Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
The Viet-Nam War was without qualification the most unpopular war in United States history. By May 1971, 61 per cent of the 1,502 persons interviewed by the Gallup Poll thought it had been a mistake for the United States to become involved in Viet-Nam. (The question asked was, “In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Viet-Nam, do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in Viet-Nam?” 28 per cent answered, “No”, and 11 per cent had no opinion.) The significance of the May poll lay in the fact that it marked a complete reversal of public opinion since Gallup first started asking the question in August 1965.
1 New York Times, June 6,1971.
2 Dale, Edwin L., “What Viet-Nam Did to the American Economy,” New York Times, January 28,1973.Google Scholar
3 Statistics were compiled by U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees and Escapees, quoted in New York Times, April 1,1973.Google Scholar
4 McCarthy, Eugene J., The Limits of Power: America's Role in the World(N.Y., 1967), 187.Google Scholar
5 For example, see Meeker, Leonard C., “The Legality of United States Participation in the Defense of Viet-Nam,” Department of State Bulletin, LIV (March 28,1966), 477–89Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “Legal Aspects of the Viet-Nam Situation,” American Journal of International Law, LX (1966), 750–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John N. Moore, “The Lawfulness of Military Assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam,” ibid, LX1 (1967), 1–34; and Wolfgang Friedmann, “Law and Politics in the Vietnamese War: A Comment,” ibid, 776–85.
6 Halle, Louis J., “After Viet-Nam — Another Witchhunt?” New York Times Magazine, June 6,1971, 36ff.Google Scholar
7 George W. Ball, “The Lessons of Viet-Nam: Have We Learned or Only Failed?” ibid, April 1,1973,12ff.
8 Fulbright, J. William, The Arrogance of Power (N.Y., 1966Google Scholar) and more recently The Crippled Giant: American Foreign Policy and Its Domestic Consequences, (N.Y., 1972).Google Scholar
9 Specifically, refer to Chomsky, Noam, American Power and the New Mandarins, (N.Y., 1967), 258, 313Google Scholar; Kolko, Gabriel, The Roots of American Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Power and Purpose (Boston, 1969), 84–85Google Scholar; and Horowitz, David, Empire and Revolution: A Radical Interpretation of Contemporary History (N.Y., 1969), 230–32.Google Scholar
10 -An excellent survey of Viet-Nam literature is found in Bryson's, Thomas A.“United States Involvement in Viet-Nam: A Survey of Conflicting Interpretations,” Studies in the Social Sciences, IX (June, 1970), 40–56.Google Scholar
11 New York Times, June 13, 1971.
12 Gelb, Leslie H., “Today's Lessons from the Pentagon Papers,” Life, (September 17, 1971), 34.Google Scholar
13 ibid
14 Sheehan, Neil et al., The Pentagon Papers (N.Y., 1971).Google Scholar
15 Gravel, Senator edition, The Pentagon Papers (4 vols.; Boston, 1971).Google Scholar
16 U.S. Department of Defense, United States-Viet-Nam Relations 1945–1967 (12 vols.; Wash., 1971). An outstanding, model analysis of the most significant documents contained in the Defense Department edition is Warner's, Geoffrey, “The United States and Viet-Nam, 1945–65, Part I: 1945–54,” International Affairs, 48 (July, 1972), 379–94Google Scholar; and “The United States and Viet-Nam, 1945–65, Part II: 1954–65,” ibid, 49 (October, 1972), 593–615.
17 Excerpts from this particular study were published in New York Times, April 26, 1972.
18 Berkhofer, Robert F. Jr., A Behavioural Approach to Historical Analysis (N.Y., 1969), 33.Google Scholar
19 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2d ed.; Chicago, 1970), viii, 175.Google Scholar
20 Hess, Gary R., “Franklin Roosevelt and Indochina,” Journal of American History, LIX (September, 1972), 354.Google Scholar
21 Drachman, Edward R., United States Policy Toward Viet-Nam, 1940–1945 (Rutherford, N.J., 1970). Recent revelations in the wartime papers of Winston Churchill, which provides evidence that the Prime Minister had agreed in October 1944 to Soviet hegemony in Poland for Stalin's support* of British interests in the Far East and the Mediterranean, have greatly undermined Drachman's thesis. New York Times, August 5,1973.Google Scholar
22 Hull, Cordell, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (2 vols.; N.Y., 1948), II, 1595.Google Scholar
23 ibid
24 “Memorandum of Conversation, by the Adviser on Caribbean Affairs (Taussig),” March 15,1945, Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers: 1945 (Wash., 1967), I, 194.Google Scholar (Hereafter this source will be referred to as FRUS.)
25 Earl of Avon, The Memoirs of Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon: The Reckoning (Boston, 1965), 438.Google Scholar For an earlier statement of U.S. policy, see “The Acting Secretary of State (Welles) to the French Ambassador (Henry-Haye),” April 13, 1942, FRUS: 1942 (Wash., 1962), II, 561–63.Google Scholar
26 Hull, Memoirs, II, 1596.
27 ibid, 1597.
28 ibid
29 “Chinese Summary Record of Roosevelt — Chiang Dinner Meeting,” November 23, 1943, FRUS: The Conference at Cairo and Teheran, 1943 (Wash., 1961), 325.Google Scholar
30 “Minutes of Roosevelt — Stalin Meeting,” November 28, 1943, ibid, 485.
31 Hull, Memoirs, II, 1597.
32 ibid
33 ibid Also see “Roosevelt — Stalin Meeting, Bohlen Minutes,” February 8,1945, FRUS: The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945 (Wash., 1955), 770.Google Scholar
34 “Memorandum by President Roosevelt to the Under Secretary of State,” November 3, 1944, FRUS: 1944 (Wash., 1965), III, 780Google Scholar
35 “Memorandum by President Roosevelt for the Secretary of State,” January 1, 1945, FRUS: 1945 (Wash., 1969), VI, 293.Google Scholar
36 ibid
37 “The Director of the Office of European Affairs (Dunn) to the Director of the Civil Affairs Division, War Department (Hildering),” March 14, 1944, FRUS: 1944 (Wash., 1965), V, 1205–06.Google Scholar
38 Chennault, Claire Lee, Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Chennault (N.Y., 1949), 342.Google Scholar
39 ibid
40 ibid
41 “The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State,” March 13,1945, FRUS: 1945 (Wash., 1969), VI, 300.Google Scholar
42 ibid
43 ibid
44 “The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State,” January 30, 1945, FRUS: 1945 (Wash., 1968), IV, 668.Google Scholar
45 “Taussig Memorandum,” FRUS: 1945, I, 124.
46 ibid
47 ibid
48 ibid
49 Hess, “Franklin Roosevelt and Indo-China,” 365.
50 “The Acting Secretary of State (Grew) to the Ambassador in France (Caffery),” May 9, 1945, FRUS: 1945, VI, 307.
51 “The Acting Secretary of State (Acheson) to the Charge in China (Robertson),” October 5,1945, ibid, 313.
52 ibid (Italics mine).
53 “Report by the Subcommittee on Rearmament to the State — War — Navy Coordinating Committee,” March 21, 1946, FRUS: 1946 (Wash., 1972), 1154.Google Scholar
54 “Policy Paper Prepared in the Department of State,” June 22, 1945, FRUS: 1945, VI, 557. (Hereafter referred to as “Grew Memo.”)
55 ibid, 557–58.
56 ibid, 567.
57 Lippmann, Walter, “After the War Is Over,” Newsweek, December 14, 1970, 32–33Google Scholar. For other “lessons” gleaned from America's involvement in Viet-Nam, consult Hans Morgenthau, J., A New Foreign Policy for the United States (London, 1969), 111–56Google Scholar; Hoopes, Townsend, The Limits of Intervention (N.Y., 1970), 1–32Google Scholar; Cooper, Chester L., The Lost Crusade: America in Viet-Nam (N.Y., 1970), 451–68Google Scholar; Kuklick, Bruce, “History as a Way of Learning,” American Quarterly, XXII (Fall, 1970), 609–28Google Scholar; Ball, “The Lessons of Viet-Nam,” 12ff.; Rostow, Eugene V., Peace in the Balance: The Future of American Foreign Policy (N.Y., 1972), 11–23Google Scholar; and Nixon, Richard M., U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970's: Building for Peace (Wash., 1971), 16.Google Scholar
58 “Grew Memo.,” 567.
59 ibid
60 ibid, 568.
61 Lippmann, Walter, The Cold War: A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy (N.Y., 1947), especially 12, 14–16Google Scholar. Lippmann's prediction should be compared with Kennan's, George F. Viet-Nam post mortem in U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, Supplemental Foreign Assistance Fiscal Year — Viet-Nam (Wash., 1966), 331–33, 337–38, 350–51, 355–58.Google Scholar
62 “Memorandum Prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” March 27, 1946, FRUS: 1946 I, 1161. This document in its essentials had been approved by the JCS on September 19,1945, and forwarded to the Secretaries of War and Navy, and from there to the Secretary of State and the President.
63 ibid, (Italics mine).
64 ibid, 1163.
65 ibid
66 ibid
67 “Memorandum Prepared for the Secretary's Staff Committee,” November 16, 1945, ibid, 1123–28.
68 “Memorandum Prepared in the Department of State,” December 1,1945, ibid, 1135–36. (Cited subsequently as “State Memo.”)
69 ibid, 1136.
70 See Siracusa, Joseph M., New Left Diplomatic Histories and Historians: The American Revisionists (Port Washington, N.Y., 1973), 76–103.Google Scholar
71 “State Memo.,” 1137.
72 ibid, 1138.
73 For example, refer to Adler, Les K. and Paterson, Thomas G., “Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930's-1950's,” American Historical Review, LXXV (April, 1970), 1046–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 “State Memo.,” 1139.
75 ibid
76 ibid
77 ibid
78 Hess, “Franklin Roosevelt and Indo-China,” 367.
79 United States — Viet-Nam Relations, I, sec. I, C-4, C-60, C-62, C-96, C-97.
80 Colbert, Evelyn, “The Road Not Taken: Decolonization and Independence in Indonesia and Indo-China,” Foreign Affairs, LI (April, 1973), 608–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81 “Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam,” in Ho Chi Minh on Revolution: Selected Writings, 1920–66, ed. by Fall, Bernard B., (N.Y., 1967), 141–43.Google Scholar
82 Abbot Memorandum, September 12, 1946, United States — Viet-Nam Relations, I, sec. I.C-103–104.
83 ibid
84 ibid
85 ibid
86 ibid, C-3.
87 Acheson Tel., December 5,1946, ibid, VIII, 85.
88 “The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France,” February3, 1947, FRUS: 1947 (Wash., 1972), VI, 67–68. (Hereafter cited as “Marshall Memo.”)Google Scholar
89 ibid
90 ibid
91 Marshall Tel, July 2,1948, United States — Viet-Nam Relations, VIII, 127. (Italics mine).
92 ibid, I, sec. I, A-50.
93 Acheson Tel., May 20,1949, ibid, VIII, 196–97.
94 “The Consul General at Singapore (Josselyn)’ to the Secretary of State,” January 7, 1947, FRUS: 1947, VI, 55.Google Scholar
95 “Department of State Policy Statement of Indo-China,” September 27, 1948, United States — Viet-Nam Relations, VIII, 145, 148–49. (Hereafter referred to as “Indo-China Statement.”)
96 “Marshall Memo.”
97 “Indo-China Statement.”
98 ibid
99 “The Position of the United States with respect to Asia,” December 23, 1949, ibid, 248.
100 ibid
101 “Report by the National Security Council on the Position of the United States with respect to Asia,” December 30, 1949, ibid, 267.
102 “Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine,” March 12, 1947, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1947 (Wash., 1963), III, 176–80. (Citations from this source will subsequently be referred to as Presidential Papers.)Google Scholar
103 For the controversy over the meaning of “containment” compare Kennan's, George F. anonymous “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, XXV (July, 1947), 566–82Google Scholar, with his Memoirs, 1925–1950 (Boston, 1967), 354–67.Google Scholar
104 Department of State Bulletin, XX (February 13, 1950), 244.
105 ibid
106 Paris Tel., February 22, 1950, cited in United States — Viet-Nam Relations, I, sec. IV A.2, 7,22.
107 ibid
108 ibid VIII, 145–46.
109 Department of State Bulletin, XX (May 22,1950), 821.
110 “The Position of the United States with respect to Indo-China,” February 27, 1950, United States — Viet-Nam Relations, VIII, 285.
111 ibid
112 ibid
113 ibid
114 Truman, Harry S., Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y., 1956), II, 380.Google Scholar
115 ibid
116 Presidential Papers: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953 (Wash., 1960), I, 16Google Scholar. For another, ironically more “realistic” view see Dulles, John Foster, War or Peace (London, 1950), 231.Google Scholar
117 Presidential Papers: Kennedy, John F., 1963 (Wash., 1963), III, 412.Google Scholar
118 ibid
119 For example, see Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “Background of U. S. Policy in Southeast Asia,” Department of State Bulletin, LIV (May 30, 1966), 830–34, and President Johnson, “Viet-Nam: The Struggle To Be Free,”Google Scholaribid, LIV (March 14, 1966), 390–96.
120 Johnson, Lyndon Baines, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963–1969 (London, 1971), 134.Google Scholar
121 ibid, 136.
122 ibid
123 Quoted in New York Times, May 9,1972.
124 For a perceptive comment on this point, consult Dick Wilson, “The American Quarter-Century in Asia,” Foreign Affairs, LI (July, 1973), 821–22.Google Scholar
