Talk:Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
The article says the "Maddox... was attacked by three North Vietnamese patrol boats inside of international waters". This is confusing -- the phrase "inside of" is not normally used in conjunction with "international waters." What is meant here? Perhaps it should be changed to read "in international waters" or "inside territorial waters."
- How credible is the Ellsberg claim of the DeSoto patrol intruding into NV territorial waters? -- Dysmorodrepanis 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is a August 4 selected anniversary
does anyone know who the two senators were who voted against the resolution? Kingturtle 20:56 18 May 2003 (UTC)
- Wayne Morse, Ernest Gruening - Hephaestos 20:59 18 May 2003 (UTC)
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what part of the incident is actually disputed. The official claims made by the Johnson administration included two separate "incidents": one on August 2, the other on August 4. That US and North Vietnamese forces exchanged fire on August 2 is indisputable: even General Giap, commander-in-chief of North Vietnamese forces, admitted such in 1995. The August 4 incident is the one that is really disputed. General Giap claims that no North Vietnamese forces were present (that is, that American ships were firing at open water) and the bulk of evidence indicates he is correct. That the Johnson administration sensationalized the incidents and the overall threat to US forces in the region in order to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution through Congress are valid criticisms.
I considered placing a non-NPOV warning instead of a factual warning, as several phrases are pushing the line in that regard, but feel that the confusion over the facts are more important at this time.
Removed warning after some editting on my part.
[edit] "political question" jurisdiction
There is an error in that the US judiciary, under the Constitution and current acts of Congress, CAN hear political questions, and, at times do just that. The doctrine is one of self limitation (meaning they can use it as they choose) not jurisdiction, which makes it outside the reach of their powers. I'd change this, but I feel it is better left to someone else. yay
[edit] Radar/sonar
It's a little confusing to talk about radar targets, and then blame them on an overeager sonarman. Does the US Navy not distinguish? Bovlb 15:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
- The situation seems to have been that the sonarman mistook the sound of the ship's propellers for that of torpedos, while due to the weather conditions (rain squalls), there was considerable radar clutter that made it appear as if there were NV vessels around. It could be clarified in the article text. -- Dysmorodrepanis 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1995, General Vo Nguyen Giap Reports?
Was it really fifty-nine years after the imaginary attacks that the General of the North Vietnamese forces "disavowed any involvement with the August 4 incident"? Or was there a typing mistake? Anyone know for sure if it was indeed 1995 of 1965? Please write!
Your math is really bad. 1995 - 1964 = 31 years, not 59 years.
[edit] "political stagecraft"
Beautiful phrasing -- my compliments to whoever wrote that! I wish more wiki authors had such great command of English prose! = ) Jeeves 02:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well that's just what it was. I dislike the blatant pov in recent edits - moved big chunk to bottom - still needs lots o work. ==SV 01:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article has problems
I argee that a second attack did not happened, but my understanding is that radarmen mistook atmospheric conditions for North Vietnamese torpedo boats. This would suggest there was no second attack, but there was no staging either. Johnson had planned for several months prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident to ask Congress for powers equivalent to a declaration of war once there was a major incident again. There had been incidents such a Viet Cong bombing of a American officer's mess in South Vietnam earlier in 1964, and senior figures in the Johnson Administration had discussed asking for Gulf of Tonkin Resolution-type powers at that time, but had decided not to. The attitude of the Administration was summed up by Dean Rusk, who said these incidents were like a bus-one would happen and a little later, another one would happen.
Nope - the quote is actually from McGeorge Bundy and refferred to the NLF attack on the airbase at Pleiku. "Pleikus are like streetcars". RM Gillespie 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Later on in 1964, there was a decision made that when the next major incident occured, Congress would be asked to provide those powers equivalent to a declaration of war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident proved to be the next apparent incident. True, the Johnson administration jumped at the chance to use the apparent attack to ask for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and later on tried to cover up the fact there was no second incident, but I do not belive that the Johnson faked the attack. At most, Johnson was over-eager at using the apparent attack to ask for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
I really think this article should be taken out of the category staged incidents. Anyhow, since when did the Gulf of Tonkin incident marked the beginning of the Vietnam War? This article says Johnston faked the attack to launch the war, which is curious as my understanding is there had been a war going on in South Vietnam from 1957 onwards. Indeed, many count the entire period 1945-75 as Thirty Year's War for Vietnam.
[1] .. also, there has been information circulating since the declassification that it was Israeli torpedo boats, and not the North Vietnamese. it may have been an attempt to excuse the United States' involvement in the war by claiming that the attack came from Egypt. until these claims are refuted or investigated further, i think this article should stay in "staged incidents." - 12.219.37.234 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution Repeal Date?
According to a textbook I recently read, "On December 31, 1970, Congress repealed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which had given the president near independece in conducting policy in Vietnam." Just double-checking with the June date in the article. ("The Americans," McDougal Littell, ISBN 0395851823) Eagle0Nine 19:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The entire article seems to ignore that the aircraft carrier Bon Homme Richard was IN the gulf of tonkin on that night. I know, I was on board. The Maddox and C. Turner Joy were the escort ships for the carrier. The Carrier & the destroyers were substantially up into the Gulf of Tonkin.
What the hell was a carrier doing IN the Gulf. Taunting the Vietnamese to respond. No doubt in my mind at all.
They talk of the other Carriers launching an attack the next morning. Well, The Bob Homme Richard also launched attacks the next morning. Funny no one mentions that.
Someone needs to check the records on what she was doing IN the Gulf of Tonkin. Also, the Maddox and C. Turner Joy would not leave her by herself while they went into the Gulf. She was there with them.
Jeez, do you have any idea ho large the Gulf is? Look at a map! RM Gillespie 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] this page is SOOO not neutral
I would agree it was staged. However, I think it could be presented from a more objective viewpoint that "frames" the issue as well as the events. (July 24, 2005)
RE: your article about the gulf of tonkin accident(its sexual references
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
[edit] Pentagon Papers
Can someone tell me WHERE in the pentagon papers it says (or implies) that these events were fabricated? I read through them and found nothing.
Don't worry about it. The incident was not fabricated. It was not staged. Just one of those simple twists of fate. Johnson's grasp of opportunity should not be seen (except by those whose minds run toward dark conspiracies in every corner) as naything more than a continuation of American policy that had been conducted by both political parties since the Truman administration. RM Gillespie 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where is the proof that August 4 battle didn't occur?
This claim seems to be quite widespread, but the reasoning seems horribly inadequate. Basically, the claim seems to based on that the crews of two US Navy destroyers were so hopelessly incompetent and their radar equipment so woefully incapable, that they were unable to distinguish an attack from weather phenomena and equipment malfunctions. If this was really the case, there certainly should have been many more such "alledged attacks" during that period of naval standoff between US/NATO and Warsaw Pact navies.
I think the only plausible explanation for the second attack not actually taking place is massive forgery of official documents, like these:
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/vietnam/tonkin-3.htm
including forcing naval service personnel to give false written statements or fabricating them in the name of the crew. This is an extraordinary conspiracy claim which needs a lot of proof.
Many of the sources claiming the second attack didn't occur mix terminology (heavy machine gun bullets for "dud shells") and are very confused about naval command structure (CINCPAC statements mistaken for CTG "cables") and many other details. For example:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
claims that Captain John J. Herrick, Commander Task Group 72.1, has repealed his official reports that there was indeed an attack on August 4, when they actually quote a CINCPAC statement in a predidential briefing document that the intensity of the attack may have been exaggerated (the number of torpedoes fired for example), but that the attack did infact, take place (image via Google search, because Wikipedia spam filter blocks the source site):
http://images.google.fi/images?q=gulfoftonkin2.jpg
Herrick's last official statement about the incident as far as I can find is this (7 August 1964):
"However, it is my opinion that certainly a PT boat action did take place. The number of boats involved and the number of torpedoes fired I cannot accurately determine."
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/vietnam/tonkin-1.htm#personalstate
So in summary, the only proof so far linked in the article about there not having been an August 4th attack, is the statement 30 years after the fact by a Vietnamese general. No ,mn//m, technically plausible alternative explanation is offered for the radar and sonar contacts and visual observation by the crews of two US ships or how they were fabricated by the Johnson administration.
Offering Stockdale, who flew overhead and didn't see any enemy ships (other pilots, CDR G. H. Edmondson and LT J. A. Burton, USN, did at least see their wakes and AA fire, according to the official story) and Daniel Ellsberg, (who remembers "cables from Herrick" dismissing the certainty that there was an attack, but has not been able to reproduce such cables or find other witnesses to collaborate) seem to be appeals to false authority. Even though Stockdale was able to rise through the ranks to be a MoH winning vice admiral (and a vice president candidate) later, the radar in his fighter (AN/APQ-94) was much less capable of detecting small torpedo and gun boats than the radar sets on the two destroyers. The fact that Stockdale didn't see any targets (and kept quiet about it until the 92 presidential race) is contrasted by two other pilots who did. Also, Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower is hardly an authority in military matters and clearly has an agenda against the Johnson administration. Even though he raised claims (in a 2004 Boston Globe editorial critizising the Iraq war and the WMD "staged casus belli") about Herrick retracting his official statements in some flash cable after the incident, where is that cable? It was not in the Pentagon Papers, so where is it? He has proven capable of digging classified papers before, so we should not just take his word for it but demand proof positive.
EDit Note: Heres A link descibing the incident and what Really occured. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261
-
- The belief that this second attack had ever happened is so discredited since the release of NSA and taped conversations of L.B.J. that it amazes me anyone actually still can think that it did happen. There isn't a single govt. official of which I'm aware that stands by the second attack nonsense. Even Johnson trying to play dumb a year after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, said that for all he knew U.S. forces were shooting at whales!! Johnson wanted a solid U.S. presence in S. Vietnam and knew the only way this was going to happen was by creating a scenario where U.S. forces would be attacked. He got what he wanted and we got over 50,000 dead Americans. Jtpaladin 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification needed
From "Interpretation;"
"North Vietnam's Navy Anniversary Day is August 5, the date of the second attack, Vietnamese time, where "one of our torpedo squadrons chased the U.S.S. Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy". [3]"
If this remains true, then "North Vietnam" needs to be changed to "Vietnam," together with links.
[edit] Vandalism
I don't know enough about Wikipedia to flag vandalism, but could someone edit the second paragraph back to the previous revision and remove:
"The Tonkin incident occurred because men licked their own butts during the first year of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration"
[edit] neutrality regarding iraq war
i would question the neutrality of the article with reference to the parallels between the vietnam in general and the current conflict in iraq. it seems that many assumptions are being made about the existence of wmd's and other such tactics used by the current administration. a history lesson is not the place to be making political accusations. please remove or revise the following two comments: "for a historical parallel... weapons of mass destruction" and "according to intelligence officials... to justify the iraq war that commenced in 2003." Wench1053 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Repetitive Notes
There are 4 seemingly duplicate links to Pentagon Papers in the "Notes".
I would remove 3 of them, but I'm not all involved with this article. I was just looking it up for other reasons. Pdquesnell 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced statements
I removed the statement "It was highly unlikely that any North Vietnamese forces were actually in the area during this "battle". Captain John J. Herrick even admitted that it was nothing more than an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing his ship's own propeller beat." Besides being unsourced, they read like an editor's opinion of events. Equinox137 08:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
