Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kid Berwyn

(15,560 posts)
Tue May 7, 2024, 09:41 AM May 7

Nixon and Dulles wanted to Nuke North Vietnam.

Today marks 70th Anniversary of the French surrender at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam. The Republicans in Washington did all they could to keep the war going, sending France all the weapons and ammo they could. But it wasn’t enough, so VP Richard Nixon and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles proposed Operation VULTURE.



“We might give them a few.”

Did the US offer to drop atom bombs at Dien Bien Phu?


By Fredrik Logevall
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | February 21, 2016

Excerpt…

Turning to Dulles, the foreign minister noted the presence of American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and Dulles’s repeated public statements that the United States would not tolerate the expansion of communism. If Washington so desired it could now reconcile those twin realities by assisting her ally at Dien Bien Phu. “He merely looked glum,” Bidault later remembered of the American’s reaction, “and did not even promise to repeat my request to Washington.”

But Dulles did offer a response, the nature of which has been shrouded in controversy for more than half a century. According to Bidault, the American took him aside during an intermission and asked him whether atomic bombs could be effective at Dien Bien Phu. If so, Dulles allegedly went on, his government could provide two such bombs to France. Bidault said he turned down the suggestion flat, on the grounds that the bombs would destroy the garrison as well as the Viet Minh, while dropping them farther away, on supply lines, would risk war with China. When informed a few months later of Bidault’s claim, Dulles said he could not recall making such an offer and insisted there must have been a misunderstanding.

Given Bidault’s visible exhaustion on the day in question, and his muddled speechmaking, and given the lack of any British or American confirmation of the claim, it is reasonable to suppose Dulles had it right: No offer was made. On the other hand, Bidault’s version is supported by senior French official Jean Chauvel in his memoirs, and by French general Paul Ely in his diary, which was kept on a daily basis. Ely, a key player on Indochina strategy in these months, wrote that he was of two minds about “the offer of two atom bombs. The psychological impact would be tremendous, but the [military] effectiveness would was uncertain, and it carries the risk of generalized warfare.”

Moreover, Bidault’s contention that Washington might offer atom bombs to his government had an inherent plausibility. In December 1953, when Western leaders held talks in Bermuda, Eisenhower alarmed the British and French delegations by referring casually to the atomic bomb as just another weapon in the West’s arsenal, one that might be used if the Chinese under Mao Zedong violated the terms of the recently-concluded truce in the Korean War. In February 1954, the president told Congressional leaders that in the event of war with China the United States would “go all the way,” with no limitations on targets hit or weapons used.

You could drop the Bomb, clean those commies out, and the band could play the Marseillaise. At several points in the weeks thereafter, US strategists considered the possible use of the Bomb, and according to one interpretation Operation Vulture always had, from its inception, an atomic dimension. In early April, a study group in the Pentagon examined the possibility of using atomic weapons at Dien Bien Phu and concluded that three tactical A-bombs, properly employed, would be sufficient to obliterate the Viet Minh effort there. Admiral Arthur Radford used this finding to suggest the use of the A-bomb to the National Security Council on April 7. According to Air Force Chief of Staff Nathan Twining, “You could take all day to drop a bomb, make sure you put it in the right place…and clean those Commies out of there and the band could play the Marseillaise and the French could come marching out…in great shape.”

Continues…

https://thebulletin.org/2016/02/we-might-give-them-a-few-did-the-us-offer-to-drop-atom-bombs-at-dien-bien-phu/

These warmonger greedheads from history have passed the torch to the warmonger greedheads of today. Why I bring it up: We the People didn’t get to vote on it, nor our representatives in Congress, the decision was made without our input, in secret.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nixon and Dulles wanted to Nuke North Vietnam. (Original Post) Kid Berwyn May 7 OP
That would have changed the world. /nt bucolic_frolic May 7 #1
Really would. From a month before the fall of Dien Bien Phu... Kid Berwyn May 7 #4
So did Goldwater. marble falls May 7 #2
A complicated human, Goldwater. Kid Berwyn May 7 #5
They all are, until Reagan ... marble falls May 7 #7
Another ugly facet of imperialism EYESORE 9001 May 7 #3
"A more Jesuit approach." Kid Berwyn May 7 #6

Kid Berwyn

(15,560 posts)
4. Really would. From a month before the fall of Dien Bien Phu...
Tue May 7, 2024, 10:15 AM
May 7
Memorandum by the Counselor (MacArthur) to the Secretary of State

top secret
eyes only
[Washington,] April 7, 1954.

Captain George Anderson (Special Assistant to Admiral Radford) asked to see me this morning on a “delicate matter”. He gave me the following information on a most confidential basis, which he said Admiral Radford wished conveyed to Secretary Dulles:

[Page 1271]
The “advance study group”1 in the Pentagon has been making an estimate of whether atomic weapons could be used to clean up the Vietminh in the Dien Bien Phu area. It has reached the conclusion that three tactical A-weapons, properly employed, would be sufficient to smash the Vietminh effort there.2

This study in turn raised in Admiral Radford’s mind the question of whether in the event of establishment of a coalition in Southeast Asia, in which the US participates and commits forces, we could use atomic weapons on the Vietminh if this seemed the best means of smashing them and cleaning up Indochina.

In the event we are successful in forming a coalition in Southeast Asia, Admiral Radford wondered whether we could not go to the French and get their approval for using atomic weapons in Indochina if this became necessary when the coalition was participating in operations. His feeling was that if we could get French acceptance of the principle of the use of such weapons, the whole conception of gaining acceptance of their use would be assisted. Furthermore, if we got French approval in principle after the coalition was formed but before we actively committed forces to Indochina, we could later use such weapons when our forces (air) were engaged.

Admiral Radford had discussed this briefly with Secretary Wilson, who said Admiral Radford should lay the matter before Secretary Dulles and seek his views.

Captain Anderson on a personal basis asked me if I had any reactions and I said that it raised in my mind very serious questions affecting the whole position of US leadership in the world. My own frank guess would be that the French Government would not agree or accept the responsibility for using an A-bomb. Furthermore, if we approached the French, the story would certainly leak and become public knowledge. The fact that we were considering such steps in Indochina would in turn cause a great hue and cry throughout the parliaments of the free world, and particularly among some of our NATO allies, notably the UK. This in turn might result in parliamentary pressures on governments to seek assurances from us that we would not use A-weapons without consultation, particularly in those countries that were joined with us and had forces contributed to collective defense arrangements such as NATO. Furthermore, in addition [Page 1272]to the Soviet propaganda, many elements in the free world would portray our desire to use such weapons in Indochina as proof of the fact that we were testing out weapons on native peoples and were in fact prepared to act irresponsibly and drop weapons of mass destruction on the Soviet Union whenever we believed it was necessary to do so. The state of mind in the UK, at least, on this general subject had been demonstrated in the parliamentary debate of last Monday. Finally, I said that if there were collective effort in Indochina and the Chinese Communists then intervened overtly, that would be a different matter, but the proposition which was in Admiral Radford’s mind to use these weapons in Indochina itself obviously raised questions which the Secretary would have to consider and inform Admiral Radford of his views. I emphasized, of course, that the above reactions were purely my own personal reactions to the proposition.

It was left that when the Secretary could see Admiral Radford he would let him know.3

Because of the sensitivity of this matter, I made only this original of this memo and one copy (which is in the hands of S/S). I have asked that the copy in S/S be shown to the Under Secretary, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Merchant, Mr. Bowie, and Mr. Robertson on a hand-carry eyes only basis.4

Douglas MacArthur II

Source: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v13p1/d711

PS: Douglas MacArthur II was the nephew (and namesake) of the American Army general.

marble falls

(58,638 posts)
2. So did Goldwater.
Tue May 7, 2024, 09:53 AM
May 7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Goldwater's advocacy of active interventionism to prevent the spread of communism and defend American values and allies led to effective counterattacks from Lyndon B. Johnson and his supporters, who said that Goldwater's militancy would have dire consequences, possibly even nuclear war. In a May 1964 speech, Goldwater suggested that nuclear weapons should be treated more like conventional weapons and used in Vietnam, specifically that they should have been used at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 to defoliate trees.[76] Regarding Vietnam, Goldwater charged that Johnson's policy was devoid of "goal, course, or purpose," leaving "only sudden death in the jungles and the slow strangulation of freedom".[77] Goldwater's rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin."[78] He also advocated that field commanders in Vietnam and Europe should be given the authority to use tactical nuclear weapons (which he called "small conventional nuclear weapons&quot without presidential confirmation.[79]


At the same time: he was anti racist, ordered desegrigation in the AZ Air National Guard (first to do so in the US), advocated for gay rights and Marijauna legalization.

Kid Berwyn

(15,560 posts)
5. A complicated human, Goldwater.
Tue May 7, 2024, 10:37 AM
May 7

With his support in the Senate, and had Nixon won the presidency in 1960, the war in Vietnam would likely have taken a very different course.

One important example is Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. -- the former US Senator from Massachusetts whom JFK defeated for that office in 1952 -- would become Nixon's Vice President in 1961.

Interestingly, JFK selected Lodge as his "Ambassador at Large" to South Vietnam. From there, he counseled the removal of South Vietnamese President Diem in a coup ostensibly led by the SV military. How much that reflected the views of JFK and/or Nixon remains open to discussion.

marble falls

(58,638 posts)
7. They all are, until Reagan ...
Tue May 7, 2024, 02:51 PM
May 7

... Nixon is another: EPA, Voting Rights, ERA (passed by Congress, not ratified by the states), he worked with Teddy Kennedy for a national health plan - Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined to shut it down, first bank holiday since Roosevelt. First raise in minimum wage since Roosevelt, took on OPEC with the help of Sadam Hussein (who was given a Congressional medal for his assistance) ...

We all know the bad side - racist, antisemitic, devious, wanted to continue the war,

Would I vote for them knowing what I know - nope. But one thing I share with Hilary Clinton: we both were campaign workers for Goldwater.

EYESORE 9001

(26,256 posts)
3. Another ugly facet of imperialism
Tue May 7, 2024, 09:59 AM
May 7

The Japanese army had scarcely departed before corporatists and other pseudo-fascists were trying to prop up the previous colonial regime. Blind to the possibilities, Ho Chi Minh was dismissed out-of-hand for espousing socialist ideas in a post-war Indochina. When those overtures failed, he went full commie and got aid from the Soviet Union. Other opportunities were missed during the so-called Cold War, which amounts to clashing of empires.

Kid Berwyn

(15,560 posts)
6. "A more Jesuit approach."
Tue May 7, 2024, 10:44 AM
May 7

The Church played a major role in French Indochina and around the world. The record shows it supported President Diem and his brothers, who were closer to tyranny than democracy.

The Jesuits I have had the honor to meet not only do the Good Lord’s work putting the Gospels into action by actually helping the sick, poor, weak, they also tell the truth.

Here are the thoughts JFK recorded in the White House Nov. 4, 1963:



(President Kennedy): Monday, November 4, 1963. Over the weekend the coup in Saigon took place. It culminated three months of conversation about a coup, conversation which divided the government here and in Saigon.

(President Kennedy): Opposed to a coup was General Taylor, the Attorney General, Secretary McNamara to a somewhat lesser degree, John McCone, partly because of an old hostility to Lodge which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgment, partly as a result of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his station chief; in favor of the coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman, supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(President Kennedy): I feel that we must bear a good deal of responsibility for it, beginning with our cable of early August in which we suggested the coup. In my judgment that wire was badly drafted, it should never have been sent on a Saturday. I should not have given my consent to it without a roundtable conference at which McNamara and Taylor could have presented their views. While we did redress that balance in later wires, that first wire encouraged Lodge along a course to which he was in any case inclined.

(President Kennedy): Harkins continued to oppose the coup on the ground that the military effort was doing well. There was a sharp split between Saigon and the rest of the country. Politically the situation was deteriorating. Militarily it had not had its effect; there was a feeling, however, that it would. For this reason, Secretary McNamara and General Taylor supported applying additional pressures to Diem and Nhu in order to move them.

(John Kennedy, Jr): Unclear

(President Kennedy): You want to say something? Say something. Hello.

(John Kennedy, Jr): Hello.

(President Kennedy): I was shocked by the death of Diem and Nhu. I'd met Diem with Justice Douglas many years ago. He was an extraordinary character. While he became increasingly difficult in the last months, nevertheless over a ten-year period he'd held his country together, maintained its independence under very adverse conditions. The way he was killed made it particularly abhorrent.

(President Kennedy): The question now is whether the generals can stay together and build a stable government, or whether Saigon will begin... will turn on... public opinion in Saigon, the intellectuals, students, etcetera, will turn on this government as repressive and undemocratic in the not too distant future.

Source: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/jfk-memoir-dictation-assassination-of-diem



Contrast with the more pro-colonialist approach others in the US Government took in Vietnam, excerpts below courtesy of The Education Forum operated by the great DUer John Simkin:



Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest?

From The Secret History of the CIA by Joseph Trento"


Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Sagon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodtge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

SOURCE:

“The Secret History of the CIA.” Joseph Trento. 2001, Prima Publishing. pp. 334-335.



And the situation on the ground, as reported a month prior to the murderous coup from a real reporter:



'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam


Richard Starnes
The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

SOURCE:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7534&mode=threaded



The nation’s press — conservative then as now — are the ones who’ve consistently echoed the claim that JFK ordered the coup. Thank Goodness for the Jebbies and proud to write, DUer, John Simkin.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nixon and Dulles wanted t...