Jane Fonda Story

Status
Not open for further replies.
All

The forum in which I heard this tale (see original post) included both Col. Day and ADM Stockdale, as well as a dozen other Veterans and POWs, and occurred about ten years ago.

I have already stated that it seems the story is an 'urban legend' based on what I read at snopes.com, and after careful consideration of what I remember I must say this:

I do not remember exactly who told the story. Col. Day was there, because I remember his story about the code they developed, and how they could cough, sneeze, sweep, etc., a pattern of sounds and relay messages within the Hanoi Hilton. But other than that I do not remember exactly who told this story, I think that since Col. Day was my main memory from it I may gave inadvertantly attributed (in my mind) the story to him. I was vague in the original post for this reason.

My memory is occasionally suspect, my headwounds have caused me problems before with memory, and I am afraid they have again. I realize this is not an excuse, and that is why I have written this note to clarify my post. Ths last thing I want to do is attribute anything to a MOH winner which he did not say, especially a story which may be suspect in it's accuracy.

I offer my apologies to any who desire them.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

MajMike
 
Well, shucks. I ain't looking for any apology, just information. :)
The forum in which I heard this tale (see original post) included both Col. Day and ADM Stockdale, as well as a dozen other Veterans and POWs, and occurred about ten years ago.
Click to expand...

Could you give some specifics about this meet? I'm a history major at ASU, and I'm always interested in interesting history, especially history that is still so charged for the American consciousness.

Who hosted the meet? Where was it held? What was the purpose of the forum? Are transcripts available? What was your role there?

Any specifics will be appreciated.

Regards,

John Shirley
 
JShirley

JShirley

It was a leadership briefing/Q & A at Squadron Officer School (SOS) at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama. I was attending SOS as Professional Military Education (PME), and as part of our leadership training we had a 2 hour session with the folks described before. No transcripts exist that I know of, but I know the sessions were taped. However, I doubt that they would be released (if they even still exist) as the sessions were what we call "non-attributional", so the flow of Q & A was quite candid.

Later, we had many surviving Tuskegee Airman talk with us as well, and then we hosted "A Gathering of Eagles" where many famous or high-ranking pioneers of aviation met with us and talked about the development of air power as a strategic and tactical tool. Gen. Yeager was just one of many who attended. See http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/admin/Goehome.htm for info on that program.

I hope this helps, sorry I don't have more specifics, but if you have questions I will be happy to try and answer them. Besides this school, I also completed a year-long Air Power History course, and was an intern at the Pentagon for two years where I was fortunate to attend many more such sessions, with folks like Gen Zinni, Colin Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf (did you know his dad was the Provost Marshall for occupied Germany, as well as a part of the investigation into the Lindberg baby kidnapping?), et al.

MajMike
 
Well, the program certainly sounds interesting. With such an illustrious group gathered, I'm sure I should be able to find out something helpful about that meeting at Maxwell in 1995. :)

If the session was taped...FOI. Just need to know what to ask for, I reckon. :)

John
 
I hesitate to get back into this perennial can of worms, but to answer some of the responses to my post:

I know there was a treaty obligation on the part of the US, and there might be some differences in accounts of the presence of "North Vietnam" troops, but that all just begs the pertinent question, which is, "Did the government or existence of a country called 'South Vietnam' have any legitimacy?" Ho Chi Minh was the leader of the revolutionary forces that had overthrown the French and was extremely popular, and probably would have won a general plebicite in the country. This was prevented by the partitioning of the country into North and South. The South was subsequently ruled by corrupt, despotic Christians who were friendly to the US and extremely unpopular in the overwhelmingly Buddhist country. And who signed treaties of dubious legitimacy.

Do I believe it is possible the US had something to do with the existence and character of the Diem govt? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Now I would argue that everything that followed, including the repressions in post-war Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, followed from the conditions created by 20 years of war and chaos, including repeated incursions into neighboring countries and targeting of civilians by the US. I notice no one responded to the other main point that I made, which is that the AA batteries were protecting the civilian infastructure and population centers of a country which, from the perspective of the average Vietnamese at least, was being bombed to smithereens by a hostile foreign superpower.

Most of the POWs were pilots, by the way, and it has always amazed me that so many of them weren't killed. How long do you think a yellow-skinned pilot ditching into a rice field in Louisiana after bombing a bridge on the Mississippi would have lasted after being captured by a bunch of farmers? Just to give a little bit of perspective.

As far as comparison with Iraq is concerned, I suppose the main similarity is that 30 years from now there will still be a lot of vets refusing to face the fact that they were lied to and used to fight an unjust war.
 
"...that they were lied to and used to fight an unjust war."

As to "unjust", I sorta like the Iraqi who commented that having a choice among 264 candidates was better than having just one. That's a bit more in line with the way I look at what government ought to be. More than just one candidate.

But, I don't recall even one choice, this side of the Atlantic, back in 1776. I guess it's all in how you look at it...

:), Art
 
"I hesitate to get back into this perennial can of worms"
I call liar-liar pants on fire to that, Mr McVeigh :neener: Ya love it and ya know it!

As to your questions, I'll bite:
1. "Did the government or existence of a country called 'South Vietnam' have any legitimacy?" As opposed to what-maybe the US? This is the problem you get when the UN decides to partition a country and then bow out and call America names.

Lotsa people point fingers at Diem, who was not interested in a democracy, but hold Ho Chi Minh up as some kind of George Washington? If Uncle Ho was so popular, then WHY was the country divided??
Try checking with some former south viets here as to the kindness of the boys from the north-the documentation to the contrary is immense.

2. "the AA batteries were protecting the civilian infastructure and population centers of a country"

The reason nobody said much about the AA guns is pretty simple to figure out. Most folks understand that to defend yourself from air attack, some form of air defense artillery is going to be employed. What boils folks around here is Jane Fonda posing on one like the air head she is. Notice how much bleeding heart support she showed to the regime after our disengagement.

3."Most of the POWs were pilots, by the way, and it has always amazed me that so many of them weren't killed."

Check your facts-there are numerous sightings of Americans who successfully ejected from aircraft and were seen on the ground alive and well, never to be seen again. That I can understand in a way-If the enemy bombed Dallas and parachuted into my back yard, my first thought would be to use them as a pinata. Common sense would tell you to seize and hold them as they might have useful intelligence.

4."I suppose the main similarity is that 30 years from now there will still be a lot of vets refusing to face the fact that they were lied to and used to fight an unjust war."

Fine-your opinion. My son, a combat medic with the 3rd ID volunteered to go-not for any high tone political decision, but in his words, "its a good thing to fight for anothers freedom". He fights with a rifle and bandages.
If you feel that you should not have to serve, thats okay. You have that choice. Not to worry-there are plenty of people who see the call, just as they did in Viet Nam. The fact that the government pulled the troops is in no way reflective of the conduct of our soldiers.
 
And who signed treaties of dubious legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Dubious as in the South Vietnamese government is one which you consider to be illegitimate? Or perhaps it was not signed by US and ratified by the Senate? I believe it was. Please inform me of the basis in our law which makes any treaty that is signed by representatives of the US government and thereafter ratified by the US Senate..."dubious."

including repeated incursions into neighboring countries and targeting of civilians by the US.
Click to expand...

Please go check the relevant international conventions on the laws of war. We invaded so called neutral Cambodia. Agreed. However, under international law, it is not sufficient for a country to claim neutrality. Rather, to be neutral under international law, a country must actively deny the use of its territory to all of the combatants. Cambodia failed to meet these requirements set by international law. The invasion of Cambodia by US forces was completely legal under international law. Cambodia and North Vietnam were the parties involved that were not in compliance with international law. As far as targeting civilians go...which civilians. I know of no intentional bombing of civilian targets by the US Air Force. Did they hit civilians? Yes. Guess what? When a foreign hostile force sets up a position between a hospital and a school...are you just going to let them shoot at you? I'm not. And the people responsible for the civilian casualties are the people who set up a military target in the midst of civilians. Prior to the Tet Offensive, you also had a good many people running around in civilian clothing shooting at US soldiers. Tell me something, Malone, if you have people wearing coolie hats and black clothing shooting at you for a few hours one day...what's liable to happen to the next person you see wearing a coolie hat and black clothing? Personally, I blame the folks who engage in combat wearing civilian clothing.

OK, Phoenix. Scenario, a Viet Cong tax collector is going around to South Vietnamese villages acompanied by a squad of soldiers. The soldiers are there to protect him and to provide muscle against the village hierarchy, if needed. They walk through your team's ambush. Do you let the soldiers go because there is a civilian with them? Or do you go ahead and fire because, it is known that the tax collectors often order their military detachment to kill villagers who resist the theft of their food and sons? Me? I'm not going to refrain from firing because there's a Viet Cong 'civilian' official with them.
 
As to "unjust", I sorta like the Iraqi who commented that having a choice among 264 candidates was better than having just one. That's a bit more in line with the way I look at what government ought to be. More than just one candidate.
Click to expand...
Lotta countries fit that description. Which one do we invade next? I didn't volunteer for my country to be the global cop. I used the word "unjust" to denote that the justification was false.
Ya love it and ya know it!
Click to expand...
Actually, I've had much more important things on my plate lately, and am getting bored with this whole thing. Maybe Stern was right.
Lotsa people point fingers at Diem, who was not interested in a democracy, but hold Ho Chi Minh up as some kind of George Washington?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was guilty of that about 35 years ago, but I was a dumb teenager. No one is making that ridiculous jump these days. It is not necessary for "Uncle Ho" to have been a saint for our objectives and allies to have been wrong.
If Uncle Ho was so popular, then WHY was the country divided??
Click to expand...
A different Uncle.
Notice how much bleeding heart support she showed to the regime after our disengagement.
Click to expand...
I don't remember, and am not necessarily interested in defending Jane. But a lot of anti-war activists, Joan Baez prominently, vehemently criticized the Hanoi regime after the war for human rights violations. That's all well and good, but it doesn't matter. It isn't one's duty to criticize a foreign government when it does bad. It is a sacred responsibility to fight against your own government doing bad things.
there are numerous sightings of Americans who successfully ejected from aircraft and were seen on the ground alive and well, never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
I never said they all made it. I'm just surprised there were more than a very small number.
Fine-your opinion. My son, a combat medic with the 3rd ID volunteered to go-not for any high tone political decision, but in his words, "its a good thing to fight for anothers freedom". He fights with a rifle and bandages.
Click to expand...
Your son has my prayers, my sympathy, and my abject apology on behalf of the criminals in our government.
Dubious as in the South Vietnamese government is one which you consider to be illegitimate? Or perhaps it was not signed by US and ratified by the Senate?
Click to expand...
Right the first time.
Please go check the relevant international conventions on the laws of war. We invaded so called neutral Cambodia. Agreed. However, under international law, it is not sufficient for a country to claim neutrality. Rather, to be neutral under international law, a country must actively deny the use of its territory to all of the combatants. Cambodia failed to meet these requirements set by international law.
Click to expand...
Cambodia was not able to meet the requirements because it was a weak country more or less caught in the crossfire. However, the invasion and bombing of Cambodia and Laos was much more widespread and horrific and affected civilians much more than is generally recognized.
I know of no intentional bombing of civilian targets by the US Air Force.
Click to expand...
The US specifically targeted bridges, harbors, roads, and other components of the infastructure of North Vietnam. No one in the US government has ever bothered to deny this, as it was widely covered at the time. The goal, according to LeMay and others was to bomb them "back to the stone age." The fact is that all war in modern times involves attriting the industrial infastructure of the enemy, and therefore targets civilians. That should cause a civilized country to do everything it can to avoid war. In some cases it might be unavoidable, but the point that must be remembered is that the Vietnam War was totally unnecessary.
 
Stunningly, blindingly ignorant:
The fact is that all war in modern times involves attriting the industrial infastructure of the enemy, and therefore targets civilians.
Click to expand...
If the bridge under my pipper has military trucks on it and a pair of ZSU-23-4s guarding it, then it's a military target.

By the time I was there in 68-69, the entire infrastructure of the north was engaged in supporting the troops invading the South--whether farmer, cottage industries or the port of Hanoi. Thus, legitimate targets. Unlike the pure civilian targets in Southern villages who were simply trying to subsist and were mercilessly slaughtered by the NVA regulars (invaders) and the VC. Had we been allowed to interdict the logistics trail from USSR and China, we could have starved the invading army into submission. But the fools in D.C. thought that might be too mean and unpopular with the French. And lefties like HanoiJane and idiot Kerry fueled the anti-war fires at home and abroad. Treason? You bet. :cuss:

TC
 
Delmar, et al,

I agree with you when you say there were many pilots shot down, known to be alive on the ground and were never seen again. I escorted a woman and her two children back to the states from Okinawa after her husband was shot down in North VietNam. He was a F-105 pilot that ejected successfully, was seen alive on the ground by his wing man and when the wing man mad a second pass the pilot was gone. The last I heard there was no word as to what happened to the downed pilot.

On a personal observation, the Air Force did a wonderful job of looking after her when we landed in Hawaii. It was nice to see the service look after one of the family.
 
We're just plain BAD!

"I didn't volunteer for my country to be the global cop."

We are a bad nation that should be ashamed of our record.

Seventy years or so ago, Hitler volunteered his nation to be the global cop. We rebuffed him. At the same time, Tojo volunteered his nation to be the global cop. We rebuffed him. From about 1945 to 1991, Stalin, etc., volunteered their nation to be global cop. We rebuffed them.

We are just plain BAD! We turned down every one of these generous offers.

So who should be the global cop?

rr
 
Can I get a Halleluia!!

+1

And you see what happens when we play global cop? Competing liberal democracies like S. Korea, Japan and Europe!!

And what happens when we don't? Rwanda, Zimbabwe, the Balkans, Sudan and the workers paradise of N. Korea.

I think we can all agree that it is pretty easy to armchair QB a battle/war. Generals and politicians make mistakes. And there is a clear disagreement about the righteousness and utility of our involvement in SE Asia. However, the gist of the thread is Jane Fonda's role in that conflict - not whether the war or any other war was just.

just my .02
 
the entire infrastructure of the north was engaged in supporting the troops invading the South--whether farmer, cottage industries or the port of Hanoi. Thus, legitimate targets.
Click to expand...
Thank you for articulating the philosophy of Al Qaeda. And terrorists everywhere.

Seventy years or so ago, Hitler volunteered his nation to be the global cop. We rebuffed him. At the same time, Tojo volunteered his nation to be the global cop. We rebuffed him. From about 1945 to 1991, Stalin, etc., volunteered their nation to be global cop. We rebuffed them.
Click to expand...
Flawed analogy. We weren't the global cop in WWII. We were responding to and rebuffing the efforts of the would-be global cops. We were reluctantly drawn into the conflict to prevent a global cop. I don't see how anyone could be so 100% wrong about history.

Now our leadership has decided, and a narrow majority has aquiesced, that we should be global cop. See how by certain reasoning (see above) someone could justify terrorism against us?
 
Duh! I thot tat's wot I sed.

"We were responding to and rebuffing the efforts of the would-be global cops."

It seems to me that due to geography, demographics, religions or what ever, some nation is going to dominate the world. Be the global cop. If we were all of the same race and creed, maybe there'd be no troubles. If no one had any ideas there'd be no conflict. Flocks of sheep are pretty much conflict free until mating season.

But that ain't the way we, the people of the world are. We are the way we are and we have to live with it no matter who is to blame for the situation.

In this world, what nation should dominate?

rr
 
Jane Fonda, again...

We were responding to and rebuffing the efforts of the would-be global cops.
Click to expand...

So it's patriotic when we "rebuff" global policing, but evil incarnate when others do? :uhoh: Merely asking a question, we're not the Nazi Party...

Merriam Webster?

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

That being said, to get back to the original thread, I do not believe Jane Fonda's actions were inherently treasonous under the second definition. (Please, she personally changed nothing regarding our government.)

The first definition is even more dubious as she had no "secrets" to offer or specific trust to break. In fact, her actions are not nearly so bad as military folks who willfully follow, or followed, orders they perceive to be immoral due to a warped sense of "duty" or "obligation". (It happens every day.)

No, I am not comfortable with her actions, but folks who support dragging her out and shooting her express opinions that are beyond "knee-jerk"...
 
update: Mar 17, HJ a "noshow"

Malone LaVeigh


However, to add a little perspective, let me remind everyone that our country was the aggressor in that war....

Fonda's actions weren't very thoughtful. But the real heroes, as far as I'm concerned, are the patriotic anti-aircraft gunners who were trying to protect their neighbors.
Click to expand...

I found this while searching for "A gathering of eagles". The March 17, 2007 Gathering of Eagles vs. ANSWER has been determined to be more of a APS question.

In 1968 I saw very little enemy action. The NVA were seldom found from Kontum to Pleiku from July to Dec 1968 They must have been rebuilding.

On March 10, 1969, ten of the members of my platoon were lost; KIA

Malone : I really did not like you calling me "a wannabe".

see also:
. http://www.virtualwall.org/db/BetheaRL01a.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
pax
P
C
  • Locked
Hanoi Jane or Jihad Jane?
Replies
9
Views
750
Justin
Justin
B
  • Locked
Is this true?
Replies
7
Views
544
Feanaro
Feanaro
C
  • Locked
HOW JANE FONDA SLIPPED THE SURLY BONDS OF TREASON
Replies
8
Views
2K
ravinraven
R
R
  • Locked
Jane Fonda Film Banned
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top