Gulf of Tonkin Incident - Vast Conspiracy or Fog of War?

[Mark F]

On the afternoon (local time) of 2 August, 1964 the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Maddox was sailing in international waters on an ELINT mission off the coast of North Vietnam when she was attacked by 3 North Vietnamese Navy P-4 or P-6 Motor Torpedo Boats. In the ensuing gun battle 2 of the North Vietnamese boats were sunk. The USS Maddox was hit by 14.5mm rounds but suffered no serious damage or casualties.

Two days later on 4 August the USS Maddox, now accompanied by the destroyer USS Turner Joy in a Freedom of Navigation excercise, believed they were once again attacked by North Vietnamese MTB's and engaged in a 4-hour gun battle with suspected radar and sonar targets in poor weather. The ships even called in air support from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.

These two incidents became known collectively as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and became the impetus for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which greatly deepened the American military effort in Vietnam.

Some conspiracy theorists have long argued that one or both incidents were deliberately faked as a pretense for increasing American involvement in Vietnam.

The first attack on 2 August definitely occurred. The Vietnamese even acknowledge this (although the boats acted without orders from Hanoi). The attack on 4 August was in doubt even shortly after it occurred. Only later was it revealed the second alleged attack of 4 August never in fact occurred, the official explanation being edgy, nervous sailors over-reacting to false contacts.

Conspiracy theorists have claimed an audio recording of a phone conversation between then President Johnson and then SecDef McNamara which occurred on 3 August at 10:30am U.S. Eastern time (after the 2 August incident but before the 4 August incident) reveal the president falsified the alleged 2nd attack and in fact nothing happened that day. This conversation is claimed to be obvious proof these two men conspired to fabricate one or both events.

The transcript of this controversial conversation follows. If anyone would like to bold the bits they think prove the premise these two men conspired to fabricate the events in the Gulf of Tonkin on either day, have at it.

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Now I wonder if you don't think it'd be wise for you and Rusk to get Mac, uh, the Speaker and Mansfield to call a group of fifteen to twenty people together eh from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations to tell them what happened. A good many of them are saying to me
Secretary Robert McNamara: Right. I've been thinking about this myself, and I thought that uh
President Johnson: They're going to start an investigation
Secretary McNamara: Yeah.
President Johnson: if you don't.
Secretary McNamara: Yeah.
President Johnson: And you got Dirksen up there
Secretary McNamara: Yeah
President Johnson: and he's saying you've got to study it further, and say to Mansfield, "Now the President wants us, you, to get the proper people." And we come in and you say, "They fired at us. We responded immediately. And we took out one of their boats and put the other two running. And we kept our..., we're puttin' our boats right there, and we're not running on in."
Secretary McNamara: And it's hard to destroy.
President Johnson: That's right
Secretary McNamara: Right. And we're going to, and I think I should also, or we should also at that time, Mr. President, explain this Op Plan 34-A, these covert operations. There's no question but what that had bearing on. And on Friday night, as you probably know, we had four TP [McNamara means PT] boats from Vietnam manned by Vietnamese or other nationals, attack two is lands. And we expended, oh, a thousand rounds of ammunition of one kind or another against them. We probably shot up a radar station and a few other miscellaneous buildings. And following twenty-four hours after that, with this destroyer in that same area, undoubtedly led them to connect the two events.
President Johnson: Well say that to Dirksen.
Secretary McNamara: That's what I know he'll like.
President Johnson: You notice Dirksen says this morning, that "we got to reassess the situation, do something about it." I'd tell him that we're doing what he's talking about.
Secretary McNamara: Well, I, I was, I was thinking doing this myself in personal visits. But I think your thought is better. We'll get the group together. You want us to do it at the White House or would you rather do it at State or Defense?
President Johnson: I believe it'd be better to do it uh up on the Hill.
Secretary McNamara: All right.
President Johnson: I believe it'd be better if you say to Mansfield, "You call"
Secretary McNamara: Yup
President Johnson: Foreign Relations
Secretary McNamara: Yup, OK.
President Johnson: Armed Services
Secretary McNamara: OK. OK.
President Johnson: and and get Speaker to do it over on his side [i.e., within the House of Representatives, as opposed to the Senate].
Secretary McNamara: We'll do it
President Johnson: And just say it's very, I'd tell him awfully quiet, though, so they won't go in and be making a bunch of speeches. And tell Rusk that a, that's my idea.
Secretary McNamara: Great. .
President Johnson: And he's in New York, so I don't know whether's he's got back.
Secretary McNamara: Well I just talked to George Ball a few minutes ago, and I'll have George arrange it. Or at least I'll tell him that, and then I'll call the Speaker and Mansfield himself.
President Johnson: Now I wish that uh you'd give me some guidance on what we ought to say. I want to leave an impression on the background in the people we talk to over here that we're gonna be firm as hell without saying something that's dangerous. Now what do you think? Uh, uh, the people that are calling me up, I just talked to a New York banker, I just talked to a fellow in Texas, they all feel that the Navy responded wonderfully and that's good. But they want to be damned sure I don't pull 'em out and run, and they want to be damned sure that we're firm. That's what all the country wants because Goldwater's raising so much hell about how he's gonna blow 'em off the moon, and they say that we oughten to do anything that the national interest doesn't require. But we sure oughta always leave the impression that if you shoot at us, you're going to get hit.
Secretary McNamara: Well I think you would want to instruct George Reedy this morning at his news conference to say that you personally have ordered the, the Navy to carry on the routine patrols uh off the coast of North Vietnam, uh to add an additional destroyer to the one that has been carrying on the patrols, to provide an air cap, and to issue instructions to the commanders to destroy any uh force that attacks our force in international waters.
President Johnson: [speaks over McNamara] Bob, if you don't mind,
Secretary McNamara: . . . I think that's the way...
President Johnson: If you don't mind, call Walter Jenkins and tell him
Secretary McNamara: Sure
President Johnson: that you want to dictate this to me
Secretary McNamara: I'll do it right now
President Johnson: to give to my people or George Reedy because I'm over at the Mansion with some folks here
Secretary McNamara: I'll do it right now.
President Johnson: OK. Right.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

According to an NSA report, the August 4th incident never occurred. (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/gulf_of_tonkin/articles/rel1_skunks_bogies.pdf) and in October 2005, an NYT article came out revealing that the NSA had deliberately distorted the information on the incident to cover their own butts regarding bad intel. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=0). In 2008, the Associated Press reported information saying that the August 4th incident did not occur. (https://web.archive.org/web/2013090...icle/ALeqM5j-5IKhFZ-bFe_Nc957JypHhNTMxQ?hl=en)

 

[Mark F]

According to an NSA report, the August 4th incident never occurred. (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/gulf_of_tonkin/articles/rel1_skunks_bogies.pdf) and in October 2005, an NYT article came out revealing that the NSA had deliberately distorted the information on the incident to cover their own butts regarding bad intel. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics/02tonkin.html?_r=0). In 2008, the Associated Press reported information saying that the August 4th incident did not occur. (https://web.archive.org/web/2013090...icle/ALeqM5j-5IKhFZ-bFe_Nc957JypHhNTMxQ?hl=en)

What do you mean by "never occurred"?

Do you mean the alleged attacks by NVN surface combatants never occurred?
Or do you mean that USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy had a totally uneventful day in which nothing of consequence occurred?

Everyone today I think agrees the NVN did not attack the Maddox and Turner Joy on 4 August. Some people allege that nothing at all happened on either ship and the entire events of that day were a total fabrication. The evidence however, seems to support the idea these two ships believed they were under attack at the time, even though they were not.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

What do you mean by "never occurred"?

Do you mean the alleged attacks by NVN surface combatants never occurred?
Or do you mean that USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy had a totally uneventful day in which nothing of consequence occurred?

Everyone today I think agrees the NVN did not attack the Maddox and Turner Joy on 4 August. Some people allege that nothing at all happened on either ship and the entire events of that day were a total fabrication. The evidence however, seems to support the idea these two ships believed they were under attack at the time, even though they were not.

I clearly referred to the August 4th incident. Try reading.

 

[Jango]

It was overhyped and used as a catalyst for U.S. intervention in Indochina, where millions died or were hideously injured, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and several countries left decimated, both the populations and the environment, which is still killing people today, particularly by leftover unexploded ordnance.

 

[Mark F]

I clearly referred to the August 4th incident. Try reading.

You try reading. I asked you what you meant by "never occurred", not which date you were referring to.

 

[Mark F]

It was overhyped and used as a catalyst for U.S. intervention in Indochina, where millions died or were hideously injured, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and several countries left decimated, both the populations and the environment, which is still killing people today, particularly by leftover unexploded ordnance.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It was overhyped and used as a catalyst for U.S. intervention in Indochina, where millions died or were hideously injured, hundreds of billions of dollars spent and several countries left decimated, both the populations and the environment, which is still killing people today, particularly by leftover unexploded ordnance.

operation ajax comes to mind


CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, carried out the operation planned by CIA agent Donald Wilber. One version of the CIA history, written by Wilber, referred to the operation as TPAJAX.[81][82]

Shaban Jafari, commonly known as Shaban the Brainless (Shaban Bimokh), was a notable pro-Shah strongman and thug. He led his men and other bribed street thugs and was a prominent figure during the coup.

During the coup, Roosevelt and Wilber, representatives of the Eisenhower administration, bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen. They also bribed street thugs to support the Shah and oppose Mosaddegh.[83] The deposed Iranian leader, Mosaddegh, was taken to jail and Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi named himself prime minister in the new, pro-western government.

Another tactic Roosevelt admitted to using was bribing demonstrators into attacking symbols of the Shah, while chanting pro-Mossadegh slogans. As king, the Shah was largely seen as a symbol of Iran at the time by many Iranians and monarchists. Roosevelt declared that the more that these agents showed their hate for the Shah and attacked his symbols, the more it caused regular people to dislike and distrust Mossadegh.[84]
Fazlollah Zahedi

Professor Masoud Kazemzadeh wrote that several "Iranian fascists and Nazi sympathizers played prominent roles in the coup regime. General Fazlollah Zahedi, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the British during World War II for his attempt to establish a pro-Nazi government, was made Prime Minister on 19 August 1953. The CIA gave Zahedi about $100,000 before the coup and an additional $5 million the day after the coup to help consolidate support for the coup."[85] Kazemzadeh also said "Bahram Shahrokh, a trainee of Joseph Goebbels and Berlin Radio's Persian-language program announcer during the Nazi rule, became director of propaganda. Mr. Sharif-Emami, who also had spent some time in jail for his pro-Nazi activities in the 1940s, assumed several positions after 1953 coup, including Secretary General of the Oil Industry, President of the Senate, and Prime Minister (twice)."[85] The US government gave Zahedi a further $28 million a month later, and that another $40 million was given in 1954 after the Iran government signed the oil consortium deal.[86]

Operation Ajax (1953)

Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a plot to overthrow a democratically elected government. The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a year later.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

I doubt many posts will. This could be an interesting thread, Mark.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The evidence however, seems to support the idea these two ships believed they were under attack at the time, even though they were not.

thats the claim Mark, a claim is not evidence.

apparently you do not know the difference between what is evidence and what is a claim

why do debunkers constantly post trash?





Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

On 2 August 1964, North Vietnamese patrol torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox (DD-731) while the destroyer was in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. There is no doubting that fact. But what happened in the Gulf during the late hours of 4 August—and the consequential actions taken by U.S. officials in Washington—has been seemingly cloaked in confusion and mystery ever since that night.

Nearly 200 documents the National Security Agency (NSA) declassified and released in 2005 and 2006, however, have helped shed light on what transpired in the Gulf of Tonkin on 4 August. The papers, more than 140 of them classified top secret, include phone transcripts, oral-history interviews, signals intelligence (SIGINT) messages, and chronologies of the Tonkin events developed by Department of Defense and NSA officials. Combined with recently declassified tapes of phone calls from White House officials involved with the events and previously uncovered facts about Tonkin, these documents provide compelling evidence about the subsequent decisions that led to the full commitment of U.S. armed forces to the Vietnam War.

The Truth About Tonkin | U.S. Naval Institute



So there you go Mark thanks for posting a PROVEN CONSPIRACY!

 

[Jango]

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question.

Certain influential power brokers wanted the U.S. in Indochina. By overhyping the attack, as well later lying about the realities on the ground, it shows that no matter what, the U.S. was going to try and militarily subjugate the Vietnamese seeking independence from colonial rulers. Look at who profited enormously from the blood, sweat, tears and lives of tens of thousands of American boys and men. It was going to happen regardless of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so in my book, it qualifies as a vast conspiracy far more than just simple fog of war. But by having the Gulf of Tonkin incident occur, it gave us a legitimate way into major hostilities as we were attacked, which is exactly what we were aiming for.

 

[Mark F]

I doubt many posts will. This could be an interesting thread, Mark.

It could be, but it probably won't. One person in particular who has voiced strong views on this subject I can pretty much guarantee will steer well clear.

 

[Mark F]

Certain influential power brokers wanted the U.S. in Indochina. By overhyping the attack, as well later lying about the realities on the ground, it shows that no matter what, the U.S. was going to try and militarily subjugate the Vietnamese seeking independence from colonial rulers. Look at who profited enormously from the blood, sweat, tears and lives of tens of thousands of American boys and men. It was going to happen regardless of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, so in my book, it qualifies as a vast conspiracy far more than just simple fog of war. But by having the Gulf of Tonkin incident occur, it gave us a legitimate way into major hostilities as we were attacked, which is exactly what we were aiming for.

All that vague accusation by innuendo against unnamed entities with no supporting evidence surprisingly still does not answer the OP.

 

[Mark F]

thats the claim Mark, a claim is not evidence.

apparently you do not know the difference between what is evidence and what is a claim

Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

On 2 August 1964, North Vietnamese patrol torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox (DD-731) while the destroyer was in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. There is no doubting that fact. But what happened in the Gulf during the late hours of 4 August—and the consequential actions taken by U.S. officials in Washington—has been seemingly cloaked in confusion and mystery ever since that night.

Nearly 200 documents the National Security Agency (NSA) declassified and released in 2005 and 2006, however, have helped shed light on what transpired in the Gulf of Tonkin on 4 August. The papers, more than 140 of them classified top secret, include phone transcripts, oral-history interviews, signals intelligence (SIGINT) messages, and chronologies of the Tonkin events developed by Department of Defense and NSA officials. Combined with recently declassified tapes of phone calls from White House officials involved with the events and previously uncovered facts about Tonkin, these documents provide compelling evidence about the subsequent decisions that led to the full commitment of U.S. armed forces to the Vietnam War.

The Truth About Tonkin | U.S. Naval Institute

So there you go Mark thanks for posting a PROVEN CONSPIRACY!

Koko, did you read your own source? It completely supports the statement in the OP that Maddox and Turner Joy believed they were under attack on 4 August.

The Maddox nevertheless reported at 2040 that she was tracking unidentified vessels. Although the U.S. destroyers were operating more than 100 miles from the North Vietnamese coastline, the approaching vessels seemed to come at the ships from multiple directions, some from the northeast, others from the southwest. Still other targets appeared from the east, mimicking attacking profiles of torpedo boats. Targets would disappear, and then new targets would appear from the opposite compass direction.

Over the next three hours, the two ships repeatedly maneuvered at high speeds to evade perceived enemy boat attacks. The destroyers reported automatic-weapons fire; more than 20 torpedo attacks; sightings of torpedo wakes, enemy cockpit lights, and searchlight illumination; and numerous radar and surface contacts. By the time the destroyers broke off their "counterattack," they had fired 249 5-inch shells, 123 3-inch shells, and four or five depth charges.

 

[Fledermaus]

And Bman is studiously avoiding this thread I am SHOCKED I tell you... SHOCKED!

 

[ozeco41]

And Bman is studiously avoiding this thread I am SHOCKED I tell you... SHOCKED!

Yes - the thread so far is a classic example of evasion by ambiguity and generalisation moving to change of topic.

Starting with the ambiguous first response to the OP:

According to an NSA report, the August 4th incident never occurred.

and Mark's crystal clear request to clarify and remove the ambiguity:

What do you mean by "never occurred"?

Do you mean the alleged attacks by NVN surface combatants never occurred?
Or do you mean that USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy had a totally uneventful day in which nothing of consequence occurred?....

and the immediate comeback - avoiding the request for disambiguation AND resorting to personal attack:

I clearly referred to the August 4th incident. Try reading.

Raises the question "Is the person genuinely incapable of clear thinking; OR
Is it deliberate dishonest debating tactics?

 

[Jango]

All that vague accusation by innuendo against unnamed entities with no supporting evidence surprisingly still does not answer the OP.

Hand wave noted. I thought you knew about the Vietnam War?

 

[Mark F]

Hand wave noted. I thought you knew about the Vietnam War?

I do. But that isn't what this thread is about. The focus of the OP is specific and narrow.

Does the phone conversation repeated in the OP prove the 4 August (or even the 2 August) incident was staged or faked?

 

[Jango]

I do. But that isn't what this thread is about. The focus of the OP is specific and narrow.

Does the phone conversation repeated in the OP prove the 4 August (or even the 2 August) incident was staged or faked?

No, I don't believe that they were not staged, they were certainly overhyped, and possibly designed, but they were not faked, as I have already said. I wholeheartedly believe though that if the attacks did not happen on the 2nd and the 4th, that any number of events could have transpired that would have sucked our youth and poor into the meat grinder. The U.S. intervention in Indochina was destined to happen one way or another.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Yes - the thread so far is a classic example of evasion by ambiguity and generalisation moving to change of topic.

Starting with the ambiguous first response to the OP:

and Mark's crystal clear request to clarify and remove the ambiguity:

and the immediate comeback - avoiding the request for disambiguation AND resorting to personal attack:


Raises the question "Is the person genuinely incapable of clear thinking; OR
Is it deliberate dishonest debating tactics?

It's pretty self-explanatory as to what I am saying. How have I resorted to personal attacks in any way? Why do you feel the need to make stuff up in order to prove a point?

 

[Fledermaus]

It's pretty self-explanatory as to what I am saying. How have I resorted to personal attacks in any way? Why do you feel the need to make stuff up in order to prove a point?

With respect.

Mark and Oz ar not in a habit of asking someone to clarify if one is really self explanatory.

I have often thought my posts were "self-explanatory" when in reality they did allow a fair amount of interpretation.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

With respect.

Mark and Oz ar not in a habit of asking someone to clarify if one is really self explanatory.

I have often thought my posts were "self-explanatory" when in reality they did allow a fair amount of interpretation.

I can understand that, but when I say that something didn't happen and provide evidence, we can safely say that what I have said really isn't up for interpretation.

 

[Mark F]

It's pretty self-explanatory as to what I am saying. How have I resorted to personal attacks in any way? Why do you feel the need to make stuff up in order to prove a point?

Ummmm, no.

Oz's post was clear and self-explanatory. Your first post was vague and ambiguous, your second contained an insult "learn to read" when it was clearly you who had not done the reading. That also spelled out plain as day by Oz.

 

[Fledermaus]

I can understand that, but when I say that something didn't happen and provide evidence, we can safely say that what I have said really isn't up for interpretation.

What "didn't happen"?

The first attack happened. Period.

So I CAN assume you PROBABLY mean the second attack.

But since you won't say...........

 

[Mr. Invisible]

What "didn't happen"?

The first attack happened. Period.

So I CAN assume you PROBABLY mean the second attack.

But since you won't say...........

I do mean the second attack. There were two attacks which took place. The second attack (allegedly) took place on August 4th. I clearly and explicitly referred to the second attack (August 4th) in my first post. So all you are doing is playing stupid.