Yes. That is a plausible explanation. But I think Eisenhower should have made sure that JFK could not do that by pulling out all US opposition to Ho and maybe even publicly congratulating Ho for ejecting the colonists from his country. JFK was young and in need of wise council. Eisenhower was an old warrior who should have taken advantag…
Yes. That is a plausible explanation. But I think Eisenhower should have made sure that JFK could not do that by pulling out all US opposition to Ho and maybe even publicly congratulating Ho for ejecting the colonists from his country. JFK was young and in need of wise council. Eisenhower was an old warrior who should have taken advantage of his experience and his popularity to put the US on a better track in Southeast Asia.
There was no way any American politician was going to do such a thing in the 1950s. they had all been through McCarthyism, they'd all seen what happened in the far right's "who Lost China?" campaign. Those events left a deep impression on every politician who had been conscious 1949-57. It had to do with why JFK wouldn't have pulled out in the year before standing for re-election and why LBJ went along with the New Frontiersmen.
Yes, that’s true, but Eisenhower was on his way out of politics. All he had to deal with was his legacy. Maybe I ask too much of him, but I think he should have done the right thing. I certainly don’t absolve JFK of blame. Nor LBJ, who, I agree, was far more skilled in politics than JFK (or, for that matter, than anyone since Lincoln but FDR and maybe Pelosi).
Unfortunately there was no way any American politician in that period was going to "do the right thing." It was the height of what would be seen as the coldest part of the Cold War. The GOP right wing would have attacked the "establishment" wing if such a thing had happened.
Yes. That is a plausible explanation. But I think Eisenhower should have made sure that JFK could not do that by pulling out all US opposition to Ho and maybe even publicly congratulating Ho for ejecting the colonists from his country. JFK was young and in need of wise council. Eisenhower was an old warrior who should have taken advantage of his experience and his popularity to put the US on a better track in Southeast Asia.
There was no way any American politician was going to do such a thing in the 1950s. they had all been through McCarthyism, they'd all seen what happened in the far right's "who Lost China?" campaign. Those events left a deep impression on every politician who had been conscious 1949-57. It had to do with why JFK wouldn't have pulled out in the year before standing for re-election and why LBJ went along with the New Frontiersmen.
Yes, that’s true, but Eisenhower was on his way out of politics. All he had to deal with was his legacy. Maybe I ask too much of him, but I think he should have done the right thing. I certainly don’t absolve JFK of blame. Nor LBJ, who, I agree, was far more skilled in politics than JFK (or, for that matter, than anyone since Lincoln but FDR and maybe Pelosi).
Unfortunately there was no way any American politician in that period was going to "do the right thing." It was the height of what would be seen as the coldest part of the Cold War. The GOP right wing would have attacked the "establishment" wing if such a thing had happened.
Might have been a good thing to have internecine Republican battles before they took over the Dixiecrats and the white working class.
There's definitely an argument to be made there.