Jump to content

WALTER CRONKITE


BEAST
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have another thread remembering Walter Cronkite, and I didn't think it was appropriate to discuss his role during the Vietnam War there. After Tet 1968, he basically announced that the war was unwinnable. The following is his editorial that he read on the news. As one of, if not the most trusted man in news, did his editorial change the way America percceived the war? Did it encourage the draft dodgers, and protestors to demonstrate? Did Cronkite change the way in which the war in Vietnam was reported?

 

"Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

 

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

 

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

 

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I have read and studied over the last few months seems to indicate that the press did cause a large change after Tet. One North Vietnam leader said "we were beat after Tet, but the U.S. press said we won and the U.S. Army believed it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt Barickman

Yup, he along with others like Brinkley were parroting the same line all over the US media. :pinch: Fact is, the communist forces suffered an historic loss during Tet. The heart of the VC was decimated with tens of thousands of KIAs. Also, a little noticed fact was that South Vietnamese public opinion started to go against the coummunist side as photos of their mass executions from Hue were shown on the TVs and many villages had at least one TV in them. Vo Nguyen Giap felt their side was done and to sue for peace but Ho CHi Minh knew of the impact of the media in the US and said "stay the course." Protests really took off in the US after this and it was all downhill. This is always a fact I mention in my classes when Vietnam is discussed. NBC did a documentary in the 1980s about this and Robert MacNamara's role entilted, Vietnam: Lessons of a Lost War. Also a copiously documented book came out a couple of years ago, Victory Unheralded: The Catastrophic Defeat of the VC and NVA by an author whose name escapes me now. Yes, our own side cheerleaded for the communist forces during that one; abundantly helped by college professors and students. :thumbdown:

 

Kurt Barickiman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Yes, our own side cheerleaded for the communist forces during that one; abundantly helped by college professors and students. :thumbdown:

 

Kurt Barickiman

... Aided and abetted by the MSM, it is still difficult (for me, even having lived through part of it in uniform) to know which of the two factions did the most damage or came first... and I cringe every time we see the same and worse from Leftists and the media since 2003. However, it appears our military took lessons learned to heart, and realized how to combat the domestic opponents better this go 'round.

 

Most culpable, however, was McNamara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who served in Vietnam, how did perception "in-country" differ prior to Tet and then after? How did the public perception of an unwinnable war effect your service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only have to watch the 24/7 coverage to tell he was a solid member of the left. Whether he meant to hurt the US or was just a "willing dupe" doesn't matter, the results were the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, the body isn't even cold yet.

 

True, this is one of the reasons that I didn't want to post this in the TAPS thread. However I have heard for so many years about how he was the most trusted name in news and I am interested in how his report of Tet changed how America perceived the war. Mr. Cronkite was an amazing reporter and journalist. His reporting of the Democratic Convention in Chicago and the first lunar landing will always be remembered, but in my opinion it was his editorial report after Tet that turned American opinion against the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to answer you question, I've always thought that he did in a small way undermine the US involvement.

I also thought that he did it to try and save US lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to answer you question, I've always thought that he did in a small way undermine the US involvement.

I also thought that he did it to try and save US lives.

I agree with Leigh... I am not a supporter of the Left and liberal ideas. Those who know me can testify :D

I also think that he held this position to save american soldiers lives. But he did it the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Cronkite played a larger role in the undermining of the US role in Vietnam; however I don't believe it was a Democrat-vs-Republican view. The Vietnam War was fought primarily under Democratic leadership (JFK, LBJ) and there is some evidence that Cronkite thought the war in Vietnam was not winnable as early as 1965/1966. Cronkite took Nixon's admininstration to task for Watergate, so he was not a schill for the Republican party either.

 

What were his reasons for not supporting US involvement? His past experience in WWII? More than most journalists, Cronkite had a good understanding of the cost of war. Maybe it was what he saw on his travels to Vietnam. If I understand this correctly, he was in 'Nam during Tet 1968 or shortly thereafter, so he should have seen the damage that was done to the Viet Cong. Maybe he just lost his trust in the press announcements coming out of the US and S. Vietnamese governments.

 

Whatever his reasons, I believe that this editorial did more to embolden the opposition and the encourage the public demonstrations then any other event. This editorial had a greater impact on the American attitude towards the war then the photo of Jane Fonda on a NVA AA gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live on Martha's Vineyard Island where Cronkite had a place. He wasn't highly thought of by my friends in the trades. Words like "rude" and "cheap" come to mind. A few years ago, the local rag interviewed him in which he stated he was liberal, and wished he could have turned more people to the liberal view. Didn't sound unbiased to me.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, the body isn't even cold yet.

True, but better men then him have passed on recently without a peep from the media. Guess we're just frustrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DwightPruitt
I believe that Cronkite played a larger role in the undermining of the US role in Vietnam; however I don't believe it was a Democrat-vs-Republican view. The Vietnam War was fought primarily under Democratic leadership (JFK, LBJ) and there is some evidence that Cronkite thought the war in Vietnam was not winnable as early as 1965/1966. Cronkite took Nixon's admininstration to task for Watergate, so he was not a schill for the Republican party either.

 

Beast, that's a very good post. IMHO, Cronkhite's point was not aimed at the administration as much as it was Westmoreland and his conduct of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my forum "handle" implies, I was part of USARV in 1972. 99% of the guys in the unit did not trust the media further than we could have thrown our M-88 Tank Retriever. I recall one occasion when Miss America came around Long Binh talking to the troops, of course the "media maggots" were there. They were ignored by everyone(no wonder) but they still tried to "interview" some of us. They got the "cold Shoulder" as by then everyone knew where the media stood.

After the NVA/VC defeat at An Loc most of us felt the war would be over soon, but then good ole Henry Kissinger fixed things up.

IMHO Cronkite was a "closet liberal" who fooled the Americam public by his granfatherly appeal and smooth presentation of the "news".

There is much blame to go around for the outcome of the War in Vietnam, Cronkite and the media was part of it, and little has changed even now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live on Martha's Vineyard Island where Cronkite had a place. He wasn't highly thought of by my friends in the trades. Words like "rude" and "cheap" come to mind. A few years ago, the local rag interviewed him in which he stated he was liberal, and wished he could have turned more people to the liberal view. Didn't sound unbiased to me.

Steve

 

I had recently read that he didn't like the fact that the mainstream news media didn't always get to "set the agenda", anymore. I believe this was in reference to his dislike of conservative talk radio and conservative TV. Yes, he had a very positive effect on making the Vietnam War a losing proposition in the minds of many Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...