Most of those comments have little or no bearing on the fact that all the AWM people were not pro-Soviet. 90% of those participating in the marches did so because of reasons they felt were worth demonstrating for, they were overwhelmingly NOT pro-Soviet. Most were sickened by the inept political leadership and its lies and the continual widening of the war. Most were patriots concerned about the apparently endless war since was never clear to the people as to WHY it was fought. Demonstrations were held at American spots because it would have done no good to do so at Soviet facilities. They were trying to change American policy over which they believed they had some political control. Nothing strange or sinister about this.
Your excerpt shows nothing about Lippmann being a “contact” whatever that means it does not mean agent. However, Korea and Vietnam show the validity of his criticism of containment. Although there was plenty of evidence showing that we decided to fight there before the Soviets. Col. Prouty illustrates how it was started. Then, of course, is the fact that we refused to abide by the Geneva Convention which we had signed. It was clear to everyone that if an election had been held Ho Chi Minh would have been overwhelmingly elected because of his nationalist credentials and fight against the Japanese.
Altmann’s article really says nothing about Lippmann except that he met with Soviet press people and was never an agent.
His comment wrt Lippmann and Stone is on the order of “heck he got more information from WL than Stone indicating that Stone provided nothing of value even less that the staunch anti-communist Lippmann. It does not mean he provided anything of value.
You also have to remember that in 1943 the US was allied with the USSR. And McGovern was no Howard Zinn.
“Most of those comments have little or no bearing on the fact that all the AWM people were not pro-Soviet. 90% of those participating in the marches did so because of reasons they felt were worth demonstrating for, they were overwhelmingly NOT pro-Soviet. Most were sickened by the inept political leadership and its lies and the continual widening of the war. Most were patriots concerned about the apparently endless war since was never clear to the people as to WHY it was fought. Demonstrations were held at American spots because it would have done no good to do so at Soviet facilities. They were trying to change American policy over which they believed they had some political control. Nothing strange or sinister about this.”
Protesting the Soviet embassies would have at least been enough to demonstrate that they were against the Soviets’ usage of war. And besides which, according to the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War, most Americans actually SUPPORTED the Vietnam War, and the AWM if anything actually supported the Communists, if not the Soviets. Heck, George Lucas even modeled the Rebel Alliance of Star Wars after the Vietcong specifically to make a take that against American involvement in the Vietnam War and rooted for the enemy, and he implied that this was largely based on his experiences with Apocalypse Now.
“Your excerpt shows nothing about Lippmann being a “contact” whatever that means it does not mean agent. However, Korea and Vietnam show the validity of his criticism of containment. Although there was plenty of evidence showing that we decided to fight there before the Soviets. Col. Prouty illustrates how it was started. Then, of course, is the fact that we refused to abide by the Geneva Convention which we had signed. It was clear to everyone that if an election had been held Ho Chi Minh would have been overwhelmingly elected because of his nationalist credentials and fight against the Japanese.”
Yeah, and then Ho Chi Minh’d take the opportunity to make it Communist, which, BTW, most people recognized instantly during that time. In fact, the Vietcong, then known as the Vietminh, actually were doing raids against Laos as early as the 1950s. Heck, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times actually gushed after Ho, as did David Halberstam. And he was deeply committed to communism since at least his youth in France where he learned about it by reading Theses on the National and Colonial Question by Lenin, being a card carrying member since 1921, and was personally acquainted with top Bolshevikes including Zinoviev, Bukharin, and even the likes of Stalin, and had even attended Lenin’s funeral. Heck, if anything, he considered Stalin for not being not radical enough. HCM was as much of a “nationalist” as Lenin was (ie, not even close to one). If anything, any nationalists that were in Vietnam were more likely to be wiped out by him simply so he and his communist friends had no rivals. And BTW, a lot of TV shows, movies, and books during the 1960s depicted us Americans as bumbling, reluctant, and callous soldiers, while the Vietcong and NVA were depicted as fierce, highly motivated, and wily, of which it wasn’t even close to the truth. Examples of this include Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow. And if necessary, I’ll go so far as to post exactly where in the book it is mentioned, with all the footnotes you’ll need. In fact, the media sided with the guys who called the soldiers “baby killers.” Even Eugene McCarthy’s 42% win had protest ballots in favor of a more aggressive prosecution of the war. And the Mainstream Media ignored this, as did the various Democrats and AWM, thinking they were mainstream only for Nixon to wake them up bluntly. New Yorker writer Pauline Kael even was shocked at Nixon’s victory, claiming that she didn’t know even one person who voted for him, showing just how serious the liberal echo chamber was.
And a contact is the same as an agent, since they both leaked information to the enemy. And another thing, most people WERE aware of why we were in Vietnam. If anything, they were more irritated at the guys in charge for not actually letting them do their job and win the war.
“Altmann’s article really says nothing about Lippmann except that he met with Soviet press people and was never an agent.
His comment wrt Lippmann and Stone is on the order of “heck he got more information from WL than Stone indicating that Stone provided nothing of value even less that the staunch anti-communist Lippmann. It does not mean he provided anything of value.”
The Izzy award among the Communists was named after I.F. Stone, who was a confirmed KGB agent and actually DID leak information to the Soviets. So yes, he would have provided a lot of value for them (otherwise, they wouldn’t have him on retainer for any disinformation campaigns), and if Lippmann actually provided more valuable information than even Stone, that actually makes things a whole lot more serious.
“You also have to remember that in 1943 the US was allied with the USSR. And McGovern was no Howard Zinn.”
Oh, I remember, alright (hence my comment that I heard from another about Zinn serving USSR interests over America during WWII). And as far as I’m concerned, if McGovern isn’t for stopping Communism in Vietnam, he’s against it.