Credibility Gap Pt 2: Why the credibility gap worked both ways.

The credibility gap was a destructive communication breakdown. Both parties, the press and the government, were at fault and responsible. How did this rift come about? Lets look at the events that led to the escalating spiral of mistrust.

Courtesy National Archives

The WWII generation of reporters and government spokespersons had an unwritten agreement that they would not release information until told the reporters were told it was ok. They were informed of the plans of operations before the operations took place. When the reporters went in with or behind the troops they had a working idea of the big picture. They held onto their information until they were told it was ok to release, voluntarily for the security of the soldiers in the field and their missions.

Courtesy National Archives

In the early sixties that generation of reporters began to retire. The new reporters coming in did not have that sense of security. They felt their job was to uncover whatever they could and be the first to get it in print.

The government sources withheld information because they did not trust the media to keep secrets. In the haste for a scoop, security was breeched and people were killed or captured, instead of completing their mission.

Courtesy National Archives

Kennedy once quipped, “Castro doesn’t need any agents in the US. All he has to do is read our newspapers”[i] (Chap 8 ~22:50 on the countdown).

The press did not trust government sources because they withheld information.

The U.S. government’s spokespersons did not trust the media not to reveal information that could get men in the field killed.

Part of the rift between the press and the government may have been the result of Ambassador Nolting’s apparent failure to confront Diem about the Saigon government’s expelling of American reporters Sully and Robinson in 1962. The Diem regime was stricter with reporters than the US censors.

Courtesy Wikipedia

While the anger was aimed at the Saigon government, the lack of satisfaction from the hardened Diem/Ngo regime caused that anger to fly in the only direction that it could, at the American government and military.

 

In Part 3 we will look at some other factors. Thanks for reading.

---

[i] Berlin 1961, (audiobook) Chap 8 ~22:50 (on the countdown).

The Vietnam War, the news media and the North Vietnamese Dich Van Program

Thanks to Mark Woodruff,[i] I recently became focused on the North Vietnamese program (Dich Van) to undermine the credibility of the United States, its military and especially its involvement in the Vietnam War.

I knew the Dich Van program existed because Douglas Pike[ii], Truong Nhu Tang[iii], the North Vietnamese’s War Experiences Recapitulation Committee[iv] and others mentioned it at various places in their writings. But Mark devotes an entire section in his book to the subject, concentrating lots of data into one location.

The program was designed to make America look like a mean ogre beating up on a defenseless puppy dog while supporting a puppet government containing a cesspool of corruption. For my final project in Jee-Young Chung’s Strategic Communications class at Southern Utah University, I am writing a paper analyzing the Dich Van program from a public relations perspective.

Let's look for a minute at the aftermath of the program. Fast forward 35 years from the Fall of Saigon and look first at a misnomer and then picture posted in an article by William Kern, who claims to be "the Moderate Voice"[v] when referring to the 1975 Fall of Saigon, he states,

 “The event marked the defeat of America and its allies and a victory for the forces of Ho Chi Minh”[vi].

Whoa there!
 

#1: South Vietnam was defeated in the Fall of Saigon, not America. We signed a peace treaty and our troops went home over 2 years before Saigon fell.

US combat troops were not involved in the defense of Saigon or the defense of any part of Vietnam during the 1975 offensive. If we had been, Saigon would still be Saigon, not Ho Chi Minh City.

US Marines that went in had one mission, assist in the evacuation of Embassy staff, American civilians and loyal South Vietnamese. There was also reported to be a mission to extract vital materials from a nuclear power plant that was being built, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the North Vietnamese. 

American forces had specific orders not to engage Communist forces. As it turns out the Communists had orders not to engage US forces as well.

#2: America was not defeated, we are still here, and we are still a super power! It is the Communist Empire that fell in 1990.

PS: Ho Chi Minh died in 1969 so they weren’t really his forces anymore, but that technicality (while demonstrating either Kern’s ignorance or his hero worship of Uncle Ho) is not the point.

Next lets look at the picture. Note the caption says, “Misery: Women and children take cover 20 miles from Saigon during the Vietnam War, 1966. The war ended 9 years later, April 30, 1975”[vii]. If you go to the Moderate Voice website (click on the photo) look at the photo and read the first paragraph you will get the impression that this misery is America’s fault.

However, look closely at the soldiers in the background. Those helmets are American helmets, not North Vietnamese or Vietcong. The women and children are taking refuge from the communists not the Americans. They are not afraid of the GIs, if so they would not turn their backs on them. They are afraid of the Communists.

Do you see how the context of a picture that shows Vietnamese civilians that are not sympathetic to the Communists is twisted to make the US appear to be the bad guys? This attitude is at least substantially a result of the Dich Van program. A detailed look at all possible causes is beyond the scope of this blog is a good topic for future research.

You might argue that we shouldn’t have been there, so they wouldn’t have to hide from the VC therefore we caused their misery (again an attitude developed by the Dich Van program). I answer that by asking who would have protected them then?

The North Vietnamese were determined to unite Vietnam under communist rule. The war would still have happened, though arguably it may not have lasted so long.

The South Vietnamese did not want to be ruled by the communists. That is why they voted with their feet and migrated south by the hundreds of thousands when Ho Chi Minh expelled the French. They chose the South Vietnamese government even with all its flaws.

Toledo Blade May 16th 1989

It is the North Vietnamese that should not have been there!

Once I finish the paper on Dich Van, I plan a series for this forum based on the paper. Watch for it. It should be interesting reading.

For one thing, it points out why the US media denied our overwhelming victories, sensationalized even our slightest mistakes and generalized the guilt of a few criminals onto every Vietnam Veteran.

But for the next post, I return to the Credibility Gap.

---

[i] Woodruff, Mark W. (1999). Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961 – 1973. Arlington VA: Vandamere Press, pp. 197 – 246.

[ii] Pike, D. (1969). War, Peace and the Viet Cong. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press.

[iii] Truong Nhu Tang, Chanoff, David and Doan Van Toai (1985). A Vietcong Memoir: An inside account of the Vietnam War and its aftermath. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. 

[iv] War Experiences Recapitulation Committee of the High-Level Military Institute, (1980) Joint Publications Research Service (trans.) Doc. No. 80968 (1982). Vietnam: The Anti-U.S. Resistance War for National Salvation, 1954-1975: Military Events. Hanoi: People’s Army Publishing House.

[v] http://themoderatevoice.com/70913/vietnam-celebrates-victory-over-the-greatest-imperialist-voice-of-vietnam-vietnam/

[vi] Ibid, paragraph 1

[vii] Ibid, photo caption.

http://themoderatevoice.com/70913/vietnam-celebrates-victory-over-the-greatest-imperialist-voice-of-vietnam-vietnam/

Memorial to a fallen WWI Vet

Sort of off topic I know, but I thought this is a great memorial

 

I don't know the original source I received it in an email from my friend Dave

The Credibility gap during the Vietnam War between the US Media and the US Government

One heavily used buzzword (buzzphrase) during the Vietnam Era was the “Credibility Gap”. It was a phrase coined by the media to draw attention to the gap between what the government was telling the reporters and what they believed to be true.

The Myth: The media was credible and the government was not.

In this next series of blogs I will put the Credibility Gap idea under a microscope.

Who’s Credible?

The US press appeared willing to take the word of the communists at face value.  Yet spokespersons of the US Government were treated as if they were not only lying, but as if they were the only liars in the world.

The attitude seemed to be that if the communists are caught lying, “It’s ok, they’re communists what do you expect.” But if a US government official lies then the world is broken. Catch one in a lie & they must all be lying. Everything they say is a lie.

There was an attitude that if the communists commit major atrocities, “It’s ok, they’re communists what do you expect.” But if a US or ARVN soldier commits an atrocity, then the world is broken. They must all be baby killers & every US & ARVN soldier must be committing atrocities.

Coverage of the Hue massacres vs. coverage of the My Lai massacre discussed in an earlier post on this blog is an example of this.

Let’s look at an example taking the communists at face value:

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Pham Van Dong in Newsweek about the ’72 Spring Offensive, Arnaud asks, “On March 30 (when the offensive began) you set out to prove that Vietnamization was a failure. Do you think that you have succeeded?”[1]

Pham’s answer sidesteps the question, “The US press has said itself it was a total failure”[2]. He refers to the US press reports rather than providing any actual evidence that Vietnamization is not working,

Pham Van Dong

De Borchgrave did not pin Pham down by asking for some solid evidence, or for any evidence at all for that matter. Journalistic integrity required him to get a better answer, but he took the Communist’s response at face value.

Why? Was it because the liked the answer he got? Was it already anti-Vietnam War enough for him?

Fact is, if Pham had any actual evidence, his own track record shows he would have presented that evidence. He had no evidence because his army was getting its tail kicked and he knew it. So his options were to cite the US press or admit Vietnamization was working well enough to defeat his own army in the 72 Spring Offensive.

-->

So the selective reporting of evasive answers perpetuated the myth that “Vietnamization was not working”.

Part 2 explains why the credibility gap worked both ways.

Picture credits, click on the picture or link to navigate to the source website in a new tab: Nixon = http://io9.com/the-technological-decision-that-doomed-richard-nixon-1619596034 ; De Borchgrave = http://www.babelio.com/auteur/Arnaud-De-Borchgrave/162779 ; Pham Van Dong = http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_V%C4%83n_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng

---

[1] De Borchgrave, A. (October 30, 1972). Exclusive from Hanoi. Newsweek, p. 26.

[2] Ibid, p. 26.

Mao’s callous attitude toward nuclear war

After the 2^nd Taiwan Strait crisis, Mao Zedong confirmed to Khrushchev “that he would be only too happy for China to fight a nuclear war with America alone. ‘For our ultimate victory’ he offered, ‘for the total eradication of the imperialists we [ie. the Chinese people, who had not been consulted] are willing to endure the first [US nuclear] strike. All it is, is a big pile of people dying”[1].

 

1955 to the Finnish ambassador, “America’s atom bombs are too few to wipe out the Chinese”[2].

---

[1] Jung, C., Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The unknown story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 414.

[2] Ibid.

Mao Zedong, and Nuclear Submarines

Young Mao Zedong

From the last post we can get a peek into Mao Zedong’s bag of tricks. When Mao learned that Moscow announced a 12-year plan for China to acquire nuclear weapons, “he announced grandly to his inner circle, ‘We must control the Earth’”[i].

Let’s peek into Mao’s bag of tricks again. Nuclear weapons are useless unless you have a way to deliver them to your target.

Shrapnel on home in Quemoy 1954

China bombarded Quemoy with over 30,000 Russian made artillery shells to begin the 2^nd Taiwan Strait crisis. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles made it clear that the US would defend not only Taiwan but also Quemoy both in word and deed. A large US Navy fleet steamed into the Taiwan Strait.

USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko flew secretly to Peking. He stated in his memoirs that Mao had a plan in case the Americans invade China because of a war over Taiwan. Gromyko quotes Mao:

Andre Gromyko

“In the event of war ... you should let them (the Americans) penetrate deep inside the territory”[ii] of China. “Only when the Americans are right in the central provinces should you give them everything you’ve got”[iii] (meaning nukes).  

“I was flabbergasted,”[iv] Gromyko exclaimed. “I heard at first hand utterances that showed a willingness to accept the possibility of an American nuclear attack on China, and then to discuss means by which to fight against it”[v].

Nikita Khrushchev

Mao “told Gromyko he would like to discuss with Khrushchev at some stage how to coordinate in such a war, and then raised the specter of Russia being wiped out”[vi] in the process.

“'When the war is over,' (Mao) asked, ‘Where shall we build the capital of the socialist world’ implying that Moscow would be gone”[vii]? Mao then played his trump card by telling Gromyko China would not involve Russia, if they, the Chinese, had the means to fight America.

Submarine launched nuke

High-end technology was then given to China comprising “a whole range of advanced ships and weapons, including conventional-powered ballistic missile submarines and submarine-to-surface missiles”[viii].

The 1^st Taiwan Strait crisis got Mao nuclear weapons. The 2^nd got him the means to deliver them. Still, Mao continued to bombard Quemoy for twenty years until his death on January 1st, 1979.

---

[i] Jung, C., Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The unknown story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 398.

[ii] Gromyko, Andrei, & Shukman, H. (translator) (1989). Memoirs. New York: Doubleday, p. 251.

[iii] Ibid., p. 252.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Jung, C., Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The unknown story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 414.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid., p. 415.

About Vietnam, the media and Dear America

For those wanting more information on Vietnam War Myths my capstone project Smokescreens, Lies and Deceptions: The Media and the Vietnam War is published. Click on the name or go to http://www.suu.edu/hss/comm/masters/capstone/thesis/simonson-r.pdf  to access. 

To best understand the project go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ-MGJa_ehE  and watch the film Dear America: Letters home from Vietnam before or while reading. The pertinent information is on pages 7 - 40 & the resources begin on page 41. 

Well worth the read, especially if you are a history buff. Enjoy!

Thanks!  

Links to opinions about Oppenheimer

For those who want to know more about Oppenheimer's involvement in the Soviet acquisition of Nukes I provide the following links to discussions of the subject:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/was-oppenheimer-soviet-spy-roundtable-discussion

http://www.businessinsider.com/newly-declassified-documents-clear-oppenheimer-2014-10http://www.businessinsider.com/newly-declassified-documents-clear-oppenheimer-2014-10

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-18/news/mn-47358_1_j-robert-oppenheimer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjkWaVuEstk

How did the Communists get Nukes?

We have all heard the rumors about how communist agents that were

Courtesy Wikipedia

--> members of the Oppenheimer group (some say Oppenheimer himself) smuggled nuclear weapons information/plans etc. into the Soviet Union in some misguided sense of a need to maintain a balance of power. Whether there is truth to that rumor is beyond the scope of my research.

However, I want to relate an interesting story about how Mao Zedong secured nuclear weapons for the Communist Chinese.

Courtesy sacu.org

In 1953 Mao Zedong wanted to coerce the Soviets into giving him atomic weapons. He tried to prolong the Korean War as a ploy but that did not work.

His next move was to send Chou En-lai to Moscow with the message that “he must have a war to ‘liberate Taiwan’”[i]. Mao knew that an invasion of Taiwan had little or no chance of success but his point was actually to “push the situation to the brink of nuclear confrontation with America, which would face Russia with the possibility of having to retaliate on China’s behalf unless it let Mao have the Bomb”[ii].

Courtesy PacificWeCare.org

Mao’s artillery barraged Taiwan’s island of Quemoy. US leaders figured Quemoy would be the likely staging area for an invasion of Taiwan, creating the “first Taiwan Strait crisis”[iii]. So they became concerned for the safety of their ally, also known as Nationalist China.

Stalin’s successor Nikita Khrushchev went to China to improve Sino-Soviet relations offering lots of equipment and aid, including a huge loan. Seeing his opening, Mao asked Khrushchev for help to build his own atom bomb. Khrushchev politely advised Mao that nukes were too expensive for China’s economy & that China would be protected “under Russia’s nuclear umbrella”[iv].

Courtesy reformation.org

Encouraged by the Soviet commitment, Mao escalated the situation by attacking more islands in the Taiwan Strait. President Eisenhower (Ike) signed “a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan”[v]. Mao pressed his attacks trying to get Ike to threaten to use nukes against China.

Courtesy WesternJournalism.com

March 16, 1955 (Ides of March) Ike “told a press conference ... he could see no reason that [Nukes] should not be used ‘just as you would use a bullet or anything else’”[vi].

Realizing the US had used nukes in the past, Khrushchev did not want to allow China to drag the USSR into a nuclear war with the US, so he gave nuclear technology to China. 

But Khrushchev was not as gullible as it seems, when you consider that it took China from 1955 to 1964 to actually have a working nuclear bomb. 

Next time a story about how Mao acquired nuclear submarines.

---

[i] Jung, C., Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The unknown story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 396.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] ibid.

[iv] ibid, p 397.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] ibid.

Off topic 5 new social media mgmt platforms

I just want to share the following link with you. It is an article about new social media management platforms from PracticalEcommerce online magazine http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/73844-5-New-Social-Media-Management-Platforms-for-Small-Businesses Enjoy!

Domino Theory Part 3: Vietnam, the Communists and nuclear weapons

Courtesy instruct.

westvalley.edu/kelly

Courtesy http://www.russia-ic.com/

The Soviet Union developed the A-bomb in 1949. 

They further developed the H-Bomb in 1955.

Courtesy interestingfacts.org

When Sputnik circled the globe in 1957 it demonstrated to the world that a nuclear warhead on a missile could travel from the Soviet Union to the United States.

With the help of the Soviets, The Chinese developed nuclear weapons in late 1964. There is an interesting story about why the Soviets aided the Chinese. I will relate that story in a later blog.

Courtesy cla.calpoly.edu

With the three enemies all having the capability to create and deliver nuclear weapons, any direct confrontation between the superpowers threatened the survival of the human race.

Eisenhower developed the “massive retaliation” doctrine. If you attack us, we can and will annihilate you. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, massive retaliation gave way to Kennedy’s “flexible response” which basically said, we’ll match whatever you send at us, but we’ll maintain the ability to obliterate you … several times over.

Courtesy Nixon Archives

Because a direct confrontation between the free world and the communist became so dangerous, the communists attempted to bring the third world countries into their sphere of influence by the use of wars of national liberation, using terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

Many of the former colonies belonged to European countries that were devastated during WWII. These emerging nations were ripe breeding grounds for communist agitators that provoked these wars of national liberation.

Courtesy instruct.

westvalley.edu/kelly

John Foster Dulles explained, The Communist “scheme is to whip up the spirit of nationalism so that it becomes violent[i]” using professional agitators. Then Communist military and technical leadership and the provision of military supplies “enlarge the violence. In these ways, international communism gets a stranglehold on the people and it uses that power to ‘amalgamate’ the peoples in the Soviet orbit[ii]”.

Courtesy McNamara, In Retrospect

  

All the dominos in Eastern Europe fell while the world stood by and watched. Congress let China go by cutting funding to Chang Kai Shek. Western leaders knew that a line had to be drawn somewhere. 

Vietnam was chosen as the place where the line was drawn to stop communist expansionism.

Next post: How did the Communists get the Nukes?

---

[i] John Foster Dulles (1888-1959), speech to Overseas Press Club (New York, March 29, 1954) Department of State Bulletin, April 12, 1954: America Should Consider Direct Military Intervention in Indochina, pp. 37-38.

[ii] Ibid.