Talk:Pentagon Papers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What's the "credibility gap"? Maybe someone should start a stub for that. Kent Wang 07:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Within several months (as soon as the online interviews are active) someone should remove the link to http://www.bplcarnegie.org/oralhistory/ from this page to the "external links" section of the article -- the Boulder Carnegie Library's oral history program has a copy of a video interview with Daniel Ellsberg about the Pentagon Papers that will be put online sometime in the future.
Contents |
[edit] Expanding the Article
There is far more detail to the story behind the Pentagon Papers in Mike Gravel's and Daniel Ellsberg's own biographical articles that I think should be included in this article.--Waxsin (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] So what's the big deal ...
... about the Pentagon Papers? This article doesn't really say how or why their publication mattered, only that they were the start of a series of events leading to Watergate, etc. What did the PPs say that was so alarming? What was the broad consensus on their implications? LeoTrottier 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was just watching a documentary on the Camden 28 on pbs which involved peace activists breaking in to a draft board to destroy draft records during the US/Vietnam war in which the federal government paid for almost all the break-in tools..., in this documentary they said the Papers talked about reasons for the war which were completely different from what was told to the public. For example, the reasons for the war, as well as "the disparity between the planning for the bombing of the North and the planning for the bombing of the South. On the bombing of the North, there was meticulous detailed planning." "The bombing of the South, at three times the rate and with far more vicious consequences, was unplanned." link 67.53.78.15 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pentagon Papers
Second paragraph contains:
> the government had planned to go to Vietnam even when president Lyndon Johnson was promising not to
Johnson inherited Vietnam. The US began financial support for the French military there in the 1950's, and I think it was Kennedy who first sent American troops, although advisors etc. may have been sent by Eisenhower.
[edit] Nixon's Reaction
Nixon's reaction was initially calm and then developed into rage as can be ascertained from the White House tapes.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html
[edit] period of papers coverage
Did the papers cover the period from 1945 until 1971, as the current article states, or was it from 1945 through 1968 (May of that year ?) as some other sources suggest ?
- the pentagon papers are concerned with the period 1945 - 1967. the publication was made at the begining of 1971
[edit] Gulf of Tonkin
Someone deleted a reference to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Papers -- it was my understanding that this was actually covered in the Pentagon Papers. Is this incorrect?--csloat 18:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was covered, but it did not say that LBJ deliberately fabricated the whole thing. CJK 19:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Didn't the Pentagon Papers reveal that "the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — which led to increased U.S. military involvement in Vietnam — had been drafted months before the incident for which it was named took place, and that President Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) had been committing infantry to Vietnam while telling the nation that he had no long-range plans for the war." [1] ? Johannjs (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Obtaining a Copy
Does anybody per chance know if there exists a current publication of all the published volumes of the Pentagon Papers?
- Buuuuu click aqui
[edit] Locked Away?
It says that all the original papers were locked away at the LBJ libary. Is this true? Somehow, at the end of the paragraph like that, it looks like an uncited amount of hogwash. With all the conspiracy theories surrounding this era in time, something like vital historical documents being sealed away (especially in so unlikely of place) needs sourced. Signed by Scryer_360, who needs to sign in more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.173.22 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
PS: I deleted the comment that they were locked away for the time being.