# data[].attributes.headline
Soldiers returning home after Nixon ends the war

# data[].attributes.subject
Soldiers returning home after Nixon ends the war

# data[].attributes.headline
Newspaper highlights Nixon Signing Paris Peace Accords

# data[].attributes.subject
Newspaper highlights Nixon Signing Paris Peace Accords

# data[].attributes.headline
Nixon addresses Nation about his plan: Vietnamization

# data[].attributes.subject
Nixon addresses Nation about his plan: Vietnamization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Good evening, my fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world-the war in Vietnam.

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.

How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration?

What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace? Now, let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20.

--The war had been going on for 4 years.

--31,000 Americans had been killed in action.

--The training program for the South Vietnamese was behind schedule.

--540,000 Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number.

--No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.

--The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad.

In view of these circumstances there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.

From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war.

The great question is: How can we win America's peace?

Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place?

Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.

Now, many believe that President Johnson's decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others--I among them--have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.

But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.

For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before.

--They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.

--We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.

--With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation--and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the

Communists took over in the North. For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world.

Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.

In 1963, President Kennedy, with his characteristic eloquence and clarity, said: "we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.

"We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."

President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.

For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.

--A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.

--Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest.

--This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace--in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.

Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.

For these reasons, I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and battlefront.

In order to end a war fought on many fronts, I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts.

In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, and on a number of other occasions I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.

--We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within 1 year.

--We have proposed a cease-fire under international supervision.

--We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon Government has pledged to accept the result of the elections.

We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we are willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future. At the Paris peace conference, Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings.

Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms, which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the Government of South Vietnam as we leave.

We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized, in January, that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.

Tonight I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace--initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.

I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace.

--Soon after my election, through an individual who is directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi's replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations.

--Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge, and I, personally, have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam. None of these initiatives have to date produced results.

--In mid-July, I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I am now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh [President, Democratic Republic of Vietnam] on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end. Let me read from that letter to you now.

"Dear Mr. President:

"I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf, I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one--least of all the people of Vietnam ....

"The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture, both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."

I received Ho Chi Minh's reply on August 30, 3 days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative.

The full text of both letters is being released to the press.

--In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions.

--We have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communication which may still prove to be productive. But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago and since this administration came into office on January 20, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Well now, who is at fault?

It has become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government.

The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.

There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi's deciding to negotiate, to negotiate seriously.

I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth-the bad news as well as the good news-where the lives of our young men are involved.

Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front.

At the time we launched our search for peace I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiation. I, therefore, put into effect another plan to bring peace--a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front.

It is in line with a major shift in U.S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine--a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam, but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.

We Americans are a do-it-yourself people. We are an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.

In Korea and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.

Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: "When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war but not to fight the war for them."

Well, in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia:

--First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

--Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

--Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, and other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.

The defense of freedom is everybody's business--not just America's business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.

The policy of the previous administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significantly did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.

The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces.

In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams' orders so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.

Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 percent.

And now we have begun to see the results of this long overdue change in American policy in Vietnam.

--After 5 years of Americans going into Vietnam, we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15, over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam including 20 percent of all of our combat forces.

--The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Two other significant developments have occurred since this administration took office.

--Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack, over the last 3 months is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year.

--Most important--United States casualties have declined during the last 2 months to the lowest point in 3 years.

Let me now turn to our program for the future.

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand. As I have indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.

One of these is the progress which can be or might be made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June. Now, this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable.

We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.

Along with this optimistic estimate, I must--in all candor--leave one note of caution.

If the level of enemy activity significantly increases we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.

However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point.

At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago, there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam. I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program.

We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties, and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors.

If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy.

Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage. If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.

This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy, which as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, I am making in meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.

My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war.

--I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.

--Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary--a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom. I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way.

It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace--not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.

Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators. carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.

For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.

And now I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this Nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war.

I respect your idealism.

I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.

--I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam.

--But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world.

--And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.

I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.

If it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.

I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days. But I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion

Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the Wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.

Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

And so tonight--to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans--I ask for your support.

I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.

The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.

Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.

Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, ¹ President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end war." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.

¹ Later research indicated that the desk had not been President Woodrow Wilson's as had long been assumed but was used by Vice President Henry Wilson during President Grant's administration.

Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated--the goal of a just and lasting peace.

As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the Nation along it.

I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.

Thank you and goodnight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good evening, my fellow Americans: Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world-the war in Vietnam. I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nixon's address on chemical warfare (transcript)

# data[].attributes.subject
Nixon's address on chemical warfare (transcript)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[461] Nov. 25 Public Papers of the Presidents

461 Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs. November 25, 1969

SOON AFTER taking office I directed a comprehensive study of our chemical and biological defense policies and programs. There had been no such review in over 15 years. As a result, objectives and policies in this field were unclear and programs lacked definition and direction.

Under the auspices of the National Security Council, the Departments of State and Defense, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Office of Science and Technology, the intelligence community, and other agencies worked closely together on this study for over 6 months. These Government efforts were aided by contributions from the scientific community through the President's Science Advisory Committee.

This study has now been completed and its findings carefully considered by the National Security Council. I am now reporting the decisions taken on the basis of this review.

CHEMICAL WARFARE PROGRAM

As to our chemical warfare program, the United States:

-Reaffirms its oft-repeated renunciation of the first use of lethal chemical weapons.
-Extends this renunciation to the first use of incapacitating chemicals.

Consonant with these decisions, the administration will submit to the Senate, for its advice and consent to ratification, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (1) which prohibits the first use in war of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare." The United States has long supported the principles and objectives of this Protocol. We take this step toward formal ratification to reinforce our continuing advocacy of international constraints on the use of these weapons.

(1) League of Nations Treaty Series (vol. 94, p. 65).

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

Biological weapons have massive, unpredictable and potentially uncontrollable consequences. They may produce global epidemics and impair the health of future generations. I have therefore decided that:

-The United States shall renounce the use of lethal biological agents and weapons, and all other methods of biological warfare.
-The United States will confine its biological research to defensive measures such as immunization and safety measures.
-The Department of Defense has been asked to make recommendations as to the disposal of existing stocks of bacteriological weapons. In the spirit of these decisions, the United States associates itself with the principles and objectives of the United Kingdom Draft Convention which would ban the use of biological methods of warfare.(2) We will seek, however, to clarify specific provisions of the draft to assure that necessary safeguards are included.

(2) Annex to United Nations General Assembly Document of November 3, 1969 (A/7741 DC/232).

Neither our association with the Convention nor the limiting of our program to research will leave us vulnerable to surprise by an enemy who does not observe these rational restraints. Our intelligence community will continue to watch carefully the nature and extent of the biological programs of others.

These important decisions, which have been announced today, have been taken as an initiative toward peace. Mankind already carries in its own hands too many of the seeds of its own destruction. By the examples we set today, we hope to contribute to an atmosphere of peace and understanding between nations and among men.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
166. Statement Issued by President Nixon, November 25, 1969

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
461] Nov. 25 Public Papers of the Presidents 461 Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs. November 25, 1969 SOON AFTER taking office I directed a comprehensive study of our chemical and biological defense policies and programs. There had been no such review in over 15 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Wayne stars in this classic war film

# data[].attributes.headline
Economy under Nixon compared to President Average since 1953

# data[].attributes.subject
Economy under Nixon compared to President Average since 1953

# data[].attributes.headline
"Silent Majority" Speech - President Nixon

# data[].attributes.subject
"Silent Majority" Speech - President Nixon

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the war develop under this president?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the war develop under this president?

# data[].attributes.body
Towards the end of the second term of his presidency, President Nixon sought out to take part in "Vietnamization", which was the act of withdrawing from the Vietnam conflict. However, before this, President Nixon fed into the war between the years 1971 to 1973, but not as much as some other presidents did. It wasn't until 1973 that troops were finally stopped from being deployed to Vietnam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Printable Version In the 1968 election, Republican Richard Nixon claimed to have a plan to end the war in Vietnam, but, in fact, it took him five years to disengage the United States from Vietnam. Indeed, Richard Nixon presided over as many years of war in Indochina as did Johnson. About a third of the Americans who died in combat were killed during the Nixon presidency.

Insofar as he did have a plan to bring "peace with honor," it mainly entailed reducing American casualties by having South Vietnamese soldiers bear more of the ground fighting--a process he called "Vietnamization"--and defusing anti-war protests by ending the military draft. Nixon provided the South Vietnamese army with new training and improved weapons and tried to frighten the North Vietnamese to the peace table by demonstrating his willingness to bomb urban areas and mine harbors. He also hoped to orchestrate Soviet and Chinese pressure on North Vietnam.

The most controversial aspect of his strategy was an effort to cut the Ho Chi Minh supply trail by secretly bombing North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia and invading that country and Laos. The U.S. and South Vietnamese incursion into Cambodia in April 1970 helped destabilize the country, provoking a bloody civil war and bringing to power the murderous Khmer Rouge, a Communist group that evacuated Cambodia's cities and threw thousands into re-education camps.

Following his election, President Nixon began to withdraw American troops from Vietnam in June 1969 and replaced the military draft with a lottery in December of that year. In December 1972, the United States began large-scale bombing of North Vietnam after peace talks reach an impasse. The so-called Christmas bombings led Congressional Democrats to call for an end of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

In late January 1973, the United States, South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and North Vietnam signed a cease-fire agreement, under which the United States agreed to withdraw from South Vietnam without any comparable commitment from North Vietnam. Historians still do not agree whether President Nixon believed that the accords gave South Vietnam a real chance to survive as an independent nation, or whether he viewed the agreement as a face-saving device that gave the United States a way to withdraw from the war "with honor."

Copyright 2021 Digital History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Printable Version In the 1968 election, Republican Richard Nixon claimed to have a plan to end the war in Vietnam, but, in fact, it took him five years to disengage the United States from Vietnam. Indeed, Richard Nixon presided over as many years of war in Indochina as did Johnson.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did foreign policy change under this president?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did foreign policy change under this president?

# data[].attributes.body
The foreign policy under President Nixon was Vietnamization. As part of ending the US's involvement, Vietnamization began a transition of removing American troops from Vietnam and pushing leadership of the conflict back to solely on South Vietnam. It is through this policy that America began to shift away from interfering in other nations affairs, lead the US to sign the Paris Peace Accords, and admit that the Vietnam War was a costly mistake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vietnamization was a strategy that aimed to reduce American involvement in the Vietnam War by transferring all military responsibilities to South Vietnam. The increasingly unpopular war had created deep rifts in American society. President Nixon believed his Vietnamization strategy, which involved building up South Vietnam's armed forces and withdrawing U.S. troops, would prepare the South Vietnamese to act in their own defense against a North Vietnamese takeover and allow the United States to leave Vietnam with its honor intact. But the Vietnamization process was deeply flawed from the beginning.

Nixon and the Vietnam War

When President Richard M. Nixon took office in January 1969, the U.S. had been sending combat troops to fight in Vietnam since 1965, and some 31,000 American lives had been lost.

However, the full-scale U.S. military commitment seemingly had made little progress in defeating communist North Vietnam and its Viet Cong guerrilla allies. The enemy forces had absorbed tremendous punishment but remained determined to overthrow the U.S.-supported government of South Vietnam and reunite the country under Communist rule.

Facing intense pressure from a war-weary public and widespread Vietnam War protests, Nixon sought a way to disengage American combat forces without appearing to abandon South Vietnam to the communists. He rejected calls from the anti-war movement to order an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and publicly expressed a desire to achieve "peace with honor" in Vietnam.

Toward this end, Nixon and his advisors-including Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird-developed a new strategy they called Vietnamization. The Vietnamization plan provided for a gradual, phased withdrawal of American combat forces, combined with an expanded effort to train and equip South Vietnam to take over military responsibility for its own defense.

The president announced his Vietnamization strategy to the American people in a nationally televised speech on November 3, 1969. He emphasized how his approach contrasted with the "Americanization" of the war that had taken place under his predecessor, President Lyndon B. Johnson.

"The defense of freedom is everybody's business, not just America's business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened," Nixon explained in his speech. "In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace."

Did you know? Democrat Hillary Clinton (1947-) did a college internship with Melvin Laird, creator of Nixon's Vietnamization strategy. "I've always kidded Bill Clinton that Hillary went wrong after meeting him," Laird said in a 2008 Reader's Digest interview. "She was a good Republican when she worked for me."

Invasion of Cambodia

In addition to U.S. troop withdrawals and efforts to prepare and modernize the South Vietnamese army, Nixon's Vietnamization strategy also featured programs designed to strengthen the South Vietnamese government and expand its political base in rural areas. He offered U.S. assistance to help South Vietnamese officials organize local elections and implement social reforms and economic development initiatives.

At the same time that the Vietnamization plan was put in place, however, the Nixon administration also escalated U.S. military activity in other parts of Southeast Asia. In April 1970, for example, the president secretly authorized bombing campaigns and a ground invasion of Cambodia, a neutral country.

When his expansion of the war came to public attention, Nixon asserted that the incursion into Cambodia was necessary to keep pressure on the enemy until the Vietnamization strategy took root. The president's actions nonetheless came under harsh criticism and prompted massive anti-war demonstrations across America.

Nixon gradually reduced the number of U.S. troops in Vietnam in several stages, from a peak of 549,000 in 1969 to 69,000 in 1972. However, during this same period, North Vietnamese leaders launched several offensives that tested the president's resolve and cast doubt on his Vietnamization strategy.

The March 1972 Easter Offensive, for instance, highlighted the poor performance of the South Vietnamese army and its heavy reliance on U.S. air power to repel the Communist attack.

Effectiveness of Vietnamization

In January 1973, the Nixon administration negotiated a peace agreement with North Vietnamese leaders. Under the terms of the settlement, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its remaining troops within 60 days in exchange for an immediate cease-fire, the return of American prisoners of war, and North Vietnam's promise to recognize the legitimacy of South Vietnam's government and submit future disputes to an international commission.

In his final report before leaving office that month, Laird declared the Vietnamization process completed: "As a consequence of the success of the military aspects of Vietnamization, the South Vietnamese people today, in my view, are fully capable of providing for their own in-country security against the North Vietnamese."

However, later events proved that the Laird's confidence was completely unfounded, as South Vietnam fell to North Vietnamese communist forces in 1975.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vietnamization was a strategy that aimed to reduce American involvement in the Vietnam War by transferring all military responsibilities to South Vietnam. The increasingly unpopular war had created deep rifts in American society. President Nixon believed his Vietnamization strategy, which involved building up South Vietnam's armed forces and withdrawing U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
What role did this president play in the Vietnam War?

# data[].attributes.subject
What role did this president play in the Vietnam War?

# data[].attributes.body
President Nixon was the president that served in office during the Vietnam war to start pulling out the troops 2 years after he said this originally. He poured in troops, as the other presidents did, but while doing so he deceived the public. He said the complete opposite of what he actually did; instead of calling the troops back and out of Vietnam, he added more troops. This led to the citizens of the United States to feel lied to, and therefore didn't trust the US government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Antiwar Movement Begins

In August 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, and President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the retaliatory bombing of military targets in North Vietnam. By the time U.S. planes began regular bombings of North Vietnam in February 1965, some critics had begun to question the government's assertion that it was fighting a democratic war to liberate the South Vietnamese people from Communist aggression.

The antiwar movement began mostly on college campuses, as members of the leftist organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) began organizing "teach-ins" to express their opposition to the way in which it was being conducted.

Though the vast majority of the American population still supported U.S. government policy in the Vietnam War, a small but outspoken minority was making its voice heard by the end of 1965, especially after Johnson began an increasingly aggressive air and ground war in Vietnam.

This vocal minority included many students as well as prominent artists, intellectuals and members of the "hippie" movement, i.e., the growing number of mostly young people who rejected authority and embraced the counterculture.

Did you know? Boxer Muhammad Ali was one prominent American who resisted being drafted into service during the Vietnam War. Ali, then heavyweight champion of the world, declared himself a "conscientious objector," earning a prison sentence (later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court) and a three-year ban from boxing.

Widespread Disillusionment

By November 1967, American troop strength in Vietnam was approaching 500,000 and U.S. casualties had reached 15,058 killed and 109,527 wounded. The Vietnam War was costing the United States some $25 billion per year, and disillusionment was beginning to reach greater sections of the taxpaying public.

More casualties were reported in Vietnam every day, even as U.S. commanders demanded more troops. Under the draft system of conscription, as many as 40,000 young men were called into service every month, adding fuel to the fire of the antiwar movement.

On October 21, 1967, one of the most prominent antiwar demonstrations took place as some 100,000 protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial-around 30,000 of them continued in a march on the Pentagon later that night.

After a brutal confrontation with the soldiers and U.S. Marshals protecting the building, hundreds of demonstrators were arrested. One of them was the author Norman Mailer, who chronicled the events in his book "The Armies of the Night," published the following year to widespread acclaim.

Also in 1967, the antiwar movement got a big boost when the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. went public with his opposition to the war on moral grounds, condemning the war's diversion of federal funds from domestic programs as well as the disproportionate number of Black casualties in relation to the total number of soldiers killed in the war.

At a march of over 5,000 protestors in Chicago, Illinois, on March 25, 1967, King called the Vietnam War "a blasphemy against all that America stands for."

Vietnam War Protest Songs

The Vietnam War protest inspired many popular songs that became an anthem for that generation. Phil Ochs wrote "What Are You Fighting For?" in 1963 and "I Ain't Marching Anymore" in 1965. Other songs whose very titles were a protest themselves included Pete Seeger's "Bring 'Em Home" (1966) and Joan Baez 's "Saigon Bride" (1967).

Nina Simone's "Backlash Blues" (1967) took a civil rights poem by Langston Hughes and adapted it into a protest of Vietnam: "Raise my taxes/Freeze my wages/Send my son to Vietnam." Marvin Gaye 's "What's Going On?" from 1971 went on to be one of the most popular songs of all time.

John Lennon's first song after leaving the Beatles, "Give Peace a Chance," hit airwaves in 1966. " Imagine," from 1971, has transcended the Vietnam era to be a timeless song of peace and unity.

Political Consequences of Vietnam War Protests

The launch of the Tet Offensive by North Vietnamese communist troops in January 1968, and its success against U.S. and South Vietnamese troops, sent waves of shock and discontent across the home front and sparked a most intense period of antiwar protests. By February 1968, a Gallup poll showed only 35 percent of the population approved of Johnson's handling of the war and a full 50 percent disapproved.

Joining the antiwar demonstrations by this time were members of the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, many of whom were in wheelchairs and on crutches. The sight of these men on television throwing away the medals they had won during the war did much to win people over to the antiwar cause.

After many 1968 New Hampshire primary voters rallied behind the antiwar Democrat Eugene McCarthy, President Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection.

Later that year, Hubert Humphrey accepted the Democratic nomination for president at the 1968 Democratic Convention, held at Chicago's International Amphitheatre. Meanwhile, outside the convention hall, 10,000 antiwar demonstrators showed up, clashing violently with security forces assembled by Mayor Richard Daley.

Humphrey lost the 1968 presidential election to Richard M. Nixon, who promised in his campaign to restore "law and order"-a reference to conflict over antiwar protests as well as the rioting that followed King's assassination in 1968-more effectively than Johnson had.

Silent Majority

The following year, Nixon claimed in a famous speech that antiwar protesters constituted a small-albeit vocal-minority that should not be allowed to drown out the "silent majority" of Americans. Nixon's war policies divided the nation still further, however: In December 1969, the government instituted the first U.S. draft lottery since World War II, inciting a vast amount of controversy and causing many young men to flee to Canada to avoid conscription.

Tensions ran higher than ever, spurred on by mass demonstrations and incidents of violence by officials such those at Kent State in May 1970, when National Guard troops shot into a group of protesters demonstrating against the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, killing four students.

At the Mayday Protest in 1971, thousands of antiwar protestors tried to shut down Washington, D.C., completely, all but crippling the U.S. government. Traffic was stopped for a few hours, and CIA director Richard Helms later remarked that Mayday was "one of the things that was putting increasing pressure on the [Nixon] administration to try and find some way to get out of the war."

Vietnam War Ends

As antiwar fervor grew, in mid-1971, Daniel Ellsberg brought about the publication of the Pentagon Papers -which revealed previously confidential details about the war's conduct-and misconduct by government and military officials. Ellsberg called the Pentagon Papers "evidence of a quarter-century of aggression, broken treaties, deceptions, stolen elections, lies and murder."

These and other revelations caused more and more Americans to doubt the accountability of the U.S. government and the integrity of the U.S. military establishment.

Finally, in response to an almost overwhelming antiwar mandate, Nixon announced the effective end to U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia in January 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, effectively ending the Vietnam War.

Sources

Vietnam War. Civil Rights and Labor History Consortium: University of Washington.
Anti-War Protests of the 1960s-70s. The White House Historical Association.
Anti-War Movement. PBS.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vietnam War Protests: Antiwar & Protest Songs - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vietnam War protests began among antiwar activists and students, then gained prominence in 1965 when the U.S. military began bombing North Vietnam heavily.

# data[].attributes.headline
Targets of Agent Orange and other Chemicals by the US Army during Vietnam

# data[].attributes.subject
Targets of Agent Orange and other Chemicals by the US Army during Vietnam

# data[].attributes.headline
What effects did warfare have on the environment?

# data[].attributes.subject
What effects did warfare have on the environment?

# data[].attributes.body
Between 1961 and 1971, the US used over 73 million liters of chemical agents in Vietnam. Among these chemicals, most prevalent, was Agent Orange. Intentionally, cultivated land, crops, and rivers were targeted along with an estimated 2.1-4.8 million Vietnamese people. To this day, this has lead to many areas unable to grow food and gather water, along with every generation of Vietnamese since developing birth defects and higher risks for diseases and cancers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unlike napalm, which immediately scalded its victims, Agent Orange kills and maims slowly over time, its effects passed down through generations. Credit: U.S. Army Operations in Vietnam R.W. Trewyn, Ph.D/Wikimedia

In the end, the military campaign was called Operation Ranch Hand, but it originally went by a more appropriately hellish appellation: Operation Hades. As part of this Vietnam War effort, from 1961 to 1971, the United States sprayed over 73 million liters of chemical agents on the country to strip away the vegetation that provided cover for Vietcong troops in "enemy territory."

Using a variety of defoliants, the U.S. military also intentionally targeted cultivated land, destroying crops and disrupting rice production and distribution by the largely communist National Liberation Front, a party devoted to reunification of North and South Vietnam.

Some 45 million liters of the poisoned spray was Agent Orange, which contains the toxic compound dioxin. It has unleashed in Vietnam a slow-onset disaster whose devastating economic, health and ecological impacts that are still being felt today.

This is one of the greatest legacies of the country's 20-year war, but is yet to be honestly confronted. Even Ken Burns and Lynn Novick seem to gloss over this contentious issue, both in their supposedly exhaustive "Vietnam War" documentary series and in subsequent interviews about the horrors of Vietnam.

"They began calling the war the Dirty War" All wars are dirty #VietnamTruths
- Veterans For Peace (@VFPNational) September 18, 2017
Vietnam's half-century of disaster
More than 10 years of U.S. chemical warfare in Vietnam exposed an estimated 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese people to Agent Orange. More than 40 years on, the impact on their health has been staggering.

Aerial spraying in central and southern Vietnam. Credit: Wikimedia

This dispersion of Agent Orange over a vast area of central and south Vietnam poisoned the soil, river systems, lakes and rice paddies of Vietnam, enabling toxic chemicals to enter the food chain.

Vietnamese people weren't the only ones poisoned by Agent Orange. U.S. soldiers, unaware of the dangers, sometimes showered in the empty 55-gallon drums, used them to store food and repurposed them as barbecue pits.

Unlike the effects of another chemical weapon used in Vietnam - namely napalm, which caused painful death by burns or asphyxiation - Agent Orange exposure did not affect its victims immediately.

In the first generation, the impacts were mostly visible in high rates of various forms of cancer among both U.S. soldiers and Vietnam residents.

But then the children were born. It is estimated that, in total, tens of thousands of people have suffered serious birth defects - spina bifida, cerebral palsy, physical and intellectual disabilities and missing or deformed limbs. Because the effects of the chemical are passed from one generation to the next, Agent Orange is now debilitating its third and fourth generation.
A legacy of environmental devastation
During the 10-year campaign, U.S. aircraft targeted 4.5 million acres across 30 different provinces in the area below the 17th parallel and in the Mekong Delta, destroying inland hardwood forests and coastal mangrove swamps as they sprayed.

The most heavily exposed locations - among them Dong Nai, Binh Phuoc, Thua Thien Hue and Kontum - were sprayed multiple times. Toxic hotspots also remain at several former U.S. air force bases.

Mangrove forests before and after spraying. Credit: Wikimedia

And while research in those areas is limited - an extensive 2003 study was canceled in 2005 due to a reported " lack of mutual understanding" between the U.S. and the Vietnamese governments - evidence suggests that the heavily polluted soil and water in these locations have yet to recover.

The dangerous quantity of residual dioxin in the earth thwarts the normal growth of crops and trees, while continuing to poison the food chain.

Vietnam's natural defenses were also debilitated. Nearly 50 percent of the country's mangroves, which protect shorelines from typhoons and tsunamis, were destroyed.

On a positive note, the Vietnamese government and both local and international organizations are making strides toward restoring this critical landscape. The U.S. and Vietnam are also undertaking a joint remediation program to deal with dioxin-contaminated soil and water.

The destruction of Vietnamese forests, however, has proven irreversible. The natural habitat of such rare species as tigers, elephants, bears and leopards were distorted, in many cases beyond repair.

In parts of central and southern Vietnam that were already exposed to environmental hazards such as frequent typhoons and flooding in low-lying areas and droughts and water scarcity in the highlands and Mekong Delta, herbicide spraying led to nutrient loss in the soil.

This, in turn, has caused erosion, compromising forests in 28 river basins. As a result, flooding has gotten worse in numerous watershed areas.

Some of these vulnerable areas also happen to be very poor and, these days, home to a large number of Agent Orange victims.

U.S. propaganda about Agent Orange was so effective, it fooled American troops into thinking it was safe, too.

War propaganda and delayed justice
During Operation Ranch Hand, the U.S. and South Vietnamese governments spent considerable time and effort making the claim that tactical herbicides were safe for humans and the environment.

It launched a public relations campaign included educational programs showing civilians happily applying herbicides to their skin and passing through defoliated areas without concern.

One prominent comic strip featured a character named Brother Nam who explained that "The only effect of defoliant is to kill trees and force leaves to whither, and normally does not cause harm to people, livestock, land, or the drinking water of our compatriots."

It's abundantly clear now that this is false. Allegedly, chemical manufacturers had informed the U.S. military that Agent Orange was toxic, but spraying went forward anyway.

Today, Agent Orange has become a contentious legal and political issue, both within Vietnam and internationally. From 2005 to 2015, more than 200,000 Vietnamese victims suffering from 17 diseases linked to cancers, diabetes and birth defects were eligible for limited compensation, via a government program.

U.S. companies, including Monsanto and Dow Chemical, have taken the position that the governments involved in the war are solely responsible for paying out damages to Agent Orange victims. In 2004, a Vietnamese group unsuccessfully attempted to sue some 30 companies, alleging that the use of chemical weapons constituted a war crime. The class action case was dismissed in 2005 by a district court in Brooklyn, New York.

Many American victims have had better luck, though, seeing successful multi-million-dollar class action settlements with manufacturers of the chemical, including Dow, in 1984 and 2012.

Brother Nam assured readers that herbicides were safe. Credit: Wikimedia

Meanwhile, the U.S. government recently allocated more than US$13 billion to fund expanded Agent Orange-related health services in America. No such plan is in store in Vietnam.

Out of sight, out of mind: #Vietnam's forgotten Agent Orange victims. #AgentOrange https://t.co/Z7XbBP7wge pic.twitter.com/L6Jo2o57Us
- VnExpress (@vietnamenglish) July 30, 2017

It is unlikely that the U.S. will admit liability for the horrors Agent Orange unleashed in Vietnam. To do so would set an unwelcome precedent: Despite official denials, the U.S. and its allies, including Israel, have been accused of using chemical weapons in conflicts in Gaza, Iraq and Syria.

As a result, nobody is officially accountable for the suffering of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange. The Burns and Novick documentary could have finally raised this uncomfortable truth, but, alas, the directors missed their chance.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How U.S. chemical warfare in Vietnam unleashed an enduring disaster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the end, the military campaign was called Operation Ranch Hand, but it originally went by a more appropriately hellish appellation: Operation Hades. As part of this Vietnam War effort, from 1961 to 1971, the United States sprayed over 73 million liters of chemical agents on the country to strip away the vegetation that provided cover for Vietcong troops in "enemy territory."

# data[].attributes.headline
How did Vietnam affect people’s lives? (soldiers/citizens)

# data[].attributes.subject
How did Vietnam affect people’s lives? (soldiers/citizens)

# data[].attributes.body
Casualty numbers began to remain high until Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. As such, American began to leave the Vietnam War. This allowed American soldiers to be reunited with their family back home and prevent any further casualties. This would relieve tensions about Vietnam and the Draft, but the tensions of the Cold War still remained.

# data[].attributes.headline
What were the economic effects of the war?

# data[].attributes.subject
What were the economic effects of the war?

# data[].attributes.body
The United State's economy boosted, but also caused inflation. During Nixon's first term as president, unemployment rates almost doubled (from 3% to 6%), and the average inflation rate grew by 2%

In 1970, the Economic Stabilization Act was designed to decrease the growing rates of unemployment and inflation by enabling the president to take action if the rates are growing uncontrollably.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/13576?s=1&r=23

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Vietnam War was a military campaign launched by North Vietnam against South Vietnam. The Vietnamese civil war began in 1959. The United States supported the South, while China and Russia supported the North. In 1965, the United States officially entered the war in response to North Vietnam's attack on a U.S. military ship. U.S involvement ended in 1973. The war ended in 1975.

The war killed 58,220 American soldiers and wounded 153,303 more.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Another 1,643 were missing in action. North Vietnam lost 1.1 million soldiers while 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died. Both sides lost more than 2 million civilians.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Vietnam was the most heavily bombed country in history. More than 6.1 million tons of bombs were dropped, compared to 2.1 million tons in World War II.﻿﻿﻿﻿ U.S. planes dumped 20 million gallons of herbicides to defoliate Viet Cong hiding places. It decimated 5 million acres of forest and 500,000 acres of farmland.

In September 1945, the winners of World War II decided to divide Vietnam instead of unifying it. They believed Vietnam did not have the experience to rule itself. Japan had ruled the country since 1940, and France had ruled it since 1887.

The 17th parallel split Vietnam in half. Ho Chi Minh, backed by China and Russia, took the northern territory. A democracy, backed by the United States, took the southern territory. As a result, North Vietnam became communist and South Vietnam based its economy on capitalism.

But dividing the country had economic consequences.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The North had mineral resources and manufacturing industries. Its centrally planned economy focused on industrial expansion at the expense of domestic consumption. The democracy in the South gave its people a higher standard of living by producing personal goods. The South was the rice-surplus area of the country, exporting more than 1 million tons of rice before World War II.

1887: The roots of the Vietnam War began when France colonized the country.﻿﻿﻿﻿

1940 - 1945: Japan beat the French in Vietnam during World War II.

1945: France took Vietnam back. Communist Ho Chi Minh led a nationalist guerrilla fight to declare independence.

1950: The Viet Minh and Chinese troops, armed with Soviet military equipment, attacked French outposts in Vietnam. President Eisenhower sent military advisors to assist the French fight against the spread of communism.

1954: The Viet Minh defeated France. President Eisenhower warned of a domino effect that could propel all of Southeast Asia into communist rule.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Geneva Accord divided North and South Vietnam on the 17th parallel. The U.S.-backed democracy governed the South, while Ho Chi Minh led the North.

1959: North Vietnam troops built the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia to supply guerrilla attacks against South Vietnam's government.

1960: President John F. Kennedy sent 400 Green Berets to fight the Viet Cong.

1962: U.S. aircraft began spraying Agent Orange to defoliate vegetation that hid Viet Cong.﻿﻿﻿﻿

1963-1965: JFK increased U.S. military advisers to more than 16,000. U.S.-backed military coup replaced Ngo Dinh Diem. Twelve more coups occurred, destabilizing South Vietnamese government.

1964: ​President Lyndon B. Johnson reported that North Vietnam patrol boats torpedoed the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin. Congress authorized U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict. There were 23,300 troops in Vietnam.﻿﻿﻿﻿

1965: President Johnson increased troops to 184,300.

1966: U.S. troops in Vietnam increased to 385,300.

1967: LBJ increased U.S. troops to 485,600.

1968: At Khe Sanh, 5,000 Marines held off 20,000 North Vietnamese for 77 days.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Months later, U.S. military leaders abandoned the base. North Vietnam launched the Tet Offensive.﻿﻿﻿﻿ It attacked 100 cities and outposts in South Vietnam, including the U.S. Embassy. The My Lai massacre further weakened support for the war.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Antiwar protests encouraged Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy to announce their candidacies for president. LBJ withdrew from the race. Richard Nixon won the election by promising to end the draft. U.S. troop level hit a peak of 536,100.

1969: U.S. troops conquered Hamburger Hill in a bloody battle, only to abandon it days later.﻿﻿﻿﻿ It stirred opposition to the war. Nixon instituted a draft lottery to overcome the perception that wealthier, white men were avoiding the draft through deferment.﻿﻿﻿﻿ U.S. troops in Vietnam dropped to 475,200. Nixon ordered the bombing of communist base camps in Cambodia. A recession began in December.

1970: U.S. troops attacked Cambodian base camps. National Guard killed four students in Kent State University antiwar protest.﻿﻿﻿﻿ U.S. National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger began secret peace negotiations with North Vietnam representatives in Paris.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Troop level dropped to 234,600. The recession lasted until November. Unemployment peaked at 6.1% in December.

1971: The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers.﻿﻿﻿﻿ It revealed the extent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam during the Kennedy administration. It also concluded that heaving bombing of North Vietnam did not reduce the enemy's will to fight.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The U.S. troop level fell to 156,800. In August, Nixon ended the gold standard. That sent the dollar plummeting, which increased import prices. He imposed a 10% tariff on imports, which also worsened inflation. He instituted wage-price controls to stop the inflation, but that slowed growth.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Companies couldn't lower wages, so they laid off workers to cut costs.

1972: Nixon increased bombing of North Vietnam civilians while reducing troops to 24,200. Nixon's policies created stagflation.

1973: Draft ended. Paris Peace Accords ended the war. Nixon ended the gold standard. The OPEC oil embargo began in October. The recession began in November. LBJ died of a heart attack.

1975: North Vietnam overran Saigon, and South Vietnam surrendered. The recession ended in March 1975.

The Vietnam War cost $168 billion or $1 trillion in today's dollars.﻿﻿﻿﻿ That included $111 billion in military operations and $28.5 billion in aid to South Vietnam.

Compensation benefits for Vietnam veterans and families still cost $22 billion a year.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Surviving spouses qualify for lifetime benefits if the veteran died from war wounds. Veterans' children receive benefits until age 18. If the children are disabled, they receive lifetime benefits. Since 1970, the post-war benefits for veterans and families have cost $270 billion.

First, they are the first vets who were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Called shell-shock in earlier wars, PTSD was recognized as a treatable disorder that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs should pay for. Vietnam vets are more likely to suffer from PTSD because they were not honored upon their return like vets in earlier wars. Instead, many clammed up about their war-time experience. As many faced retirement, their PTSD took center stage and required treatment.

Another illness unique to Vietnam vets is the effects of Agent Orange.﻿﻿﻿﻿ This defoliant caused health problems in 3 million Vietnamese, according to the Vietnamese Red Cross. The chemical dioxin causes cancer, diabetes, and birth defects.﻿﻿﻿﻿ A joint panel has asked for $300 million to clean up sites and treat people.

More than 2.5 million U.S. soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Veterans Affairs Department studied 668,000 Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange exposure.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Those who handled the chemical were a third more likely to have children with birth defects. Settlement Fund federal officials approved diabetes a decade ago as an ailment that qualifies for cash compensation.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ It is now the most compensated ailment for Vietnam vets.

The VA also recently included heart disease among the Vietnam medical issues that qualify.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Since it is the nation's leading cause of death, it will further increase compensation costs in the years to come.

U.S. gross domestic product by year reveals that the war boosted the economy out of a recession caused by the end of the Korean War in 1953.

Spending on the Vietnam War played a small part in causing the Great Inflation that began in 1965.﻿﻿﻿﻿ But so did spending on the War on Poverty and other LBJ social programs. In 1964, Congress approved a tax cut. The top marginal rate fell from 91% to 70%. That boosted economic growth enough to reduce the level of deficit spending. In 1965, Johnson signed the law creating Medicare. It helped create a heavy reliance on hospital care, causing rising health care costs. In its support of full employment, the Federal Reserve hesitated to raise interest rates.

The Vietnam War accelerated the mechanization of the agricultural industry.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In 1970, 25% of the U.S. population lived on farms or rural communities. Of those, 2.25 million men left to fight in Vietnam. Farms compensated by buying larger machines and concentrating on one main crop.

Controversy over drafting 18-year old men who could not vote led to two changes. In 1971, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. In 1973, the draft ended and the Department of Defense began relying on an all-volunteer force.

The war created distrust between the American people and the federal government.﻿﻿﻿﻿ Several events related to the war revealed how the government lied. First, the premise for the war may have been fabricated.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In 1964, President Johnson declared that the Vietnamese had attacked a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. In 1968, U.S. soldiers killed 500 unarmed civilians in the My Lai massacre.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In 1970, the Ohio National Guard shot four Kent State students who were protesting the Vietnam War.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In 1969, President Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia.﻿﻿﻿﻿ As a result, the American people no longer trusted government leaders. The 1972 Watergate scandal only confirmed this sentiment.﻿﻿﻿﻿

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Vietnam War was a military campaign launched by North Vietnam against South Vietnam. The Vietnamese civil war began in 1959. The United States supported the South, while China and Russia supported the North. In 1965, the United States officially entered the war in response to North Vietnam's attack on a U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
What technological advances took place in relation to Vietnam?

# data[].attributes.subject
What technological advances took place in relation to Vietnam?

# data[].attributes.body
After the United States withdrew from Vietnam, the need for advance weaponry became more predominant. An example of this is the "cloud", which enables soldiers to communicate flawlessly, as compared to the communication devices used in Vietnam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After the losses of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army experienced a wake-up call that it needed to improve its warfighting technologies, which in turn led to many of the tools and practices that made it a world military power.

But according to Maj. Gen. William Hix, deputy director of the Army Modernization Command Task Force, the Army has since been "living off the fat" of those technological advances, and will have to do more to keep ahead of the other rising world powers.

China and Russia have set goals to improve their military prowess through technology over the next couple decades, with China especially aiming to become the world military power by 2050.

"We have to recognize that it's a challenge, and that they are serious-minded about what they intend to achieve, as are the Russians," Hix said. "The IT revolution is fundamental to the combat output of the Army. And our adversaries' perception of that output, our competitive advantage, is fundamental to preventing war, which is our first job."

According to Hix, Operation Desert Storm was a sign for China and Russia that they were not capable of military combat on the same level as the U.S. But those events also drove their leaders to push harder for military advancement.

"We should give them something else to recognize that they're not ready for," Hix said. He explained that network capabilities would be at the core of the Army's advancements.

The advantage the United States has, Hix said, is that it has already cultivated a culture that prioritizes innovation in ways that China and Russia do not.

"I believe that their systems, their political and economic systems, effectively create a ceiling that they can't get through. And because of the dynamic nature of our society and our political and economics, we always reward top doers and innovators in ways that they will not be able to match," Hix said.

At the top of the list of technologies that will aid the Army war fighter, Hix said, are networks such as the cloud that can connect troops more effectively and virtual reality training systems.

"The idea is that the immersion in a virtual environment gives the average leader the sets of reps to raise their game in ways that we have not been able to do because of the expense of live training," Hix said.

But having all the technology in the world won't mean anything if the Army doesn't have a clear plan of how to use it, he said.

"Technology by itself is not a panacea, ownership is not nine-tenths of the law in war," Hix said. "You have to have an intellectual concept that compliments and provides an integrated approach to how you leverage and integrate and eventually apply technology to solve problems."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Army 'living off the fat' of post-Vietnam tech advances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the losses of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army experienced a wake-up call that it needed to improve its warfighting technologies, which in turn led to many of the tools and practices that made it a world military power. But according to Maj. Gen.

# data[].attributes.headline
What was the war’s impact on U.S culture?

# data[].attributes.subject
What was the war’s impact on U.S culture?

# data[].attributes.body
Thousands of books alone were written, mainly focusing on the negative affects it had on the Vietnam conflict, and the American soldiers. The popular American culture took these negative affects and included them into these productions, which had a huge impact on the citizens who stayed at home during this conflict occurring across the world.
Songs are generally a large influence on people, which gave the artists of these songs a way to get their thoughts out. For example, in John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" (produced in 1969), he demonstrates to the public that peace is the way to go, and their is no room for judgement. "Bagism" is another idea, as it creates a form of protest by wearing a bag in order to prevent others from criticizing your looks and what you wear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview
No American conflict of the twentieth century divided the country as much as the Vietnam War. The advanced technological innovations available to the American media in the 1960s and 70s allowed them to capture the atrocities of war on a daily basis in a way that had never before been possible. Videos and pictures portrayed the violence and horror that took place during the conflict, painting the American government and armed forces in a very polarizing manner. These mass media sources gave a visible picture of the everyday American soldier and the difficulties of war that he was forced to live with. The constant presence of the American media made it difficult for the government to cover up casualty and death totals, allowing the general public full knowledge of the carnage that occurred during the conflict. American media sources also made it clear how the war had affected the Vietnamese people, as approximately two million local people lost their lives during the gruesome conflict (Vietnam Democide Sources).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview No American conflict of the twentieth century divided the country as much as the Vietnam War. The advanced technological innovations available to the American media in the 1960s and 70s allowed them to capture the atrocities of war on a daily basis in a way that had never before been possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Nixon's legacy, in regards to Vietnam, was being the President that ended the Vietnam War, In 1973, following the signing of the Paris Peace accords, America had left the Vietnam War. To a lesser extent, part of Nixon's legacy will be on his addresses to the American people about getting America to ratify the Geneva Accords, as well as highlighting the "Silent Majority" of Americans Wanting the Vietnam War to come to an end. Beyond Vietnam, and into his second term, Nixon would leave office after recordings cam up showing his administration was spying on his political opposition. This would develop into the infamous scandal known as Water Gate. Lastly, Nixon helped to set the foundation for modern day environmental regulations as well as ending the Vietnam Draft.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jan. 9, 2013 -- intro: Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of 37th President Richard Nixon.

Born in a farmhouse in Yorba Linda, Calif., in 1913, who could have known the Nixon baby would go on to be one of America's most influential and disgraced presidents of all time?

Nixon is perhaps best known for his leading role in the scandal at the Watergate hotel, immortalized in American pop culture through the book-turned-movie by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein called "All the President's Men." As former Washington bureau chief Donald Fulsom put it, Nixon "said, 'I'm not a crook,' but he was."

But ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts and Nixon scholars insist: Nixon's legacy is larger than Watergate. He revolutionized foreign relations, set a foundation for modern environmental regulations and even advanced women's rights. Read on to find out more about Nixon's accolades and what biographer Bob Bostock says the president himself would call his "valleys."

quicklist:1title: Watergatetext: Following the 1972 election in which Nixon defeated Democratic candidate George McGovern by a landslide, officials traced a brake-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel back to the Committee to Re-elect the President.

Nixon initially denied involvement, but during a televised hearing, he was forced to hand over Oval Office recordings of his conversations about the scandal. Eighteen minutes of those recordings were missing and have never been recovered since.

In August 1974, the House Judiciary Committee decided to move forward with the impeachment process, prompting Nixon to resign on Aug. 4, 1974, becoming the first president to do so.

Fulsom, who covered Nixon as a White House correspondent at the time and wrote the book "Nixon's Darkest Secrets," said that resignation is the first thing Americans think of when it comes to the 37th president.

Nixon's scandals went beyond Watergate, Fulsom said, calling him "the most corrupt president we've ever had."

"He pled off and got out of jail early a number of mafia figures who had enriched his personal coffers, and he was just one of the worst presidents," Fulsom said. "He hated just about everyone, including the press. It's very hard for me to think of him personally in any kind of positive way."

media:18164929

quicklist:2title: China and the USSRtext: Nixon's second best-known legacy in the eyes of the American people is built on the inroads he made for the United States in China, according to ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts.

"He saw that there was this enormous nation that we had had no relations with for a decade and that it was counterproductive and he was ready to take the steps that would possibly bring China into the community of nations and he understood that he was the person to do that," Roberts said.

As a congressman, Nixon made a name for himself as what Roberts called "a red-baiter," taking a seat on the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was charged with rooting out Communist elements in American society.

"So for him to then go to Communist China was huge," Roberts said.

Bob Bostock, a writer for the Nixon Library who phone-banked for Nixon at age 14, said the president's trip to China at the end of 1972 was his best-known accomplishment.

"Bringing China into the family of nations, if you will, has not only played a huge role in China's own economic growth and increased levels of freedom for the Chinese people, it's also helped reduce tensions that existed not only during the Cold War," he said

Nixon's visit to Moscow in the same year and his detente with the Soviet Union also helped heal diplomatic wounds inflicted during the Cold War, according to Bostock.

Fulsom, ever a sharp Nixon critic, went so far as to say the president put an end to the Cold War.

In his old age, Nixon's foreign relations wisdom was recognized by current leaders, and they turned to him for advice, Roberts said.

"Future presidents and other politicians did begin to consult him. And now after a great deal of turmoil and controversy, his daughters have turned his library over to the National Archives and Records Administration, just like the other past presidents," Roberts said. "And it tells his story.

media: 18164885

quicklist: 3title: The EPAtext: Today the Environmental Protection Agency is championed mainly by Democrats, but in 1970, Nixon created the organization, hoping to address rampant pollution that had become problematic in the previous decade.

Environmental problems in the United States burst into the national consciousness after the Cuyahoga River caught fire in June 1969, and in 1970, 20 million Americans protested against pollution on Earth Day, according to the Earth Day Network.

Nixon, ever the fiscal conservative, clashed with Congress on how much to spend on the Clean Water Act to prevent such dangers from happening again, and Congress eventually overrode Nixon's veto.

But he is credited with establishing two environmental oversight bodies -- the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency -- and with submitting numerous environmental proposals to Congress.

Bostock said Nixon's work on the environment was "hugely important."

"Our environment is in much better shape," thanks to Nixon, Bostock said.

media: 18164872

quicklist: 4title: Ending the Drafttext: While Nixon's critics accuse him of undermining Lyndon Johnson's peace talks with the Vietnamese government and prolonging American involvement in Vietnam, few fault him for putting an end to the vastly unpopular system of drafting young men to serve in the armed forces.

In September 1969, he cancelled the November and December calls for the draft.

After reviewing results of the Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force in February 1970, Nixon told Congress that he recommended phasing out the draft all together.

"We have all seen the effect of the draft on our young people, whose lives have been disrupted first by years of uncertainty, and then by the draft itself. We all know the unfairness of the present system, no matter how just we try to make it," Nixon wrote in his Special Message to the Congress on Draft Reform.

The plan Nixon suggested involved raising wages for enlisted men and women and federal employees across the board.

Nixon himself served in the Navy during World War II.

media: 18164902

quicklist: 5title: Title IXtext: How many Americans realize that the law that requires girl's sports teams to receive equal funding with boys' teams was signed by Richard Nixon?

In 1972, Nixon signed into law Title IX, a section of the Education Amendment that says, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The 40th anniversary of the law was celebrated this year. ABC's Serena Marshall reported on that anniversary: "Since its passage, girls' participation in sports has gone from 1 in 27 to 2 in 5 at the high school level."

Bostock said this and Nixon's other positive accomplishments did enough to outweigh the failures of his administration.

"I think if you look back -- and what better time to look back on a man's life than on the 100th anniversary of his birth? -- at the totality of his record and the influence he had on the country and the world, it was really extraordinary and on balance for the good," he said.

Fulsom disagreed, saying Nixon's greatest legacy was one of "distrust in the president and the government."

"I think he left definitely a negative impression on all those who lived during the time, and it continues to this day," Fulsom said. "Just about every book that's ever been written about him paints a rather dim portrait as a leader."

Love him or hate him, there's no denying, President Richard Nixon changed the course of American history.

media: 18164836

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Key Legacies of Former President Richard Nixon On His 100th Birthday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of 37th U.S. President Richard Nixon. Born in a farmhouse in Yorba Linda, Calif. in 1913, who could have known the Nixon baby would go on to be one of America's most influential and disgraced presidents of all time?

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the American public feel about the Vietnam war? Did these feelings change over time? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the American public feel about the Vietnam war? Did these feelings change over time? 

# data[].attributes.body
The American public was split between people who wanted the war to continue and those who wanted it to end. Over time these feelings changed over time because the outcome became more clear and people were starting to realize the war was unwinnable.