this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
464 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
8762 readers
1194 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Someone far more educated than me can correct me but I believe he was kind of politically wedged on Vietnam. He had to do it to sure up support domestically from my vague recollection. That isn’t to say he was correct or right to do it. Vietnam is a blight on LBJ’s record.
The oversimplified explanation is he had to appear tough on communism to avoid be criticized domestically amd abroad. He was a staunch anti-communist, worried that the US failing to shore up the South against the North would cause other "developing democracies" (Western friendly war lords and despots) to question American guarantees and look the the Soviet Union as a sponsor instead. The goal was to help South Vietnam reach a point where they could deal with the Viet Cong without much US assistance. But that was essentially an impossible task as every action to eliminate opposition further delegitamized the government in Saigon.
Morally it was absolutely the wrong play, and politically i would say it hindered his domestic ambitions as Vietnam quickly spiraled out of control under his administration. He was put between a rock and a hard place and had to answer for Truman and Eisenhower's failed choice to support the French reoccupation of Indochina after WW2. The US had committed to the path in 1954 and LBJ's memoirs indicate that, while he resented having to escalate in Vietnam, his ideology offered him no other choice. I don't think that absolves him of the ocean of blood on his hands, but I am sympathetic to the impossible choice.