Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VIII, Public Diplomacy, 1969–1972

139. Memorandum Prepared in the Office of Research and Assessment, United States Information Agency¹

Washington, June 15, 1971

NEW YORK TIMES PUBLICATION OF VIETNAM STUDY²

Foreign Media Reaction Reported as of 12 noon, June 15, 1971

Reaction in media of several West European countries and Canada to the publication in The New York Times of a Pentagon study on the Vietnam war has so far been largely confined to interpretations of its possible effects in the U.S.

French Radio: “Casts Doubt on Administration’s Efforts”

The French state-run radio reported from Washington this morning that the Administration was “awfully embarrassed.” The disclosure, it said, “is a shock for America, which suddenly must reconsider all its beliefs about the war in Indochina. This casts doubt on the genuineness of the Nixon administration’s alleged efforts to end the war.”

“Demonstrates Mr. Nixon’s Good Faith”

On the other hand, the correspondent for the commercial Europe One radio remarked that “Mr. Melvin Laird appeared to be horrified, but he is virtually the only one in Washington so to be. This publication could not have been more timely for the Administration. It demonstrates the duplicity of the Democrats and, opposed to this, Mr. Nixon’s good faith.”

French papers today ran the story on inside pages. Some did not mention it.

Moderately conservative Figaro headlined on page four: “SPECTACULAR LEAKS IN WASHINGTON. . . .President Johnson Reportedly Misled Public Opinion and Congress.”

The paper’s Washington correspondent said the publication “had the effect of a bombshell in the White House. The scandal is likely to entail important political consequences. . .”

Judging that “nothing in all this concerns Mr. Nixon directly,” the correspondent nevertheless remarked that “Mr. Nixon is very likely to suffer for the actions of his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, insofar as the leaks in question show how far a President can go on his own authority when he acts without any Congressional control.”

Correspondent Quotes Extensively From NY Times

Independent-left Le Monde of Paris yesterday afternoon carried a report from its Washington correspondent which quoted extensively from the New York Times. He asserted that “this disclosure casts extreme doubt on the official version of the incidents which served as a pretext to widen the conflict.”

The Washington correspondent of mass-circulation pro-Government France-Soir wrote yesterday:

“In order to attack North Vietnam, Johnson misled Congress. . . . This probably could happen only in the U.S. . . .

“This report, published thanks to a mysterious leak, justifies the arguments of the liberal members of Congress who have been calling for several months for the re-establishment of the Senate’s right to decide on war, a right surrendered to the Executive since the Roosevelt era.

“It also strengthens the position of the Republicans that the Democrats, especially Kennedy and Johnson, are responsible for the war, while Nixon on the contrary is the first President to try to reduce the role of the U.S. in the conflict.”

London: “Not Entirely Unwelcome. . .”

The independent Times of London said today:

“While there’s no doubt that disclosure of the secret American warfare in Laos and North Vietnam through 1964 is both damaging to the national prestige and appalling to American advocates of openly justified policies, the revelations . . . are not entirely unwelcome among supporters of the Nixon administration.

“They may protest at the dastardly leak, but as James Reston writes, ‘The ambiguity of the Nixon administration’s zigzag withdrawal from Vietnam seems, in the light of these documents, almost innocent compared to the deceptive and stealthy American involvement in the war under Presidents Johnson and Kennedy.’”³

“Unlikely Administration Leaked Report”

The independent London Financial Times wrote, “No one knows who leaked the report. . . . It has been suggested that the Administration is itself responsible. This is considered unlikely . . . since the end result of the disclosures can lead only to greater disillusionment with the war and the Government in general, even though the present Administration is not implicated.”

“No Profound Impact Likely”

The Washington correspondent of the liberal Guardian of Manchester and London called publication of the papers “a further staggering blow at the honesty and credibility of government,” but said it was “too early to say what . . . impact the publication . . . will have on the American political scene.” He elaborated:

“My own guess is that it will not be profound. For one thing the perusal of such massive quantities of documents is now caviar to the general. And it’s the last President, not the present one, who will appear as the chief villain.”

Rome Radio: “Minimizing the Affair”

State-owned Italian radio said The New York Times articles had evoked “much emotion.” The broadcast noted that Secretary Laird had charged a breach of security in publication of the study. It maintained that a White House spokesman was “trying to minimize the affair.”

Today’s papers carried the story on inside pages. Influential Corriere della Sera of Milan ran a report under the heading, “A Bitter Report on Vietnam.” Moderate La Stampa of Turin spoke of “an explosive secret document on U.S. Vietnam policy,” and left-of-center Il Giorno, Milan, judged that “publication of the document fosters a credibility gap between the public and the U.S. Government. . .”

West German Treatment

West German television gave prominent placement last night to the “secret study of the war in Vietnam, which reveals U.S. involvement there as early as the Truman Administration.”

Several West German papers today reported “consternation” in U.S. Government quarters.

Canada: “U.S. Kept in Dark”

Canadian media gave prominence to news stories on Sunday’s⁴ New York Times article, with emphasis on what some called the surreptitious nature of the U.S. Government’s “aggressive and provocative” action against North Vietnam. Headlines read: “U.S. Kept in Dark as War Was Escalated, Report Says”; “Hanoi Territory Bombed with Laotian-Marked Planes—Pentagon,” and “Study Shows U.S. Secretly Attacked North Vietnam, Inveigled Congress into War Action.”

Moscow: “Awkward for the Administration”

Moscow TASS international service in English carried today a dispatch datelined New York which said in part:

“TASS correspondent H. Freeman reports hitherto secret official documents, which have now come to light, confirm that the U.S. deliberately escalated and broadened the war in Indochina and misled the American public in giving its reasons for doing so. . . .

“The official documents published by The New York Times conclusively demonstrate that months before the alleged Tonkin Gulf incidents,⁵ Washington was already directing clandestine sabotage operations against the DRV and was making plans for a major attack against the DRV. . . .

“This record of official duplicity comes at an awkward moment for the present Administration. The Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a proposal by Senators George McGovern and Mark Hatfield calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Indochina by the end of this year.⁶ Several Congressmen, including Paul McCloskey, Republican of California, have expressed the opinion that the revelations published in The New York Times will strengthen the position of the anti-war elements in Congress. The New York Post today editorially comments that the published documents dramatize the degree to which the American people and Congress have been kept uninformed or actively deceived about U.S. policy in Indochina.”

Monitoring reports do not yet show any Hanoi comment.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1968–1972, Entry A1–42, Box 20, OGA—White House June thru September 1971. No classification marking. Shakespeare sent a copy of the memorandum to Higby under a memorandum stamped “June 16 1971,” stating: “Attached is a report of first foreign media reaction, chiefly West European, to the publication by The New York Times of the ‘Viet-Nam Archives.’” (Ibid.)
2. Reference is to United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, a top secret study commissioned by McNamara in 1967, a copy of which Daniel Ellsberg leaked to the New York Times. On June 13, 1971, New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan broke the story, writing that the study “demonstrates that four administrations progressively developed a sense of commitment to a non-Communist Vietnam, a readiness to fight the North to protect the South, and an ultimate frustration with this effort—to a much greater extent than their public statements acknowledged at the time.” (“Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement,” New York Times, p. 1) The New York Times also printed excerpts from the study in the June 13 edition; specifically, a March 16, 1964, memorandum from McNamara to Johnson. (“’64 McNamara Report on Steps To Change the Trend of the War,” ibid., p. 35; memorandum also printed in Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. I, Vietnam, 1964, Document 84) Sheehan’s articles appearing in the June 14 and June 15 editions of the New York Times highlighted other aspects of the study; see “Vietnam Archive: A Consensus to Bomb Developed Before ’64 Election, Study Says” June 14, 1971, p. 1 and “Vietnam Archive: Study Tells How Johnson Secretly Opened Way to Ground Combat,” June 15, 1971, p. 1.
3. James Reston, “The McNamara Papers,” New York Times, June 13, 1971, p. E13. The complete paragraph reads: “The documents prove once more that truth is the first casualty of war and that war corrupts good men. In fact, the ambiguity of the Nixon administration’s zig-zag withdrawal from Vietnam seems, in the light of these documents, almost innocent compared to the deceptive and stealthy American involvement in the war under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.” (Ibid.)
4. June 13.
5. Reference is to the alleged torpedo attacks on the U.S.S. Maddox and C. Turner Joy in early August 1964. For additional information, see Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. I, Vietnam, 1964, Documents 255–308.
6. On June 16, the Senate defeated the McGovern-Hatfield amendment on a roll call vote. (John W. Finney, “Senate, 55 to 42, Defeats McGovern-Hatfield Plan,” New York Times, June 17, 1971, p. 1) However, the Senate later adopted a Mansfield-sponsored resolution, which called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Indochina within 9 months. A revised version substituted “at the earliest practicable date” for the 9 month timetable. (Congress and the Nation, vol. III, 1969–1972, p. 917)