Content area
Full Text
This article explores the speech that President Lyndon Johnson delivered on April 7, 1965 entitled "Peace without Conquest. " He sought to answer Vietnam critics with "unconditional discussions" and a billion-dollar electrification project for Southeast Asia, but he also reaffirmed his determination not to withdraw. This article analyzes the situation leading to the speech, the speech itself, and public reaction, concluding that although LBJ's speech failed to bring peace to Southeast Asia, it succeeded in mollifying critics enough for the administration to escalate the war. Johnson's speech exemplifies the powers and dangers of rhetoric-a lesson still relevant today.
On April 7, 1965, Lyndon Johnson delivered a televised address from Johns Hopkins University, reaching an estimated sixty million viewers across the United States and many tuning in from around the world.1 His administration billed the speech, "Peace without Conquest," as a major address on the Vietnam crisis, possibly its most important foreign-policy speech.2 The speech responded to months of criticism regarding American military escalation in Vietnam. During the speech, Johnson spoke at length of America's commitment to the Vietnamese: "We have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence. . . . We are also there to strengthen world order. . . . We are also there because great stakes are in the balance. . . . We will not withdraw." At the same time, however, he declared his willingness for "unconditional discussions" in pursuit of peace and announced an offer of $1 billion in aid for a development project along the Mekong River. The speech presented the North Vietnamese with a choice, as one periodical put it: "Destroy or build."3
Public pressure for a "peace offensive" had mounted in the months leading up to the speech. Though Johnson had won the 1964 presidential election as the peace candidate, he subsequently ordered the bombing of North Vietnam and dispatched American ground troops to the area. Domestically, a small but voluble minority, including Walter Lippmann and the New York Times editorial board, became increasingly alarmed at American escalation and critical of Johnson's handling of the situation. Internationally, it was hard to ignore complaints and public "advice" from NATO allies and the United Nations. Thus, the April 7 speech addressed not only the North...