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.
The discussion thread of influences on and by the anti-Vietnam war movement on campuses in the mid-60's to early-70's has been essentially among those on or sympathetic to the left during that time or students who studied under them since. Thus, while I will not fault them for focus on their part of the elephant in describing it, still much of the bigger picture is missed. Edwin Moise, for example, focused on his involvement in SDS at Harvard to probably rightly dismiss the extent of direct influence at Harvard on the anti-war movement from Hanoi. But he does concede at least that "ideas about international affairs were...significantly influenced by foreigners" because participants were not insular. However, generalization from the local campus to the top leadership of the movement is incorrect. There was a regular shuttle of American movement leaders visiting abroad who picked up the policy aims and propaganda themes of the moment propagated from Hanoi, Peking or Moscow directly or through fronts who then transmitted them throughout the movement. Of course there was little or no lockstep or knowledge of source as these campaign points filtered through, as one would expect in a movement of locals overwhelmingly not committed ideologues but idealistic or draft-avoiding protesters. The end of the draft quickly deflated the movement, and most local idealists reflected somewhat honestly on the consequences of American abandonment of Indochina although most continued in liberal paths and some spent much of their following careers justifying or defending their youthful "glories". The commentators also miss another key aspect of that time on campuses: Most students were immune to or opposed to their views or behavior. Although sentiment increasingly turned against the war over its course, most of that came from non-leftists who came to despair of its success or were repelled by their own or friends' chances of draft service. Disdain was widespread of the extremism of those relatively few committed to the various far left-wing organizations on campus. Let me offer a small bit of empirical evidence. Although raised in a traditionally left-liberal way, perhaps my own American idealism, Jewish immigrant upbringing's sympathy for those threatened with enslavement whether by fascists or communists, and my appreciation for American and democratic freedoms, led me to be radicalized by the movement -- but to the right. I attended a very liberal Brooklyn College. Offended by anti-American slurs by the far left, in 1965 Brooklyn College had its first campus-wide elections since the '30's. Not really knowing what conservative meant, I ran as one and won. I continued to win the next two years until graduation. I helped organize other conservatives on other campuses, with similar successes. Most of those who voted for me, I don't recall, being conservative but, rather, repelled by the extreme anti-Americanism of the far left. The lasting power of this leftist extremism has been in its adherents continuation of their movement's self-justification in their later roles in the press, academia or politics, and their transmission of many of its myths about Vietnam, America and American foreign policy to those who came after them. I expect the above will elicit some strong responses, and do not really want to refight the war, just broaden the discussion's perspective beyond its narrow focus to now. Bruce Kesler ChFC REBC RHU CLU BNKSD1@aol.com (760) 942-1759