Talk:Gulf of Tonkin Incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Errata

Calling this a "false flag" operation is absurd. That would imply that U.S. patrol boats flying the flag of North Vietnam actually attacked U.S. destroyers. Nobody (at least nobody sane) believes that. I've edited the introduction to reflect the scholarly consensus: the first attack really did happen, and the second "attack" did not -- although the Turner Joy believed it was under attack. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely absurd, any fabricated attacks designed to gain political support for war are "false flag" operations. You are quite obviously biased, whether or not there was a first attack is irrelevant in the face the balding lie used to trick the US Congress into supporting an illegal, immoral and pointless war of aggression. 24.11.163.195 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


The US never wanted Diem to hold elections. They also had his brother running newspapers there. This is just more silly thinking. Also the US were in direct violation of the Geneva Treaty way back in the mid-1950s. Read the reports from the Geneva envoys for more information in the matter. Your present wording makes it sound like the US only began flying in massive military support after Diem got into trouble which might not be your intention but which is also patently false.

It's also doubtful JFK was against Diem as his (JFK's) own father was responsible for cultivating Diem for several years at a hideaway in Massachusetts and neither JFK nor any other member of the clan would ever go against papa Joe.

And now having read the entire article I accuse you outright of trying to whitewash your beloved country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.12.95 (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
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)

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!

It was 1995 General Giap also acknowledged NK involvement in Aug 2.

http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/world198_4.html

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp951110/11100463.htm

~spiker_22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your math is really bad. 1995 - 1964 = 31 years, not 59 years.

Yes - information is correct, appropriate reference added. P.jasons 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[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) Fuck You!!

[edit] This article has problems

I agree 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)

Historically, the incident on Aug 2nd wasn't really of importance. It was totally in the hand of U.S. Government to either settle it peacefully through diplomacy, instead they decided to stage an affirmation that the incident wasn't just a mistake. So it is no longer of relevance, whether the first attack was genuine or staged as well. The end result qualifies as a false flag operation. P.jasons 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

P. Jasons: Your claim that "It was totally in the hand of U.S. Government to either settle it peacefully through diplomacy" is a bit bizzare. If two parties are involved it is up to both parties to pursue resolution. Firing on another nations craft is often considered an act of war. For some reason it only seems to be the US who must act differently than any other nation. Further, you quickly dismiss the first attack of Aug 2 describing it as historically irrelavant, but then go on to claim that Johnson needed to demonstrate just that point: That " they decided to stage an affirmation that the incident wasn't just a mistake" The question of whether the attack of Aug 2 was real or not is crucial to any discussion of August 4. Your conclusion that August 4 was a "false flag" meaning a deliberately fabricated event is a forced conclusion. August 4 is meaningless without reference to August 2 ~ Spiker_22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 8 April 2008 (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)

Your interpretation makes sense, but in an encyclopedia we cannot use it in an unreferenced way. If you write up your own website, where you state your view of things, then we can cite you as an vet and eye-witness opinion. P.jasons 11:14, 4 December 2007 (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.

President Johnson admitted it (see refs). What more do you need? Where is the space for what you call neutrality between the facts? P.jasons 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[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. 80.186.124.43 07:42, 31 Oct 2005

EDit Note: Heres A link descibing the incident and what Really occured.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 70.28.242.109 21:36, 20 August 2006
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)
And FAIR is a neutral source on this, right? Equinox137 09:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that is hilarious! FAIR is Jeff Cohen's leftist outfit that promotes left-wing media bias by making false accusations of right-wing bias, while sugar-coating even Hugo Chavez's abuses. NCdave 16:00, 12 May 2007 (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)

Why don't you try out some search engines first? overeager sonarman sent me straight to a 1968 Time Magazine article. The facts are all out there, why speculate? P.jasons 11:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long addition

The addition of this extremely long background statement seems like editorializing to me, and at best is just too long in the context of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the issue at hand. Badagnani 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staged Gulf of Tonkin Incident

There was some previous dispute as to whether the gulf of tonkin incident was staged or not. Apparently the article previously mentioned the incident was staged and there were many complaints to edit the article to be more neutral. However now there is absolutely no mention of any of this and I think it is unfair to the otherside considering there is a significant amount of people that do believe it was staged. I did some digging and found the wikipedia article for "Casus belli" and it mentions some historians believe Gulf of Tonkin was manufactured to start the war. The sources listed for this include two interviews with McNamara -- one from CNN and the other from AP. While the article was too biased toward staging the incident, now the article is biased against it and makes absolutely no mention. I think there should be a section addressing this controversy.

[edit] Flagrantly Obvious (unless you can deny what stares you in the face)

I put it to everyone concerned with this topic that: Considerable U.S. naval forces were sent north into the vicinity of North Vietnamese waters in conjunction with and supporting overt attacks by South Vietnamese forces on North Vietnamese ground installations and facilities. Why? Not to provoke North Vietnamese retaliation even if purely defensive which would, when puffed here in the U.S. press constitute an incident which would be used as a causus belli? I remember the headlines full well and hearing the scuttlebut in the barbershop the same day: "U.S. Ships Attacked on the High Seas" in type only a few points smaller than delarations of war, followed by, in the barbershop; "Why, they can't do that to us. The president should send in the Marines, or send in some of them paratroopers. We can bomb 'em back to the stone age." and so forth. Going back and reading an account of the operation it is very obvious that: it was planned in advance; and, that, if it were planned in advance, it was ordered in advance; and, that, if it were ordered in advance then it was ordered in advance from a high level. Even then, the desired outcome wasn't quite what was wished for, because the North Vietnamese, undoubtably recognizing opperation's significance excercised considerable restraint; so, the U.S. forces in the confusion of darkness reacting to an attack that hadn't acctually occured fired on an enemy that wasn't there, thus providing President Johnson with his Causus Belli and the next best thing to a declaration of war: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the document that got me drafted and sent to Viet Nam to serve as a squad leader in a rifle company close to the DMZ in Viet Nam, and, further BTW got over a million people killed before it was over. For those who think this is all politcal, remember what von Clauswitz said about war's being a continuation of politics by other means. Anthony Gumbrell

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident"

[edit] As Pentagon insists ?

The text "On 2 August the Maddox was, as Pentagon insists" is ridiculous. Who claims otherwise ? An involved Vietnamese general even admits to it, not to mention the countless American witnesses. There is the plausible possibility the attack on the 4th did not occur (although not much evidence that they Americans on the 4th DIDN'T _think_ they were being attacked), but there is really no evidence that the 2nd August attack did not occur. The article also has the ridiculous claim "when it (the US) installed anti-communist Ngo Dinh Diem as President of South Vietnam"... no wonder wikipedia gets a bad reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.167.211 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now, according to this article, which cites the National Security Agency, the attacks NEVER HAPPENED. If I was more familiar with this incident, I would change the article, but maybe somebody else wants to handle it? Murderbike (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This one may be better. Murderbike (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro needs serious cleanup

I heard someone on a TV show mention the Tonkin incident, so I looked it up here to find out what it was. I've learned that it was something that didn't happen, but what didn't happen and why we care I'm still in the dark on.

Never mind that - what was reported at the time? What was its place in history? It seems to be something to do with the Vietnam war, but what? The whole "it never happened" thing needs to be much shorter in the intro, and stripped of nearly all the evidence, which should be moved to the body of the article. Please think first about why readers like me come to an encyclopaedia - don't focus on what you want to persuade me of, because I don't even care about that unless I understand why the incident matters in the first place. — ciphergoth 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512

The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

It's official. The article needs to show that 'no attack happened that night.' 69.220.2.188 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The FAS has clarified their original statement on which that news story is based:

The most sensational part of the history (which was excerpted and disclosed by the NSA two years ago) is the recounting of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident, in which a second reported North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces, following another attack two days before, triggered a major escalation of the war. The author demonstrates that not only is it not true, as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of a second attack was "unimpeachable," but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that "no attack happened that night.

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/01/nsa_releases_history_of_americ.html?TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850 63.209.224.93 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

McNamara categorically asserted falseness. Why there isn't more emphasis on this? In Fog of War he is clear-cut: "It did not happen."

[edit] Navy Day?

I may have misunderstood, but if the August 4 attacks were supposedly figments of the US military and politico's imagination, why does Vietnam have a Navy Day that commemorates when "one of our torpedo squadrons chased the U.S.S. Maddox from our coastal waters, our first victory over the U.S. Navy"?

Chris (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that this is the place for speculation, but maybe it was as good a bit of propaganda for them as it was for the US? Murderbike (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)