March 31, 2017

"My motivation at the time was simple. I was being actively pursued by the military, who seemed single-mindedly determined to send me to fight, and possibly die, in Vietnam. I wanted to publish something that would express my anger."

Said William Powell, author of the "Anarchist Cookbook," quoted in his obituary. He was 66.
He declared that his book was an educational service for the silent majority — not the one identified by President Richard M. Nixon as his middle-American constituency, but the disciplined anarchists who were seeking dignity in a world gone wrong. To them, he offered how-to plans for weaponry and explosives as well as drugs, electronic surveillance, guerrilla training and hand-to-hand combat — a potent mix that attracted the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The book found a big audience. More than two million copies have reportedly been sold, and still more have been downloaded on the internet.

67 comments:

CJinPA said...

"disciplined anarchists who were seeking dignity in a world gone wrong."

I would attribute this sympathetic description to the fact that it was about resisting fighting in a war many questioned. But the NY Times has treated every left-wing anarchist since then in the same way. Including the ones trying to upend the 2016 election results. They are definitely the white hats in the relentless NYT progressive narrative.

AllenS said...

Wow, I wonder how these Anarchists would respond if every "red blooded American" tried to blow up institutions that they didn't like.

Sebastian said...

Ah, "disciplined anarchists who were seeking dignity in a world gone wrong"--a "silent majority" except for the fact that they weren't silent and weren't a majority.

John Tuffnell said...

A bit presumptuous that the single-minded determination of the military at the time was to pursue this guy to draft and then sacrifice.

Otto said...

"but the disciplined anarchists who were seeking dignity in a world gone wrong. "
Total BS. A bunch of spoiled kids who where afraid to die. They replaced something with nothing.

madAsHell said...

I can only hope that he was hoisted by his own petard.

Peter said...

"Disciplined anarchists," "seeking dignity"?

And yet again we see the gulf between those "disciplined anarchists seeking dignity" and the actually-existing kind, seeking destruction and visiting violence on any they perceive might be opposed to them.

Just as the French Revolution devolved into the Terror and the Russian Revolution devolved into Stalinism, have we not yet seen where radical, utopian idealism always leads?

For the utopians always discover that human nature is just not what they want it to be. And therefore, if the revolution is not to be lost then people simply must be forced to be something other than what they naturally are.

But the people are obstinate: they hoard, they cling to their false gods, they favor their own children over those of strangers! And to change this, to make the people over into the revolutionary ideal, no coercion can be too extreme, no violence too shocking. People must be made over to fit ideal, and to do so their will must be not merely broken but shattered, their culture not merely deprecated but destroyed and plowed under salted fields forever.

Expat(ish) said...

"disciplined anarchist?"

I've read a couple of *great* book about the Spanish Civil War in the last few years and one thing was quite clear about the Anarchist Brigades: not disciplined. I'm not talking militarily, but just politically and organizationally. Which is not shocking, of course.

-XC

John said...

CJinPA said

left-wing anarchist

That, and the conflation of anarchism with socialism as has been common for 150+ years makes me nuts. It is an oxymoron.

Anarchism is the absence of rulers.

Socialism cannot exist without rulers to determine what the "objective value" of things are. Socialism cannot exist without rulers to force me to accept the "objective value" that they decide upon.

Socialism is based on a fundamental falsehood that Marx explains on about the third page of Capital.

I've always thought it was erroneous thinking but I've never discarded the idea that it might have been a purposeful lie.

Whichever, it requires a socialist govt to use force or fall apart.

John Henry

CJ said...

A few years ago I'll bet mentioning that you own the Anarchist Cookbook would get you called a racist hillbilly by people who thought the federal government was just splendid.

Now people will display it proudly next to their In Vogue and Chanel coffee table books.

CJinPA said...

left-wing anarchist That, and the conflation of anarchism with socialism as has been common for 150+ years makes me nuts. It is an oxymoron.

Of course. They're not actual "anarchists." They're just another left-wing group. I have yet to see an actual anarchist group today. But if the NY Times uses "anarchist" I'm going to add the qualifier.

CJinPA said...

CJ said...

Oh no, there's a CJ and a CJinPA. Maybe we should combine all of our comments for expediency.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

There's a lot more in it besides being an anarchist. It's pretty impressive for a 19 year old.

John said...

Blogger CJinPA said...

Of course. They're not actual "anarchists." They're just another left-wing group. I have yet to see an actual anarchist group today.

Actually, there are. When I used to follow the libertarian movement more closely, back in the 80s and 90s, there uses to be a number of professed anarchists who would write in the journals.

They really did believe in no government. They believed in unfettered voluntary exchange. there was little difference between them an libertarians except in degree.

Libertarians believe in minimal govt but there is a wide range of libertarian opinion about what "minimal" means and at some point it crosses from minimal to none and becomes anarchism.

John Henry

John said...

BTW CJinPA

I was not picking on you in my original comment, just pointing out that the idea of anarchic socialism is common and erroneous.

You are also generally correct about the groups calling themselves anarchists. I was just pointing out that there are some exceptions.

John Henry

Hunter said...

AllenS said...
Wow, I wonder how these Anarchists would respond if every "red blooded American" tried to blow up institutions that they didn't like.

You mean like abortion clinics?

Chuck said...

"And then, on July 11 of last year, he died of a heart attack while vacationing with his family near Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was 66 and had lived part-time in Massat, France, when he was not working with his wife, Ochan Powell, on educational projects in other countries."

Why is it that all of the former anarchist bomb-makers (and writers about bomb-making) all end up in "education"?

Bill Ayers. Bernardine Dohrn. Tom Hayden. Cathy Wilkerson. Kathy Boudin. Weather Underground bank robber Judy Clark is eligible for a parole hearing this hear on her 35 year sentence. I expect a tenured position at Columbia awaits her.

John said...

While owning the Anarchist Cookbook may be cool, what about the sabotage manual issues by the US govt?

I've never owned the Cookbook but I did used to own a pretty good manual covering much of the same ground that was issued by the US Govt. I think Army. It is available, or used to be, through Amazon via Ann's portal.

Don't blow anything up with it or you'll make Ann an accomplice.

What could be more pure Alinsky "Rule [whatever]: Use their own tactics against them" than using the govt's own manual to fight the govt?

Much cooler than the Cookbook.

John Henry

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Come on Professor, everybody knows the Anarchist Cookbook was sponsored by the CIA so that aspiring bombers would blow themselves up.

CJinPA said...

Actually, there are. When I used to follow the libertarian movement more closely, back in the 80s and 90s, there uses to be a number of professed anarchists who would write in the journals.

I could see that. But did it go beyond writings?

That's what I meant. I've never seen a true anarchist group committing violence in the name of true anarchy.

AllenS said...

Exactly, Hunter.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

While owning the Anarchist Cookbook may be cool, what about the sabotage manual issues by the US govt?

This made me curious, so I looked around the web.

It is rather scary the amount of material you can find on sabotage and explosives created by the US government for free with a simple search on bing.

Robert Cook said...

"A bunch of spoiled kids who where afraid to die."

An entirely reasonable fear. Given that there was no reason to be fighting in Vietnam, no self-defense rationale, those afraid and reluctant to die in Vietnam had every right to refuse to be drafted, and to seek refuge in Canada or elsewhere if need be.

Roughcoat said...

The violent "anarchists" cited in the New York Times article as having been influenced by the Cookbook all are/were right-wing. Not a leftie among them. Gosh, what a surprise.

Wilbur said...

It's absurd to posit "there was no reason to be fighting in Vietnam".

You may not agree with the reason or reasons, but this country did not commit combat forces there just for the hell of it.

jamescbennett said...


"A bunch of spoiled kids who where afraid to die."

Conscription is tyranny; it's immoral. If you cannot convince young people to volunteer to fight for your nation, it means your nation sucks and deserves to die. A nation or culture is just a tool, and when tools cease to be useful, they are abandoned.

jamescbennett said...

When I was in high school, we all had copies of Anarchist's Cookbook and the the Special Forces' TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook. Mostly we used them to booby-trap each other's lockers with incendiaries.

William said...

Were the anarchists active during the forced collectivization programs in Russia, the Ukraine, and China?

Otto said...

60s culture :Honor, responsibility courage and valor -out
Me-in
Always aim low.Aiming high is tough.

John said...

Blogger jamescbennett said...

Conscription is tyranny; it's immoral. If you cannot convince young people to volunteer to fight for your nation, it means your nation sucks and deserves to die.


I would sort of agree but say that it is the war, not the country, that sucks and "deserves to die". Or not have our country involved in.

60% or so of all soldiers in WWII were draftees, yet people call it a "just war"

We never had a dog in that fight (European section) yet lots of American men died in it.

In November 1941 something like 70-80% of the US was against our involvement yet FDR insisted in dragging us into it. Invading Iceland, hunting German subs, weapons to England and Russia and more even though we claimed to be "neutral"

John said...

That's 60% or so of all US soldiers in WWII were draftees.

John Henry

William said...

Any group, no matter how psycho, that is hostile to western bourgeois capitalism finds sympathy with western artists and intellectuals. Sacco and Vanzetti were two of the most celebrated figures of the twentieth century. Pulitzer Prize authors documented the beauty of their souls. The anarchist groups that Sacco associated with were persons of interest in a Wall St. bombing that caused mass casualties. Although the casualties were mostly clerks, they worked on Wall St and deserved an early death.......During the Spanish Civil, however, the left seemed to favor the Stalinists over the anarchists. There's probably an edifying lesson to be drawn from that.

cubanbob said...

AllenS said...
Wow, I wonder how these Anarchists would respond if every "red blooded American" tried to blow up institutions that they didn't like"

Let's be really revolutionary and make taxes a la carte. On your tax return you get to tick the items you want to pay for and your taxes are only allocated to those items. Each item only gets funded to the extent the taxpayers in aggregate select to pay.

Fernandinande said...

Otto said...
Total BS. A bunch of spoiled kids who where afraid to die.


Why should anyone die for some useless political bullshit, e.g. Vietnam? Which we lost; 'twas a complete waste.

They replaced something with nothing.

Oh, I dunno. I don't have much respect for people who allow themselves to be enslaved, namely drafted, and won't stand up for themselves.

They replaced slavery with freedom, oh the horror.

Big Mike said...

And now he's a good anarchist at last.

Fernandinande said...

The draft is unconstitutional because it violates the 13th (slavery/servitude) and 14th (equal protection) amendments.

Sigivald said...

If there had been a silent majority of serious anarchists, we'd never have gotten where we were/are.

(John said: In November 1941 something like 70-80% of the US was against our involvement

Did FDR make Japan attack Pearl Harbor?

And relevantly to the European theater, did he make Germany declare war on the United States?

Because they did that, before the US returned the favor.

Or did he somehow force Congress to vote how it did in declaring war?)

I Callahan said...

An entirely reasonable fear. Given that there was no reason to be fighting in Vietnam, no self-defense rationale, those afraid and reluctant to die in Vietnam had every right to refuse to be drafted, and to seek refuge in Canada or elsewhere if need be.

Heh!! This post is definitely R Cook bait. Remind you of the "good old days", Bob?

Sorry - couldn't resist...

I Callahan said...

Right, as opposed to the millions of 18 and 19 year old draftees who were not afraid to die.

Yeah, but they had the courage to go anyway. So you're conflating non-congruent concepts here.

Wilbur said...

My (liberal) friend in college used to call them "Sucko and Wazootie" just to piss off this anarchist who lived on his dorm floor.

I Callahan said...

Why should anyone die for some useless political bullshit, e.g. Vietnam? Which we lost; 'twas a complete waste.

And here we go again.

We're not a libertarian country. We are NOT completely free. No one is. Sometimes your country needs you, and whether or not you like it shouldn't be a factor.

Oh, I dunno. I don't have much respect for people who allow themselves to be enslaved, namely drafted, and won't stand up for themselves.

This is nonsense on stilts. We all have something or someone to answer for. Sometimes we don't choose who that is. We do it anyway, because it's the honorable thing to do. Selfishness is not a virtue.

They replaced slavery with freedom, oh the horror.

There is a wide gulf between the two. It's not a binary choice. But libertarians can't see the color gray - only black and white register for them. Talk about binary thinking...

Etienne said...

Civilians always worry about dying in war.

Soldiers only worry about losing their gonads.

Etienne said...

The sixth Commandment is often quoted as "thou shalt not kill."

This is not true. It's a mis-translation of the King James Bible.

The Hebrew is "thou shalt not murder."

There's a distinct difference between a lawful killing and an unlawful killing (in religion). For example, God says that honor killing, prisoner killing, killing a burglar or robber, and war killing is lawful. On the other hand, killing someone because they have a nice ass, or have pissed you off, is murder, and unlawful.

...and yes, killing the unborn is unlawful, but killing them after they dishonor the family is lawful.

It wasn't until 1975 that honor killing was outlawed in France. Previous French colonies (or domains) however, still follow the Napoleonic code. Syria, Lebanon, Algeria.

Fernandinande said...

I Callahan said...
"Why should anyone die for some useless political bullshit, e.g. Vietnam? Which we lost; 'twas a complete waste."

We're not a libertarian country. We are NOT completely free.


No kidding. I guess your stance is that freedom is to be despised because it's not perfect.

No one is. Sometimes your country needs you, and whether or not you like it shouldn't be a factor.

Vietnam wasn't a time when the country needed anyone because it was just a political scam. When "your country" expresses its need as "I need you. And I own you, so you have no choice", then, no, they don't need me.

In that case they need slaves, not citizens.

"Oh, I dunno. I don't have much respect for people who allow themselves to be enslaved, namely drafted, and won't stand up for themselves."

This is nonsense on stilts.


No it's not.

We all have something or someone to answer for.

No we don't.

Sometimes we don't choose who that is. We do it anyway, because it's the honorable thing to do. Selfishness is not a virtue.

I don't have anything at all to answer for re. Vietnam.

"They replaced slavery with freedom, oh the horror."
There is a wide gulf between the two.


Between freedom and slavery. Yup!

It's not a binary choice. But libertarians can't see the color gray - only black and white register for them.

Slavery: 1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.

IOW, the draft.

Talk about binary thinking...

Talk about being obedient to your masters, a bunch of sleazy politicians playing sleazy political games.

And talk about not knowing the definition of a simple word like "slavery".

John said...

Blogger Sigivald said...

If there had been a silent majority of serious anarchists, we'd never have gotten where we were/are.

(John said: In November 1941 something like 70-80% of the US was against our involvement

Did FDR make Japan attack Pearl Harbor?


There is some argument that he did but I am not a big believer. In any case, a strawman since I was speaking of the European part of WWII

And relevantly to the European theater, did he make Germany declare war on the United States?

Absolutely. Read a bit of history. Or better yet, read the German Declaration of War which precipitated our formal involvement:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.


(there's more)

In addition to sinking and seizing German ships while claiming to be neutral, we invaded/occupied Iceland. Iceland was at the time technically under German control as part of Denmark. That freed up a division or so of British troops to go fight Germans. Pretty neutral of us, huh?

We were, essentially, giving warships, warplanes, munitions and other war supplies to Britain. Not an act of neutrality. Yeah, I know, technically we were selling with deferred payment "Lend-Lease" funny how we, as a neutral, would not sell to Germany on those terms.

Read for example Churchill's 6 volume history of WWII. He goes into quite a bit of detail about how FDR was trying to maneuver the US, against its will, into WWII Europe. Lots of other material you could find as well if you were interested.

Because they did that, before the US returned the favor.

See above. It was AFTER the US returned the favor as you put it.

Or did he somehow force Congress to vote how it did in declaring war?)

I would have said maneuvered rather than forced but either one works. Once he forced Germany to declare war on us, Congress had pretty much no choice.

John Henry

buwaya said...

My mother turned up documents from the Spanish Army recently, she being into genealogy.

It turns out that an ancestor, a Spanish officer risen from the ranks, did a tour of duty in Vietnam - in 1858-1861, leading Filipino troops in the Franco-Spanish expedition.

Landed at Da Nang - at that time, Tourane.
Won the French Legion of Honor in the taking of Saigon in 1859, for leading an assault column. The Annamese didn't just give up of course. Took part in the subsequent extended war - a quagmire. Including guerilla war.

Yes you can also blame our lot for starting all of this.

John said...

And all of the above drags us off the topic of whether we should resort to a draft if the American people do not support a war.

Question for Sigvald: Sigvald, why do you think we needed 60% or so draftees in WII East and West if it was such a popular war?

Why could the govt not convince people to join voluntarily if it was such a popular war.

John Henry

I Callahan said...

No kidding. I guess your stance is that freedom is to be despised because it's not perfect.

There goes that binary thinking again. Either you're for unfettered freedom to do anything you want, or you're for slavery. To answer your question - no, of course it isn't to be despised. It's just not to be expected in every circumstance.

Vietnam wasn't a time when the country needed anyone because it was just a political scam. When "your country" expresses its need as "I need you. And I own you, so you have no choice", then, no, they don't need me. In that case they need slaves, not citizens.

Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. The above is an example of an opinion. Others have opinions along the lines of "Don't let Communism, which is the most malignant philosophy in history, take over more countries, or it'll infect those too." That's just as valid of an opinion as yours. It's ironic, actually, that you complain about not enough freedom. Freedom is earned and worked for; American involvement in Vietnam was initially put in place for that very reason.

We all have something or someone to answer for. No we don't.

Are you a hermit? Do you live alone? Do you have family, or kids? Because those are the ONLY situations where you don't have anyone to answer for. That said - if that's the case, I feel sorry for you.

Between freedom and slavery. Yup!

The gulf is the part you're ignoring. You can live in a mostly free country, a mostly non-free country. But there are no instances in history where a country was completely free. Even in anarchy, there is lack of freedom.

Slavery: 1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude. IOW, the draft. And talk about not knowing the definition of a simple word like "slavery".

Definition creep, is what I think they call this. When you turned 18, you signed up for the draft. You can choose not to, and stay in the country, and be prosecuted; or you can leave the country. In slavery, they capture you, make you work for them forever, and you have no rights forever. Big difference. In the first situation, you have some freedom - you can take the deal, or leave. In the second, you have none, ever.

Talk about being obedient to your masters, a bunch of sleazy politicians playing sleazy political games.

It has ever been thus. And it ain't changing. Ever. That's the price for living in a country like ours.

I Callahan said...

Why could the govt not convince people to join voluntarily if it was such a popular war.

I don't know about this. I've read a fair amount of stories about men lying about their age just to be able to sign up for the service, especially right after Pearl Harbor.

I'm finding this version of history a bit hard to believe.

Chuck said...

Etienne said...
Civilians always worry about dying in war.
Soldiers only worry about losing their gonads.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rAFMC2O9dQ

Fernandinande said...

I Callahan said...
There goes that binary thinking again. Either you're for unfettered freedom to do anything you want, or you're for slavery.


Nope.

To answer your question - no, of course it isn't to be despised. It's just not to be expected in every circumstance.

I didn't say it was.

But! The US was a "libertarian" country for quite a while, and still would be if the gov't followed its own rules.

Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. The above is an example of an opinion.

Hey, thanks, I didn't know what an "opinion" was.

Others have opinions along the lines of "Don't let Communism, which is the most malignant philosophy in history, take over more countries, or it'll infect those too." That's just as valid of an opinion as yours.

No it's not, for two reasons.
- Communism always fails under its own weight, the main weight being a loss of freedom.
- The US didn't really try to win the Vietnam war.
- We withdrew, gave up, killed thousands of people for no reason; better result if nobody had ever gone.

We all have something or someone to answer for. "No we don't."

Are you a hermit? Do you live alone? Do you have family, or kids? Because those are the ONLY situations where you don't have anyone to answer for.


So you admit that you were incorrect about "we all".

That said - if that's the case, I feel sorry for you.

No, don't do that, none of the above are true for me, and none of the above has anything to do with the draft or with the government.

I think you're doing one of those herring gizmos...

The gulf is the part you're ignoring. You can live in a mostly free country, a mostly non-free country. But there are no instances in history where a country was completely free.

No kidding!

Even in anarchy, there is lack of freedom.

Anarchy is a word kids use.

Slavery: 1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude. IOW, the draft. And talk about not knowing the definition of a simple word like "slavery".

Definition creep, is what I think they call this.


So now you won't admit that you were incorrect.

When you turned 18, you signed up for the draft. You can choose not to, and stay in the country, and be prosecuted; or you can leave the country. In slavery, they capture you, make you work for them forever, and you have no rights forever. Big difference.
In the first situation, you have some freedom - you can take the deal, or leave. In the second, you have none, ever.


In both situations you become a slave unless you ignore what the slave-master wants and either go to prison or go somewhere else.

So, thanks for pointing out how the draft and slavery are so similar.

"Talk about being obedient to your masters, a bunch of sleazy politicians playing sleazy political games."

It has ever been thus. And it ain't changing. Ever. That's the price for living in a country like ours.


So you don't consider yourself a citizen, you consider yourself a subject. That's downright un-American and I feel sorry for you. Do you miss North Korea?

harrogate said...

"A bunch of spoiled kids who where afraid to die."

For those keeping score, the above is as dumb a comment as possible, on a blog post or anywhere else.

Kirk Parker said...

"I've read a fair amount of stories about men lying about their age just to be able to sign up for the service, especially right after Pearl Harbor."

My dad's story is almost this one.

The lying he did about his age was to get a job in the Tacoma shipyards after Pearl Harbor. His father had died of pneumonia over Christmas vacation that December, and my dad never went back to school, lying about his age to get the job.

Then, when he was still officially too young to join the Navy, but on the strength of having worked X months at the shipyard, he enlisted. FWIW, his acquaintances at the shipyard thought he was nuts to enlist--they got better pay than entry-level recruits, plus nobody was shooting at them--but he was determined.

Jack Wayne said...

Fernandinande is a free rider utopian. Enough said.

William said...

Capitalism is the golden goose. The bounty of the golden eggs are unevenly distributed, and the goose leaves quite a lot of goose shit underfoot. The Marxists believe that by killing the goose you will solve the problem of goose shit and the inequitable distribution of golden eggs. The liberals believe that if you tether the goose and feed it a restricted diet, the goose shit problem will be solved and there will be no reduction in golden eggs production. The anarchists believe that if you let the golden goose fly free, it will never fly away and, if it does, well, that's the price of freedom.......Myself, I believe that in the presence of the golden goose, you should dress up like Leda and engage in cosplay sex. I make this observation to prove that extended metaphors don't work.

Bob Loblaw said...

I'm conflicted about this guy. On the one hand, he was basically a terrorist before we called 'em terrorists.

On the other, his bomb-making instructions are wrong enough that he probably got more fellow travelers killed while they were building bombs than people who were actual targets of those bombs. There were a lot of people who thought the book was actually written by the CIA for that purpose.

bigkat said...

half the men who served in Viet Nam were volunteers. some men run towards the sound of gun fire some retreat. Some people will risk every thing to help innocents being slaughtered ; for the others its not their problem.

Big Mike said...

On the other, his bomb-making instructions are wrong enough that he probably got more fellow travelers killed while they were building bombs than people who were actual targets of those bombs. There were a lot of people who thought the book was actually written by the CIA for that purpose.

@Bob, so perhaps we have him to thank for the fate of Terry Robbins, Diana Oughton, and Ted Gold? Pity Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin got out alive.

The Godfather said...

I'm always amused to hear/read discussions about the Viet Nam War in which the commenters from the left condemn that war, and commenters from the right defend it, when it was the liberal heroes JFK and LBJ who got us into that war, and the rightist devil Nixon who got us out of it.

John said...


Blogger bigkat said...

half the men who served in Viet Nam were volunteers. some men run towards the sound of gun fire some retreat. Some people will risk every thing to help innocents being slaughtered ; for the others its not their problem.

More than half, bigcat. More like 2/3.

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. [Westmoreland] Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. [McCaffrey] Many men volunteered for the draft so even some of the draftees were actually volunteers.


http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html


Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.

86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. (CACF and Westmoreland)

John Henry

buwaya said...

" it was the liberal heroes JFK and LBJ who got us into that war, and the rightist devil Nixon who got us out of it."

Good point.

Its the same sort of transubstantiation of responsibility that tries to pin JFK's assassination to some nebulous right-wing atmosphere in Dallas or "guns" instead of a well-known communist nut. Its a way to deflect the spiritual guilt of being on the wrong side, to avoid repentance and doing penance, by blaming the other guys.

The guilt of doing wrong, so enormously and consistently, over generations of teachers and students of that ideology, is of a cosmic scale. Any modern leftist bears such a planetary weight of sin, by now, inherited from his predecessors, that if justice were physics the only outcome would be instant dissolution.

So to avoid obliteration the only option is to continue to pile on more sin.

Bob Loblaw said...

JFK may be a liberal hero, but he was a cold warrior through-and-through. In those days there was a lot of air between Democrats and communists.

bigkat said...

JOHN , Thanks for the follow up stats. In regard to that other myth that ARVN wouldn't fight ; what is the KIA for our Vietnamese allies ?

Robert Cook said...

" it was the liberal heroes JFK and LBJ who got us into that war, and the rightist devil Nixon who got us out of it."

Yeah, after sabotaging LBJ's peace efforts by telling the Vietnamese to "hold off" and he'd give them a better deal, and then extending the war four years.

The Godfather said...

@Robert Cook: If you believe that, I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you; from my front porch you can see the sea.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.