Customer Reviews

Tonkin Gulf

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Eugene G. Windchy spent twelve years in the Far East, eleven of them with the USIA in Japan. He graduated from the University of Illinois School of Journalism. Windchy obtained information from Navy men who were present or involved in the Tonkin Gulf incident. He spent four and a half years in research and found suppressed evidence, official incompetence, and efforts to mislead and deceive the American people. The `Prologue' has a short history of Vietnam since 1940. The Vietnamese wanted independence and not colonial rule. In 1949 President Truman decided to back the French in their war (p.xviii), the first time America helped a colonial power (p.xix). President Eisenhower did not want a new land war. The Tonkin Gulf incident allowed President Johnson to begin a war in South and North Vietnam (p.xxi).

On Sunday 8/2/1964 newscasters reported an attack on US Navy vessels on the high seas. Some details were missing (Chapter 1). The `Maddox' wasn't damaged (p.2). The official statement was approved in Washington but released in Hawaii. Why would North Vietnam use a few old boats to attack a great maritime power (p.4)? The report of a second attack on 8/4 led to an American attack on North Vietnam (p.9). It was a "sneak attack" (p.12). Was this "sheer fabrication" (p.15)? This attack boosted LBJ's ratings in the polls before the election (p.25). The ruler of South Vietnam proclaimed martial law and ruled by decree (p.26). Chapter 2 reminds us of those events in 1964. The American press continued to fool its readers (p.30). The war escalated slowly (p.36). Why are we in Vietnam (p.39)? Why were we in the Dominican Republic (p.41)?

The Army had over a thousand agents to provide "political intelligence" on important people (p.48). A retired Rear Admiral was threatened for speaking publicly. Was the Tonkin incident a fraud (p.50)? Senator Morse declared the US provoked the attack (p.53). Or was it a mistake? The `Maddox' was equipped with surveillance equipment, like the `Liberty' and `Pueblo' (p.60). [These pages provide background information.] The "34-A" operations referred to clandestine activity by South Vietnamese gunboats (p.69). The `Maddox' kept radio silence. South Vietnamese naval vessels shelled North Vietnamese targets (p.74). Was the `Maddox' involved (p.80)?

Chapter 7 tells what happened that Sunday afternoon. Chapter 8 analyzes the events. Were ships underarmed (p.133)? Would any torpedo boat attack a warship in broad daylight (p.137)? Chapter 10 tells of that fateful night. Were they "under continuous torpedo attack" (p.193)? The `Turner Joy' never heard any torpedoes (p.199)! Navy pilots saw no torpedo wakes (p.202). Neither the Skyhawks or Skyraiders saw signs of enemy boats (p.203). The `Maddox' almots blasted the `Turner Joy' (p.207)! Was the torpedo noise from the Maddox's propellors (p.208)? The attack on North Vietnam was ordered even though no debris or proof was found (p.216)!

The Vietnam War started over something that didn't happen (Chapter 12). More bombs were dropped on North Vietnam than in all of WW II (p.294)! The experienced chief sonarman never reported any torpedoes (p.253). Was there a "real battle"? Chapter 14 provides some examples. Was the `Maddox' a pigeon? Chapter 16 explains the provocative patrol (p.295). Did the concealment of facts subvert the Constitution (p.300)? Most of the presidential advisors were wrong (p.304). How did Diem die in a military coup (p.306)? JFK was de-escalating troops while the Viet Cong was winning (p.307). LBJ escalated the war, he was warned against this (p.309). Some advisors were ignorant (p.310). The South Vietnamese regime was ready to collapse (p.315). The Tonkin Gulf incident changed this (p.317). Most people in South Vietnam wanted the Americans to go home (p.325). Windchy discusses the Presidential wars (pp.329-331). The President has powers the Founding Fathers warned against (pp.333-335)! Can more investigative journalism cure this (p.338)? Probably not (p.340).