Tet Offensive
The Tet Offensive began in the early hours of the 30th of January 1968, when North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces struck more than a hundred towns and cities across South Vietnam in a single coordinated wave. More than 77,000 troops hit 36 of 44 provincial capitals, five of six autonomous cities, and the capital Saigon itself, making it the largest military operation either side had conducted in the entire war. On the evening before the attacks, roughly 200 American intelligence officers gathered at a pool party at their Saigon quarters, none of them suspecting a thing. One analyst summed it up plainly: "I had no conception Tet was coming, absolutely zero." How did the most ambitious communist offensive of the Vietnam War catch a superpower by surprise? And why, despite ending in military defeat for Hanoi, did it shake the United States so deeply that it changed the course of the war and the presidency itself?
General William C. Westmoreland stood at the National Press Club podium on the 21st of November 1967 and told his audience that as of the end of that year, the communists were "unable to mount a major offensive... I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing." It was the peak of what the Johnson administration privately called its "success offensive" - a deliberate campaign to alter the widespread public perception that the war had stalled. Under National Security Advisor Walt W. Rostow, the news media was inundated with statistical indicators of progress: kill ratios, body counts, and village pacification figures. Vice President Hubert Humphrey told the NBC Today show in mid-November, "We are beginning to win this struggle. We are on the offensive." Public opinion polls told a different story. The percentage of Americans who believed sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake had risen from 25 percent in 1965 to 45 percent by December 1967. A separate poll from November found 55 percent wanted a tougher war policy, reflecting a public mood the administration summed up as: "it was an error to get involved, but now that we're there, let's win or get out." By year's end the administration's approval rating had crept up eight percent, but a January Gallup poll still showed 47 percent disapproving of the President's handling of the war. Meanwhile, a classified dispute was playing out between MACV intelligence and the CIA over how many enemy fighters were actually in South Vietnam. The CIA believed the figure could be as high as 430,000; MACV insisted it was no more than 300,000. General Joseph McChristian, MACV's chief of intelligence, warned that higher numbers "would create a political bombshell." The compromise struck in September 1967 excluded VC militias from the official tally, keeping the count lower and the public message intact. That inflated confidence would cost the allies dearly when Westmoreland, having shifted nearly half his maneuver battalions north to I Corps in anticipation of a major push at Khe Sanh, left the cities of South Vietnam with thinned defenses.
Planning for a winter-spring offensive had begun in Hanoi as early as 1967, the product of a decade-long argument between competing factions inside the North Vietnamese government. The moderates, led by party theorist Trường Chinh and Defense Minister Võ Nguyên Giáp, believed North Vietnam's economic survival should take priority over a massive conventional war, and favored reunification through political means. The militants, headed by Communist Party First Secretary Lê Duẩn and Lê Đức Thọ, followed the Chinese line and demanded military reunification with no negotiations. From the early to mid-1960s the militants had controlled the direction of the war. By 1966-1967, after staggering battlefield losses and the destruction of northern infrastructure by U.S. air strikes, even Lê Duẩn had to acknowledge that current trends pointed toward Hanoi eventually running out of resources. To silence opposition before it could block the offensive, the 27th of July 1967 saw hundreds of pro-Soviet party moderates, military officers, and intellectuals arrested in what became known as the Revisionist Anti-Party Affair. A second wave of arrests followed in November and December. The architect of the offensive's original operational plan was General Nguyễn Chí Thanh, head of the southern headquarters at COSVN. In July 1967 he briefed the Politburo in Hanoi; that same evening, after receiving permission to begin preparations, he attended a party and died of a heart attack after drinking too much. A competing account holds that he died of wounds from a U.S. bombing raid on COSVN. Either way, planning passed to a committee under Thanh's deputy, Phạm Hùng, and then to Giáp himself, who worked, according to the source, "reluctantly, under duress." Giáp's contribution was to combine guerrilla operations into a conventional assault and to shift the responsibility for triggering the anticipated popular uprising onto the Viet Cong.
In October 1967 the truck count heading south through Laos on the Ho Chi Minh trail jumped from a monthly average of 480 to 1,116. By November the figure was 3,823; by December it had reached 6,315. Intelligence analysts saw the numbers. A copy of Resolution 13 was captured by early October. By mid-December many in Washington and Saigon knew something large was coming. What they failed to grasp was what kind of attack, or where. The North Vietnamese plan was built around a preliminary phase of border provocations designed to pull American attention and forces toward the remote highlands and away from the populated coastal cities. Between April and November 1967, a series of engagements - Khe Sanh in April, the siege of Con Thien starting in September, then a ten-day battle at Lộc Ninh where 800 PAVN troops died, and finally the 22-day clash at Dak To in Kontum Province where between 1,200 and 1,600 PAVN and 262 Americans were killed - had exactly the effect Hanoi intended. Westmoreland remained convinced that Khe Sanh, where on the 21st of January 1968 some 20,000-40,000 PAVN troops had surrounded 6,000 U.S. Marines and Army soldiers, was the real target. He deployed 250,000 men, including half of MACV's maneuver battalions, to I Corps. Only Lieutenant General Frederick Weyand, a former intelligence officer commanding forces in III Corps around Saigon, noticed a suspicious pattern in communist activity near the capital. He told Westmoreland on the 10th of January that he believed something was wrong. Westmoreland agreed and ordered 15 U.S. battalions to pull back toward Saigon, a redeployment later credited as one of the most consequential tactical decisions of the entire war. To complete the deception, Hanoi launched a diplomatic signal: Foreign Minister Nguyễn Duy Trinh announced on the 30th of December that North Vietnam would open negotiations if the U.S. ended its bombing campaign. The announcement flooded the last weeks of 1967 with diplomatic activity that kept Western attention focused on a peace overture rather than the 81,000 tons of supplies and 200,000 troops that were already moving south.
Nha Trang, headquarters of the U.S. I Field Force, was the first city hit, struck in the early hours of the 30th of January. The main offensive was supposed to begin simultaneously across the country on the 31st, but coordination broke down and five provincial capitals and Da Nang were attacked a day early, giving allied forces a few hours' warning. General Phillip B. Davidson, the new MACV chief of intelligence, told Westmoreland bluntly: "This is going to happen in the rest of the country tonight and tomorrow morning." All U.S. forces were placed on maximum alert. At 03:00 on the 31st of January, the countrywide surge began in earnest. At the U.S. Embassy in Saigon - a six-floor building inside a four-acre compound - a 19-man sapper team blew a hole in the 8-foot wall at 02:45. Their officers were killed almost immediately, and by 09:20 the compound had been retaken by U.S. reinforcements, at a cost of five American lives. At Radio Saigon, a PAVN squad seized the building for six hours carrying a tape recording of Hồ Chi Minh announcing the liberation of Saigon and calling for a general uprising. They could not broadcast: the audio lines from the studio to the tower had been cut the moment the building fell. Running out of ammunition, the last eight attackers destroyed the building and killed themselves with explosive charges. On the 1st of February, General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, chief of the National Police, shot a captured VC officer named Nguyễn Văn Lém on a Saigon street. Photographer Eddie Adams caught the moment. The image, titled Saigon Execution, won the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography and would be called by some observers "the picture that lost the war" for the effect it had on American public opinion. By dawn on the 31st, most attacks within Saigon's city center had been repelled. But in the Chinese district of Cholon, around the Phú Thọ racetrack being used as a PAVN/VC command center, house-to-house fighting erupted that was not extinguished until the 7th of March. In towns across South Vietnam, the outcome depended largely on local commanders: some responded with skill, some did not. Through it all, no South Vietnamese military unit broke or defected to the communists.
At 03:40 on the 31st of January, Huế was hit by mortar and rocket fire, followed by a ground assault that included two battalions of the PAVN 6th Regiment. The target was the Citadel, a three-square-mile complex of palaces, parks, and residences ringed by a moat and a massive masonry fortress. Westmoreland initially informed the Joint Chiefs that "the enemy has approximately three companies in the Huế Citadel and the marines have sent a battalion into the area to clear them out." The real figure, eventually confirmed, was at least eight PAVN/VC battalions of the 6th Regiment alone, with a further 8,000-11,000 men involved in the city or its approaches. What followed lasted 25 days. U.S. Marines of the 1st Marine Division and soldiers of the 1st ARVN Division cleared the city block by block in a form of urban combat the American military had not conducted since the Battle of Seoul during the Korean War. Because of the city's cultural and historical significance, American air and artillery strikes were initially held back more than in other cities. The city was finally declared secured on the 25th of February, when members of the ARVN 2nd Battalion, 3rd Regiment raised the South Vietnamese flag over the Palace of Perfect Peace. The human toll was staggering. More than 5,800 civilians died during the battle and 116,000 were left homeless out of an original population of 140,000. Forty to 50 percent of Huế was destroyed. In the aftermath, allied forces uncovered mass graves - the last found as late as 1970 - containing the bodies of South Vietnamese civilians who had been executed during the PAVN occupation. Historian Gunther Lewy cited a captured VC document stating the communists had "eliminated 1,892 administrative personnel, 38 policemen, 790 tyrants." The victims had been clubbed, shot, or buried alive. PAVN officer Bùi Tín later acknowledged that forces had rounded up "reactionary" captives, explaining that local commanders had ordered their execution under battlefield conditions.
The American public had been told repeatedly through late 1967 that the enemy was losing and incapable of mounting a major offensive. When 77,000 troops struck more than a hundred cities on a single night, the gap between what the government had been saying and what was actually happening became impossible to bridge. Public support for the war fell sharply. The Johnson administration, which had built its "success offensive" on statistical optimism, moved toward seeking negotiations to end the conflict. Richard Nixon, the Republican presidential candidate in the approaching 1968 election, made his own intervention. Shortly before November's vote, Nixon encouraged South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu to adopt a publicly uncooperative stance in the peace negotiations, casting doubt on President Johnson's ability to deliver a settlement. General Tran Do, the PAVN commander at the Battle of Huế, was candid about what the offensive had actually accomplished: "In all honesty, we didn't achieve our main objective, which was to spur uprisings throughout the South. Still, we inflicted heavy casualties on the Americans and their puppets, and this was a big gain for us. As for making an impact in the United States, it had not been our intention - but it turned out to be a fortunate result." Inside Hanoi, the reckoning was sharp. On the 5th of May, Trường Chinh rose before a congress of Party members and delivered what the source describes as a "faction-bashing" tirade against the militants and their failed bid for quick victory. The debate that followed lasted four months. In August, Chinh's report was accepted in full, published, and broadcast via Radio Hanoi, a single act that restored him to prominence and displaced the Lê Duẩn faction in favor of a strategy of longer, more patient warfare. On the 5th of April 1969, COSVN Directive 55 formalized the shift: "Never again and under no circumstances are we going to risk our entire military force for just such an offensive."
Up next
Updated
Common questions
When did the Tet Offensive begin?
The Tet Offensive began in the early hours of the 30th of January 1968, when North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces struck provincial capitals in II Corps and Da Nang. The main countrywide assault followed on the 31st of January, targeting more than 100 towns and cities simultaneously.
Why was the Tet Offensive launched during the Tet holiday?
The North Vietnamese Politburo chose the Tet holiday as the launch date because the Lunar New Year festival period meant most ARVN personnel were on leave, reducing allied readiness. Hanoi had also announced a seven-day truce for the holiday, further lowering the allies' guard.
What were the military results of the Tet Offensive for North Vietnam?
The Tet Offensive was a military defeat for North Vietnam. The popular uprising Hanoi anticipated never materialized, no ARVN units defected, and PAVN/VC forces suffered heavy casualties. The U.S. estimated approximately 45,000 PAVN/VC soldiers were killed in the first phase alone, and by the end of 1968 overall communist strength in South Vietnam had declined from roughly 287,000 to an estimated 251,000.
What happened during the Massacre at Hue during the Tet Offensive?
During the PAVN occupation of Huế, communist forces systematically rounded up South Vietnamese military personnel, government officials, civil servants, teachers, policemen, and religious figures. Mass graves discovered after the battle - the last uncovered in 1970 - contained victims who had been shot, clubbed, or buried alive. A captured VC document cited by historian Gunther Lewy stated that the communists had "eliminated 1,892 administrative personnel, 38 policemen, 790 tyrants."
Why were U.S. forces surprised by the Tet Offensive despite intelligence warnings?
Allied intelligence had collected mounting evidence of a major buildup, including truck traffic on the Ho Chi Minh trail rising from a monthly average of 480 to 6,315 by December 1967. However, intelligence methodology focused on enemy capabilities rather than intentions, and analysts concluded the communists lacked the capability for such an operation. One MACV analyst later said, "If we'd gotten the whole battle plan, it wouldn't have been believed."
How did the Tet Offensive change U.S. public opinion about the Vietnam War?
The Tet Offensive shattered the Johnson administration's "success offensive," a months-long public campaign to convince Americans the war was being won. Public support for the war fell sharply, draft call increases intensified opposition, and the Johnson administration subsequently sought peace negotiations. The offensive also produced the photograph known as Saigon Execution, taken by Eddie Adams on the 1st of February 1968, which won the 1969 Pulitzer Prize and is widely credited with influencing U.S. public opinion against the war.
All sources
212 references cited across the entry
- 1Hoang Ngoc Lung (1978). The General Offensives of 1968–69.
- 2The South Vietnamese government estimated "enemy" forces (North Vietnamese and Viet Cong) at 323,000, including 130,000 regulars and 160,000 guerrillas and infrastructure. Hoang, p. 10. MACV estimated
- 3Tổng công kích, Tổng nổi dậy Tết mậu thân 1968 (Tet offensive 1968) – ARVN's Đại Nam publishing in 1969, p. 35
- 4Does not include ARVN or U.S. casualties incurred during the "Border Battles"; ARVN killed, wounded, or missing from Phase III; U.S. wounded from Phase III; or U.S. missing during Phases II and III.
- 5Steel and Blood: South Vietnamese Armor and the War for Southeast Asia. Naval Institute Press, 2008. P 33
- 7These figures are for the period January 31 to February 29.
- 8BookThe Myths of Tet The most misunderstood event of the Vietnam WarEdwin Moise — University Press of Kansas — 2017
- 10PAVN's Department of warfare, 124th/TGi, document 1.103 (11-2-1969)
- 11Tết Mậu Thân 1968 qua những số liệu – Báo Nhân Dân điện tửJanuary 25, 2008
- 12Ang, p. 351. Two interpretations of the offensive's goals have continued to dominate Western historical debate. The first maintained the political consequences of the winter-spring offensive were an i
- 13U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War: The Tet Offensive, 1968United States Department of State
- 14Dougan and Weiss
- 15Is This the Worst Year in Modern American History?James Fallows — 2020-05-31
- 16NewsNixon Tried to Spoil Johnson's Vietnam Peace Talks in '68, Notes ShowPeter Baker — 2017-01-03
- 1850th Anniversary 1967 ElectionOctober 5, 2017
- 20Hammond, p. 326.
- 21Hammond, pp. 326, 327.
- 22Those in the administration and the military who urged a change in strategy included: Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara; Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach; Assistant Secretary for Far
- 23Karnow, pp. 545–546.
- 24Karnow, p. 546.
- 25Schmitz
- 26Karnow, p. 514.
- 27Elliot, p. 1055.
- 28Nguyen, p. 4.; Duiker, William J. (2002) "Foreword," in Military History Institute of Vietnam Victory in Vietnam: A History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975, p. xiv.
- 29Nguyen, pp. 15–16.
- 30Nguyen, p. 20. See also Wirtz, pp. 30–50.
- 31Wirtz, p. 20.
- 32Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, p. 55.
- 33Nguyen, p. 22.
- 34Contrary to Western belief, Hồ Chí Minh had been sidelined politically since 1963 and took little part in the day-to-day policy decisions of the Politburo or Secretariat. Nguyen, p. 30.
- 35Wirtz, pp. 36–40, 47–49.
- 36See also Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, p. 56.
- 37Nguyen, pp. 18–20.
- 38Nguyen, p. 24.
- 39Nguyen, p. 27.
- 40Victory in Vietnam, p. 371.
- 41Victory in Vietnam, p. 380. Nguyen, fn. 147
- 42Ang, p. 352.
- 43Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, p. 56.
- 44Nguyen, p. 34. Duiker, p. 288. Also see Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, p. 56.
- 46Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, pp. 58–59.
- 47William, Thomas Allison. The Tet Offensive: a brief history with documents. pp. 25.
- 48Duiker, p. 299.
- 49Hoang offered opposing viewpoints (pp. 22–23) while William Duiker (p. 289) and Clark Clifford (p. 475) believed that it was so intended. Stanley Karnow did not (p. 537), while William Westmoreland ne
- 50Tran Van Tra, "Tet," in Jayne S. Werner and Luu Doan Huynh, eds., The Vietnam War: Vietnamese and American Perspectives. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1993, pp. 41-51.
- 51Victory in Vietnam,, p. 208. See also Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, The North, p. 46.
- 52Combined Intelligence Center Vietnam, Order of Battle Summary, 1 January thru 31 January 1968, pages I-1, VII-1, Texas Tech University, Virtual Vietnam Archive, doc #0240907005.
- 53Combined Intelligence Center Vietnam, Order of Battle Summary, July 1972, Volume II, pages I-25, I-31, I-37.
- 55Moyars Shore, The Battle of Khe Sanh. U.S. Marine Corps Historical Branch, 1969, p. 17.
- 56Willbanks
- 57Morocco, pp. 174–176.
- 58Maitland and McInerney, pp. 160–183.
- 59Palmer, pp. 229–233.
- 60Palmer, p. 235.
- 61Stanton, p. 195.
- 62Sheehan, p. 778.
- 63In their memoirs, both Johnson and Westmoreland stated they had predicted the offensive. According to Clark Clifford, however, these later claims were rather "self serving". Clark Clifford, with Richa
- 64Zaffiri, p. 280.
- 65Hammond, p. 342.; Zaffiri, p. 280.For a treatment of official statements predicting the offensive, see Peter Braestrup. Big Story, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1983, 1:60–77.
- 66Laurence, John (2002), The Cat from Hue: a Vietnam War Story, PublicAffairs Press.
- 67Oberdorfer, Don (1971) Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. .
- 68The first attacks may have been launched prematurely due to confusion over a changeover in the calendar date by North Vietnamese units. Hanoi had arbitrarily forwarded the date of the holiday to allow
- 69Westmoreland
- 70Stanton, p. 209.
- 71Palmer, p. 238
- 72Karnow, p. 549.
- 73Clifford
- 74Zaffiri, p. 283.
- 75Braestrup, p. 108.
- 76Wiest, p. 41
- 77Stanton, p. 215.
- 78BookVietnam, a television History: Tet offensiveEverett Alvarez — Public Broadcasting Service — 1983
- 79BookWar in the Shallows: U.S. Navy and Coastal and Riverine Warfare in Vietnam 1965-8John Sherwood — Naval History and Heritage Command — 2015
- 80In the Jaws of History. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1999.
- 81Just How Big an Impact Do Pictures of War Have on Public Opinion?David D. Perlmutter — History News Network — 7 February 2005
- 82News48 U.S. soldiers killed in ambush on edge of SaigonJoseph B. Treaster — 4 March 1968
- 83NewsG.I.'s and enemy battle 8 hours north of SaigonJoseph B Treaster — 5 March 1968
- 84BookUnited States Army in Vietnam Combat Operations Staying the Course October 1967 to September 1968Erik Villard — Center of Military History United States Army — 2017
- 85The Defense of SaigonProject CHECO, Pacific Air Force — 14 December 1968
- 86Palmer, p. 245. These units included the VC 12th Main Force Battalion and the Huế City Sapper Battalion.
- 87Tet – What Really Happened at HueJames H. Willbanks — historynet.com — January 25, 2011
- 88Shulimson, et al., p. 175.
- 89Pike, COL Thomas F., Military Records, February 1968, 3rd Marine Division: The Tet Offensive, p. 71,
- 90William, Thomas Allison, pp.51.
- 91Shulimson, p. 213.
- 92Shulimson, p. 213. A PAVN document allegedly captured by the ARVN stated that 1,042 troops had been killed in the city proper and that several times that number had been wounded.
- 93Shulimson, p. 216.
- 94BookThe Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: Political, Social, Military HistorySpencer Tucker — ABC-CLIO — 2011
- 95BookThe Vietnam WarAndrew Wiest — Rosen Publishing — 2009
- 96Lewy, p. 274.
- 97Bui, p. 67.
- 98Stephen T. Hosmer, Viet Cong Repression and its Implications for the Future (Rand Corporation, 1970), pp. 72–8.
- 99Hosmer, pp 73–4.
- 100Karnow, p. 555, John Prados, The Blood Road, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998, p. 242.
- 101Pisor, p. 61.
- 102Prados and Stubbe
- 103Pike, COL Thomas F., Military Records, February 1968, 3rd Marine Division: The Tet Offensive, p. 205–208, . The Joint Chiefs of Staff created a Top Secret assessment on whether to maintain the Khe San
- 104Oberdorfer, p. 261, See also Palmer, p. 254, and Karnow, p. 534.
- 105Department of Defense, CACCF: Combat Area Southeast Asia Casualties Current File, as of Nov. 1993, Public Use Version. Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 1993.
- 106Combined Intelligence Center Vietnam, Order of Battle Summary, July 1972, Volume II, page I-37.
- 107Karnow, pp. 544–545.
- 108Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, pp. 118, 120.
- 109The PAVN official history of the war characterized Tet as a mere disappointment (a heavy characterization for an official history), Duiker, William J. (2002) "Foreword," in Military History Institute
- 110Tran Van Tra, Vietnam, Washington, D.C.: Foreign Broadcast Information Service, 1983, p. 35. There are some largely unfounded stories that Tra was severely punished for these comments. For example, "T
- 111Duiker, p. 296. This was attributed to General Creighton Abrams' new "One War" strategy and the CIA/South Vietnamese Phoenix Program.
- 112Macmillan Dictionary of Historical Terms. Chris Cook. Palgrave Macmillan UK. . P. 316
- 113Nationalism and Imperialism in South and Southeast Asia: Essays Presented to Damodar R. SarDesai. Arnold P. Kaminsky, Roger D. Long. Routledge; 1 edition (September 7, 2016). . P. 49
- 114Smedberg, p. 196
- 115Marilyn Young, The Vietnam Wars: 1945–1990 (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991), p. 223
- 116A Controversial Question: Did Tet Decimate the Viet Cong?Erik Villard — 2021-03-13
- 118"Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975." University Press of Kansas, May 2002 (original 1995). Translation by Merle L. Pribbenow. Page 246.
- 119Pribbenow, p. 249.
- 120Arnold, pp. 87–88.
- 121Arnold, p. 91. See also Karnow, 534.
- 122According to one estimate by late 1968, of a total of 125,000 main force troops in the South, 85,000 were of North Vietnamese origin. Duiker, p. 303.
- 123Karnow, p. 536.
- 124Doyle, Lipsman and Maitland, pp. 126–127.
- 125BookVictory at Any Cost: The Genius of Viet Nam's Gen. Vo Nguyen GiapCecil B. Currey — Potomac Books, Inc. — 2005
- 126BookGiap: The General Who Defeated America in VietnamJames A. Warren — St. Martin's Press — 2013-09-24
- 127Victory in Vietnam, p. 223.
- 128BookThe Tet Offensive: A Concise HistoryJames H. Willbanks — Columbia University Press — 2007
- 129Arnold, p. 90.
- 130Zaffiri, p. 293.
- 131Three of the four ARVN corps commanders, for example, were replaced due to their dismal performance during the offensive.
- 132Clifford, pp. 47–55.
- 134Laurence, John The Cat from Hue (2002) PublicAffairs Press, New York
- 135Vietnam War U.S. Military Fatal Casualty Statistics15 August 2016
- 137Halberstam, David (1979) The Powers That Be, Knopf
- 138Brinkley, Douglas (2012) Cronkite, Harper
- 139Smedberg, p. 195.
- 140Palmer, p. 258.
- 141Zaffiri, p. 304.
- 142Pentagon Papers
- 143See also Zaffiri, p. 305.
- 144Zaffiri, p. 308.
- 145See also Zaffiri, p. 309
- 146Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971, pp. 389–392.
- 147Johnson, pp. 406–407.
- 149The group included McNamara, General Maxwell D. Taylor, Paul H. Nitze (Deputy Secretary of Defense), Henry H. Fowler (Secretary of the Treasury), Nicholas Katzenbach (Undersecretary of State), Walt W.
- 150Major General Phillip Davidson, Westmoreland's chief of intelligence, reflected how the military men thought about Clifford's conversion in his memoir: "Clifford's use of the Wise Men to serve his dov
- 151Johnson, p. 399.
- 152Johnson, p. 400.
- 153President Johnson was convinced that the source of the leak was the Undersecretary of the Air Force Townsend Hoopes. Don Oberdorfer suggested that the Times pieced the story together from a variety of
- 154Oberdofer p. 269.
- 155Stephens, Bret, "American Honor", Wall Street Journal, January 22, 2008, p. 18.
- 156Braestrup, 1:679f.
- 157Braestrup, 1:687.
- 158Johnson, p. 415.
- 159Karnow, p. 562.
- 160The four dissenters were Bradley, Murphy, Fortas and Taylor. Karnow, p. 562
- 161Zaffiri, pp. 315–316. Westmoreland was "bitter" and was upset that he "had been made the goat for the war." Ibid.
- 162Sorley, p. 18.
- 163Shulimson, p. 307. Perhaps more indicative of PAVN losses were the 41 PAVN prisoners taken and the recovery of 500 weapons, 132 of which were crew-served.
- 164BookThe Magnificent Bastards: The Joint Army-Marine Defense of Dong Ha, 1968Keith Nolan — Dell — 1994
- 165BookHouse to House: Playing the Enemy's Game in Saigon, May 1968Keith Nolan — Zenith Press — 2006
- 166Spector
- 167BookAir Power and the Airlift Evacuation of Kham DucAllan Gropman — Office of Air Force History — 1985
- 168BookThe United States Army in Vietnam, Public Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1962–1968Hammond, William H. — United States Army Center of Military History — 1988
- 169BookThe General Offensives of 1968–69Hoang Ngoc Lung — General Research Corporation — 1978
- 170BookVictory in Vietnam: A History of the People's Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975Military History Institute of Vietnam — University of Kansas Press — 2002
- 171BookThe U.S. Marines in Vietnam: 1968, the Decisive YearShulimson, Jack et al. — History and Museums Division, United States Marine Corps — 1997
- 172BookThe Battle of Khe SanhShore, Moyars S., III — U.S. Marine Corps Historical Branch — 1969
- 173BookThe Pentagon PapersSheehan, Neil; Smith, Hedrick; Kenworthy, E. W.; Butterfield, Fox — Bantam — 1971
- 174JournalDecision-making Leading to the Tet Offensive (1968) – The Vietnamese Communist PerspectiveAng Cheng Guan — July 1998
- 175BookThe Tet Offensive 1968James R. Arnold — Praeger — 1990
- 176BookThe Tet Effect: Intelligence and the Public Perception of War (Cass Military Studies)Jake Blood — Routledge — 2005
- 177BookBig Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet in Vietnam and WashingtonPeter Braestrup — Yale University Press — 1983
- 178BookIn the Jaws of HistoryBui Diem — Indiana University Press — 1999
- 179BookFrom Enemy to Friend: A North Vietnamese Perspective on the WarBui Tin — Naval Institute Press — 2002
- 180BookCounsel to the President: A MemoirClark Clifford — Random House — 1991
- 181BookVietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975Max Hastings — Harper — 2018
- 182BookVietnam at War: The History, 1946–1975Phillip Davidson — Presidio Press — 1988
- 183BookNineteen Sixty-EightClark Dougan — Boston Publishing Company — 1983
- 184BookThe NorthEdward Doyle — Boston Publishing Company — 1986
- 185BookThe Communist Road to Power in VietnamWilliam J. Duiker — Westview Press — 1996
- 186BookThe Vietnamese War: Revolution and Social Change in the Mekong Delta, 1930–1975. 2 volsDavid Elliot — M. E. Sharpe — 2003
- 187BookThe Tet OffensivePraeger — 1996
- 189BookThe Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency, 1963–1969Lyndon B Johnson — Holt, Rinehart, and Winston — 1971
- 190BookVietnam: A HistoryStanley Karnow — Penguin — 1991
- 191BookAmerica in VietnamGunther Lewy — Oxford University Press — 1980
- 192BookGiap: The Victor in VietnamPeter Macdonald — Fourth Estate — 1994
- 193BookA Contagion of WarTerrence Maitland — Boston Publishing Company — 1983
- 194BookThunder from Above: Air War, 1941–1968John Morocco — Boston Publishing Company — 1984
- 195BookReluctant Soldier... Proud Veteran: How a cynical Vietnam vet learned to take pride in his service to the USATerry L. Nau — Amazon Distribution GmbH — 2013
- 196JournalThe War Politburo: North Vietnam's Diplomatic and Political Road to the Tet OffensiveNguyen, Lien-Hang T. — 2006
- 197BookTet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam WarDon Oberdorfer — The Johns Hopkins University Press — 1971
- 198BookSummons of the Trumpet: The History of the Vietnam War from a Military Man's ViewpointPalmer, Dave Richard — Ballantine — 1978
- 199BookThe End of the Line: The Siege of Khe SanhPisor, Robert — Ballantine Books — 1982
- 200BookMilitary Records, February 1968, 3rd Marine Division: The Tet OffensivePike, COL Thomas F. — Createspace — 2013
- 201BookI Corps Vietnam: An Aerial RetrospectivePike, COL Thomas F. — Createspace — 2017
- 202BookValley of Decision: The Siege of Khe SanhPrados, John — Naval Institute Press — 1991
- 203BookThe Unmaking of a President: Lyndon Johnson and VietnamSchandler, Herbert Y. — Princeton University Press — 1977
- 204BookThe Tet Offensive: Politics, War, and Public OpinionSchmitz, David F. — Praeger — 2004
- 205BookVietnamkrigen: 1880–1980Smedberg, Marco — Historiska Media — 2008
- 206BookA Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in VietnamSorley, Lewis — Harvest Books — 1999
- 207BookThe Rise and Fall of an American Army: U.S. Ground Forces in Vietnam, 1965–1973Stanton, Shelby L. — Dell — 1985
- 208BookAfter Tet: The Bloodiest Year in VietnamSpector, Ronald H. — The Free Press — 1993
- 209BookThe Vietnam War: Vietnamese and American PerspectivesTran Van Tra — M.E. Sharpe — 1994
- 210BookA Soldier ReportsWilliam C. Westmoreland — Doubleday — 1976
- 211BookThe Vietnam War, 1956–1975Wiest, Andrew — Osprey Publishers — 2002
- 212BookThe Tet Offensive: A Concise HistoryWillbanks, James H. — Columbia University Press — 2008
- 213BookThe Tet Offensive: Intelligence Failure in WarWirtz, James J. — Cornell University Press — 1991
- 214BookWestmorelandSamuel Zaffiri — William Morrow — 1994