1975: Saigon surrenders

[Dinner]

The Chinese Communists understood one thing: Force. They knew the war was unpopular in the U.S. and they thought they could get use delaying tactics (at the peace table) against Eisenhower just like they had against Truman. Eisenhower relayed a message to the communist Chinese government two weeks before, what would become, the end of the war. What did the message say? The paraphrased version is: Sign the cease fire treaty with in two weeks or I will launch a nuclear attack upon the Chinese mainland and go to Congress for a declaration of war leading to a full American mobilization. I guess Mao took threats from a guy who had ordered half Europe burned seriously because he signed the cease fire before the deadline expired.

[Ned]

Eisenhower HAD balls!

[Ned]

You know what really disgusts me. The pattern of weakness begun by Truman still infects the Democrat party. Democrats had in Roosevelt one the greatest leaders our country had ever seen. A true hero of the ages. To see this party under the control of weaklings and appeasers since is, as I said, disgusting.

I must say, though, that Clinton did a fairly good job as president. He was willing to use force when necessary. But still the majority of the Democrat politicians were against Gulf War I and the current war. There are exceptions, of course, but the party itself is so pacifist that I hold no hope of any of these "patriotic" Democrats gaining the nomination of their party anytime soon.

[gsmoove23]

Eisenhower had campaigned to end the war, the fact that he used a threat of expanding the war to try to bring about peace is not at all surprising.

I would also remind you that it was Truman who started the Korean War and passed the 38th and Kennedy who escalated Vietnam, and stood down the Soviets in Cuba

Your view of the Democrats is a little flawed

[Ned]

Hah, it was MacArthur who intervened to help Korea and who sought to pursue the NK's North. As I said before, had Truman been left to make these decisons on his own, he would have probably decided to do nothing.

Kennedy got the missiles out of Cuba, but at what price? And the question must be asked, why were they there in the first place? Weakness at the Bay of Pigs, weakness at the first summit, doing nothing about the Berlin Wall except struting around and declaring he was a hotdog, "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Then when the missiles were still being set up in Cuba and he could have taken them out, or he could have invaded Cuba and solved the problem of Castro once and for all, he capitulates and guarantees that the US will never invade Cuba, giving the Soviets a base of operation in the America's. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.

On IndoChina, he first surrenders in Laos by accepting a coaltion government that was to be "neutral." As soon as the ink was dry, the NV began subverting that government as everyone predicted. Eisenhower had said that control of Laos was critical to the defense of SV. But Kennedy capitulated.

Next he "supports" SV by sending in minimal US forces and by assassnating Diem. He carefully avoids threatening the North with War unless they back off. What kind of ally is this?

Then we have Johnson. 'Nuff said.

McGovern promised to crawl on his yellow belly all the way to Hanoi for peace.

Jimmy Carter took his quest to undermine dictators by undermining first pro-US dictators while coddling communist dictators. He caused the fall of Iran. But, to his credit, he supported the resistence in Afghanistan.

Clinton was our first anti-military president. Yet, as we saw, he began to have a positive effect later in his presidency when he used that same military to fix some troubled areas of the globe. His critics often said it was merely Wag the Dog to divert attention away from is many scandals.

See, I give some Democrats credit where credit is due. I simply believe that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, (McGovern) and Carter were largely despicable in their conduct of foreign policy.

The Democrats, or at least some of them, know that foreign policy is a major problem for them. But, I imagine they will not nominate a pro-war Democrat that would neutralize this issue. So it will be a major issue in the next election, I predict.

[Dinner]

Most historians have said Kennedy did really well at standing up to Krushiev at the Berlin confrence. Supposedly in the first day of the meeting Kushiev stormed in late and began shouting at Kennedy saying "You want war? We'll if you don't surrender West Berlin right now then there will be war". To which Kennedy looked Kushiev dead in the eye and said "Then Mr. Krushiev there will be war!" and then Kennedy stormed out of the meeting, called Mcnamara and ordered the military to its highest alert. The whole first day lasted like three minutes!

Latter that night the Soviet Ambassador came by to appallogize to Kennedy saying Krushiev had misspoken and that it would be best for the negotiations to continue!

BTW with reguards to Cuba it was a very good thing we didn't invade back, as we now know, the Soviets had two opporational nuclear missiles and the local Soviet commander was actually given authorization to use them if the US invaded Cuba. That would have meet nuclear war without a shadow of a doubt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Most historians have said Kennedy did really well at standing up to Krushiev at the Berlin confrence. Supposedly in the first day of the meeting Kushiev stormed in late and began shouting at Kennedy saying "You want war? We'll if you don't surrender West Berlin right now then there will be war". To which Kennedy looked Kushiev dead in the eye and said "Then Mr. Krushiev there will be war!" and then Kennedy stormed out of the meeting, called Mcnamara and ordered the military to its highest alert. The whole first day lasted like three minutes!

Latter that night the Soviet Ambassador came by to appallogize to Kennedy saying Krushiev had misspoken and that it would be best for the negotiations to continue!

BTW with reguards to Cuba it was a very good thing we didn't invade back, as we now know, the Soviets had two opporational nuclear missiles and the local Soviet commander was actually given authorization to use them if the US invaded Cuba. That would have meet nuclear war without a shadow of a doubt.

But, our navy always knew exactly where the Soviet subs were. They had no realistic chance of launching -- assuming of course that Kennedy gave the order to take them out as he had to.

The Soviets were being EXTREMELY provactive. As I said, Kennedy got to this position because he had shown weakness several times before.

(Actually, when I think of the way Kruschev was behaving, I think of Yang in Alpha Centauri.)

[Dinner]

The missiles in question during the Cuban missile crisis were land based not sea based. Apparently we found out about them a few days to late and two of them were opporational by the time the crisis was in full swing.

[Ned]

Oerdin, I think the USAF could take those missles out in a surprise attack.

The problem with leaving them there is that there was that they could be launched and hit their targets before we could launch. This made the Cuban nukes a first strike weapon.

[Tingkai]

I always enjoy reading Ned's version of history. It's always good for a laugh.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always enjoy reading Ned's version of history. It's always good for a laugh.

Yeah, it's fun. I got the bit about the subs from Tom Clancy, of all people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I always enjoy reading Ned's version of history. It's always good for a laugh.

No, actually I remember a lot of it differently from how many here protray the historical events. I remember my Dad, who served under MacArthur, saying at the time that Truman was the worst president we had ever had. His popularity was lower than even Grey Davis of California, the worst in US history by a sitting president.

At the time, MacArhtur was a genuine hero to most Americans.

So when I see the conventional wisdom concerning Truman and MacArthur be 100% reversed from what it was then, I just have to correct the record a little.

As to Kennedy, the conventional wisdom at the time was that he was being severely tested by communism. A lot of this had to do with the Bay of Pigs. As to Laos, many were dismayed at Kennedy's sellout. The Cuban missle crisis, at the time, seemed to be a feather in Kennedy's cap. But when the news about the guarantee to Castro and the Atlas missiles in Turkey emerged, we began to suspect that what Kennedy achieved was only a partial victory.

At the time, most Americans supported putting troops into Vietnam. We even supported the Tonkin Gulf resolution. We had no idea that Vietnam would become such a bloodbath.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Oerdin, I think the USAF could take those missles out in a surprise attack.

You mean you think Miami would not have been vaporized by a nuclear strike?? Whew, that's a relief. For a moment I thought you might be advocating reckless action.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
. . . Truman refused to intensify the draft for fear he would lose the upcoming election (An election which he lost any way).

OMG, you mean Thomas Dewey actually got elected?!? Why wasn't I informed??

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Afghanistan was known well for it's fierce guerilla fighters, who had defeated the Soviet Union just a little earlier.

Of course, it is convenient to neglect little facts such as the US gave support to these fighters.