View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
I hate to date myself too clearly, but anything concerning the "anti-war" movement during the American phase of the Vietnam War is a little like current events. We are very definitely in an area where some on the list, myself included, were there. Obviously this changes one's attitude toward a historical moment. So bear that in mind when reading my comments. I think Mr. Kimball has one part of the "movement" described well enough, but has maybe missed the forest. At the time it was very clear to me that there was a very deep difference between the "peace movement" and the various incarnations of the New Left. The peace movement wanted an end to America's role in Vietnam - period. They did not, by and large, have any great sympathy for Hanoi. They did not care particularly what happened to Vietnam after America withdrew. This movement grew very large - to the point that it included most of the adult population. There was a certain connection between the young and the peace movement because the young were fighting the war. However, it would be wrong to read political intent beyond the immediate object into the peace movement by, say, 1970. Indeed, it included a large number of conservatives who thought the kind of limited war being fought by Washington was stupid. Indeed, the mainstream nature of the peace movement was clearly manifested in the 1972 election. The left wing of the Democrats were in control of the party, but Vietnamization and "Peace is at Hand" clearly showed the public that Nixon was moving toward what most people wanted - an end to America's participation. Thus the 1972 election was allowed to be fought out on social issues and its ramifications are with us still. (Those Reagan Democrats everybody talked about were originally recruited by Nixon.) The various branches of the New Left I believe had one thing in common - an admiration for Hanoi and a belief that the Vietnam War was a part of a larger pattern of US imperialism. Some of the leaders developed a talent for media stunts and the networks ate it up. The upshot was that the New Left appeared to have a much larger following than it ever did. If the leadership "controlled" anyone it was very hard to me to see. Such folks weren't hard to find in Berkeley or at San Francisco State. I well remember the nutty antics of the street theater types and the pointless menace of the Panthers. People even read things like Ramparts. But how many? Very few I'd guess and only in a very limited geographic area. (The former editors of Ramparts, as most know, have switched sides politically and have discussed this issue at some length.) It is my humble opinion that Lenin wannabees I saw in action if anything slowed the peace movement. It wasn't enough to for young American Revolutionaries (who practiced a very safe variety of a potentially very dangerous game) to condemn the war, they also had to condemn the USA. That wasn't the message that the peace movement wanted to hear at all. But such words were most welcome words for gents like Spiro Agnew. I can testify to one interesting factor. In Berkeley the bigshots in the New Left looked at Vietnamization with horror. They feared that if Nixon got the US Army out of Vietnam that any chance to spread the "real" message of radical politics would dry up because most students were only interested in peace, not spreading world revolutionary politics. (The fear was well founded.) The various international Communist parties threw a few nickles to some of the New Left, mostly in terms of international conferences but played no real role. As luck would have it, two of my buddies were members of the CP as their parents had been before them. They heaped scorn on the idea that the students could constitute a revolutionary core. They were, however, completely bewildered by the absence of working class militancy in a war that was eating working class sons (or so they believed.) In any case, my true blue red friends thought that people like Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden were frivolous ego-maniacs who would leave nothing of importance behind them. I think their assessment was on the money. Eric Bergerud Eric Bergerud; 531 Kains Ave; Albany, CA 94706; 510-525-0930