President Richard Nixon Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam, November 3, 1969

good evening my fellow Americans tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world the war in Vietnam I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their government has told them about our policy the American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the over re-writing issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy tonight therefore I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me how and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place how has this administration changed the policy of the previous administration what has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront and Vietnam what choices do we have if we are to end the war what are the prospects for peace now let me begin by describing the situation I have found when I was inaugurated on January 20 the war had been going on for four years 31,000 Americans had been killed in action the training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond scheduled 540 thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number no progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal the war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends as well as our enemies abroad in view of these circumstances there were some who urge that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces from a political standpoint this would have been a popular an easy course to follow after all we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker some put it to me quite bluntly this was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war but I had a greater obligation and to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace the question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war the great question is how can we win America's peace let us turn out of the fundamental issue why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place fifteen years ago North Vietnam with a logistical support of communist China and the Soviet Union launched a campaign to impose a communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution in response to the request of the government of South Vietnam President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a communist takeover seven years ago President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisors four years ago President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam now many believe that President Johnson's decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong and many others I among him had been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted but the question facing us today is now that we are in the war what is the best way to end it in January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace for the South Vietnamese our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the north 15 years before they then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps we saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of hue last year during their brief rule there there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed shot to death and buried in mass graves with a sudden collapse of our support these atrocities of hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a-half catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the north for the United States this first defeat in our nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world three American presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done in 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said we want to see a stable government they're carrying on the struggle to maintain its national independence we believe strongly in that we're not going to withdraw from that effort in my opinion for us to withdraw from that effort would mean it collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia so we're going to stay there President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office for the future of peace precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude a nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends our defeat and humiliation in South via without question would promote recklessness and the counsels of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds quant conquest this would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace in the Middle East in Berlin eventually even in the Western Hemisphere ultimately this would cost more lives it would not bring peace it would bring more war for these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end a war fought on many fronts I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts in a television speech on May 14 in a speech before the United Nations on a number of other occasions I set forth our peace proposals in great detail we have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year we have proposed a ceasefire under international supervision we have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force and the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election we have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis we have indicated that we're willing to discuss the proposals have been put forth for the other side we have declared that anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future at the Paris Peace Conference ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility in good faith in 40 public meetings Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals they demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave we have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements I recognized January the long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum that is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations I have explored every possible private Avenue that might lead to a settlement tonight I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace soon after my election through an individual who is directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam I made to private offers for a rapid comprehensive settlement a noise replies called an effect for our surrender before negotiations since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam Secretary of State Rogers my assistant for national security affairs dr. Kissinger ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet government to enlist their assistance and getting meaningful negotiations started in addition we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam none of these initiatives have to date produced results in mid-july I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the dock deadlock in the Paris talks I spoke directly in this office where I'm now sitting with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end let me read from that letter to you now there mr. president I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the Gulf of four years of war but precisely because of this Gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay and bringing it to an end can benefit no one least of all the people of Vietnam the time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war you will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war I received Ho Chi Minh's reply on August 30 three days before his death it simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken in Paris and flatly rejected my initiative the full text of both letters is being released to the press in addition to the public meetings that I referred to ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chief negotiator in Paris in the eleven private sessions and we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive but the effect of all the public private and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago and since this administration came into office in January summit January 20th can be summed up in one sentence no progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table well now who is at fault it's become clear that the obstacle and negotiating an end of the war is not the President of the United States it is not the South Vietnamese government the obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace and it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession and our next concession after that one until it gets everything it wants there can now be no longer any question that progress and negotiation depends only on Hanoi is deciding to negotiate to negotiate seriously I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people but the American people are entitled to know the truth the bad news as well as the good news or the lives of our young men are involved now let me turn however to a more encouraging report on another front at the time we launched our search for peace I recognize we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiation hai therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front it is in line with a major shift in US foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25 let me briefly explore explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnam we Americans are do-it-yourself people we're an impatient people instead of teaching someone else to do a job we like to do it ourselves and this trade has been carried over into our foreign policy in Korea and again in Vietnam the United States furnished most of the money most of the arms and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against communist aggression before any American troops were committed to Vietnam a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen he said when you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom u.s. policy should be to help them fight the war but not to fight the war for them well in accordance with this wise counsel I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for a future American policy toward Asia first the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments second we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security third in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments but we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense after I announced this policy I found that the leaders of the Philippines Thailand Vietnam South Korea other nations which might be threatened the communist aggression welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy the defense of freedom is everybody's business not just America's business and it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened in the previous administration we Americanized the war in Vietnam in this administration we are Vietnam izing the search for peace the policy of the previous administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening in the south vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left the vietnamisation plan was launched following secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam and March under the plan I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces in July on my visit to Vietnam I changed general Abrams orders so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies under the new orders the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam our air operations have been reduced by over 20% and now we have begun to see the results of this long overdue change in American policy in Vietnam after five years of Americans going into Vietnam we are finally bringing American men home by December 15 over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam including 20% of all of our combat forces the South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength as a result they've been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops to other significant developments have occurred since this administration took office enemy infiltration infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year and most important United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years let me now turn to our program for the future we have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all US combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable this withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness as South Vietnamese forces become stronger the rate of American withdrawal can become greater I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand as I've indicated on several occasions the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts one of these is the progress which can be or might be made in the Paris talks an announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement they would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in the other two factors in which we will base our withdrawal decisions or the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces and I'm glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal as a result our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable we must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid along with this optimistic estimate I must in all candor leave one note of caution if the level of enemy activity significantly increases we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly however I want the record to be completely clear on one point at the time of the bombing halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our with all program we have noted the reduced level of infiltration the reduction of our casualties and our basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors if the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy Hanoi could make no greater mistake and to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage if I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam I shall not hesitate that takes strong and effective measures to deal with that situation this is not a threat this is a statement of policy which is commander-in-chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibilities for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be I follow Americans I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects that action or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible or to continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom I have chosen this second course it is not the easy way it is the right way it is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world in speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America far more dangerous we would lose confidence in ourselves oh the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home but as we saw the consequences of what we had done inevitable remorse and divisive our animation would scar our spirit as a people we have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I've chosen honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved in San Francisco a few weeks ago I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading lose in Vietnam bring the boys home well one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view but as president of the United States I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street for almost 200 years the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people if a vocal minority however fervent its cause prevails over reason and the will of the majority this nation has future as a free society and now I would like to address a word if I may for the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned and I understand why they are concerned about this war I respect your idealism I share your concern for peace I want peace as much as you do there are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war this week I will have to sign 83 letters the mothers fathers wives and loved ones of men who have given their lives for American Vietnam it's very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I sign the first week in office there is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam but I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world and I want to end the war for another reason I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you our young people now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war can be turned to the great challenges of peace a better life for all Americans a better life for all people on this earth I have chosen a plan for peace I believe it will succeed if it does not succeed what the critics say now won't matter or if it does succeed what the critics say now won't matter if it does not succeed anything I say then won't matter I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days but I feel it as appropriate to do so on this occasion 200 years ago this nation was weak and poor but even then America was the hope of millions in the world today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral strength and the courage to meet the challenge a free world leadership let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism so tonight to you the great silent majority of my fellow Americans I ask for your support I pledged in my campaign for the presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge the more support I can have from the American people the sooner that pledge can be redeemed for the more divided we are at home the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at parents let us be united for peace let us also be united against defeat because let us understand North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States only Americans can do that 50 years ago in this room and at this very desk President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war weary world he said this is the war to end Wars his dream for peace after World War one was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end Wars but I do say this I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which good whoa road to which Woodrow Wilson and every American president in our history has been dedicated the goal of a just and lasting peace as president I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path to that goal and then leading the nation along it I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command in accordance with your hopes mindful of your concerns sustained by your prayers thank you and good night you

Channel: Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Views: 59,008

Rating: 4.7914691 out of 5

Keywords: Vietnam, War, United States Presidents, Nixon, Speeches, Silent Majority Speech

Id: RPpOBu2LNCo

Length: 32min 4sec (1924 seconds)

Published: Wed Nov 15 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/Metropull]

U.S. President Richard Nixon addressed the nation on television and radio at 9:30 p.m., Washington time, to announce his plans to American involvement in the Vietnam War. Nixon gave his reasons for rejecting immediately removing all troops, framing that option as the "first defeat in our Nation's history" that "would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world." Nixon instead reiterated his plan for Vietnamization, "the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable" but added that he did not intend to announce details of the timetable. In closing, he described the people who would support his plan for a drawdown as "the great silent majority of my fellow Americans", in contrast to a "vocal minority" of protesters which, if their will prevailed "over reason and the will of the majority", would mean that the United States would have "no future as a free society."