1960s. That is, and was in 1961, a solidly conservative value. LBJ pursued the war with veracity, but not with the SKILL, the popularity OR the even greater veracity of JFK. In short, LBJ was a poor commander, and he was even more poor as a communicator and an inspiring figure. And he was surrounded by bad advisors - some of whom, I believe, may have been traitors.
George McGovern was a liberal in the 1960s, and his stance on Vietnam reflected the minority liberal point of view. Most of the country, contrary to your point of view did NOT agree with this position until well after LBJ was in his first full term. And the decline in public opinion was not related as much to the philosophical basis of the war as it was to the poor military execution orchestrated by LBJ's administration and to the devastating propagandizing of a Leftist friendly press and entertainment/media establishment.
The notion that the war initially was prosecuted by the government against the wishes of the American people is false. The notion that the vast majority of American youths took to the streets to end the Vietnam War is equally false. Early initiatives by the United States under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy received broad support. It received broad support in Congress. Not surprisingly. The overall tone and sentiment of BOTH parties in this period was CONSERVATIVE. And very conservative when it came to issues of stopping communism.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 02-03-2014 at 05:41 AM..
This is not accurate. A little background is in order. ......All the problems I've mentioned above would have occurred and I believe, JFK would pretty much have done what Johnson did.
Excellent essay Mark!
The only thing I would add is that JFK would have done MUCH more than LBJ did. He was a more capable commander in chief I beleve, and enjoyed the popularity that gave him a greater latitude of action. I don't think he wanted Diem to die, but I do think his approval of that coup definitely signaled a bold frame of mind... and a mind that was set on defending Vietnam.
I can find NOTHING in Kennedy's history that would lead me to believe he would have reneged on the SEATO commitment to Vietnam, or even on his personal commitment to fighting communism.
What we've got going on is the reinvention of history.
Well great to see my thread escalate into a fascinating debate on just ONE of the points(Vietnam). To be honest I was more interested in your opinion of the third point: Space agenda. What would JFK the President have done for NASA? Would we be on Mars by now?
Kennedy's term as president would have been over by the moon landing, so it's tough to say that he would have had the influence to make a push for Mars.
Would he have gotten reelected?
Would he pull out the troops in Vietnam sooner?
Would we have landed on the moon much sooner, and perhaps continued the space programme to reach unimaginable heights(Mars landing example)?
We wouldn't have committed regular ground troops in Vietnam at all. Moon sooner? Maybe not. The limitations were not effort or funding. He would have been re-elected. If Bobby had not been killed he would have followed JFK as President for another eight years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
