March 17, 2025 • 26 mins
The Pentagon Papers leak stands as one of history's most consequential government exposés – a bombshell revelation that unraveled decades of deception and ultimately contributed to a president's downfall.
When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara commissioned a comprehensive study of America's Vietnam involvement in the late 1960s, he couldn't have foreseen how the resulting 7,000 pages would rock the nation's foundations. These classified documents, meticulously assembled by 36 analysts over 18 months, painted a damning picture: five presidential administrations had systematically misled the American public about the war's origins, conduct, and prospects for success.
The real drama began when Daniel Ellsberg, a former war supporter turned disillusioned analyst, leaked these explosive papers to The New York Times in 1971. The Nixon administration's frantic response – seeking court injunctions under claims of national security – triggered a constitutional showdown that reached the Supreme Court in just two weeks. Their 6-3 ruling favoring publication became a landmark affirmation of press freedom against government censorship.
But the Pentagon Papers' most profound impact came through President Nixon's paranoid reaction. His creation of the White House "plumbers" unit to plug leaks led directly to illegal operations, including the infamous Watergate break-in that would eventually force his resignation. This fascinating chain of events demonstrates how attempts to conceal truth often lead to greater exposure and downfall.
The questions raised by this historical episode resonate powerfully today: When should government secrecy yield to public accountability? How do we balance national security with democratic transparency? From WikiLeaks to Edward Snowden, modern whistleblowers continue this essential debate, reminding us that an informed citizenry remains democracy's best safeguard against abuse of power. Knowledge truly is power – and the Pentagon Papers proved that sunlight remains the best disinfectant for government misconduct.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:22):
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes, the podcast where
we two professional historiansdissect the most intriguing and morally
complex transgressions of the past.
I'm Michael.
And I'm Alaina.
This isn't your typical truecrime podcast.
We're not interested in bloodand gore.
Instead, we are diving deepinto the context of the crimes, the
(01:43):
motives, the COVID ups, andwhat they mean for us today.
Exactly.
Today we are tackling thePentagon Papers, a set of secret
documents about thecontroversial Vietnam War.
This was a top secret Defensedepartment study from 1945 to 1967,
exposing decades of USgovernment deception regarding the
(02:04):
Vietnam War.
It revealed a pattern ofmisleading the public by multiple
presidential administrations,both Republican and Democratic.
But the Pentagon paper's juicydetails, released to the public in
June 1971, was just thebeginning of the controversy.
In the aftermath, the Nixonadministration's attempts to suppress
(02:25):
them triggered a clash overthe freedom of the press and national
security.
And it ultimately led to alandmark Supreme Court decision and
a President's downfall.
So was the crime the act ofleaking those top secret papers?
What about the crimes revealedwithin them?
Or maybe it was the clash tosuppress freedom of the press that
(02:47):
was the crime.
That's the million dollarquestion, Elena.
This episode isn't just aboutrecounting the Pentagon Papers.
We're going to dissect thesocial and political climate that
created them.
We'll examine the reasons theywere made, why they were leaked to
the public, and the actions ofthose trying to suppress them, and
ultimately how this shaped theVietnam War and our relationship
(03:08):
with the government.
Before we get to the nittygritty of the Pentagon Papers themselves,
we need to set the stage.
We're talking about the 1970sand the ongoing Vietnam War.
How did the US even getinvolved in Vietnam in the first
(03:29):
place?
Enter the United States, whichin the late 1940s and 1950s was very
much guided by the fear ofglobal communism.
Especially with the Cold Warin full swing, communism was viewed
like a domino line.
If one country in SoutheastAsia fell to communism, the thinking
went, that the rest wouldtopple one by one.
(03:51):
This belief was known as thedomino theory.
Exactly.
The domino theory was the bigidea that justified U.S.
intervention in numerouscountries, not just Vietnam.
It fit neatly into the broaderCold War strategy of containment,
where the US Tried to checkSoviet influence wherever it popped
up.
That's right.
(04:12):
This was also the era ofMutually Assured Destruction.
Both the United States and theSoviet Union had nuclear capabilities
that could wipe outcivilization as a whole, theoretically
deterring either side fromever firing the first nuke.
But in practice, these smallerconflicts, like in Vietnam, became
proxy battles.
(04:33):
Immediately after the war.
And for almost 10 years, theFrench fought the Vietnamese with
little success to regain control.
During this time, the USprovided money and resources to the
French with no resolution.
A temporary peace treaty thatthe Geneva Accords were signed in
1954.
The Geneva Accords of 1954temporarily divided Vietnam into
(04:56):
North and south, withelections planned to reunify the
country.
But the US feared thatcommunist leader Ho Chi Minh would
win those elections.
So they supported the creationof a separate anti communist South
Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem.
Diem turned out to be a problem.
He was autocratic, repressive,and simply put, extremely unpopular
(05:19):
within his own country.
So disliked, Diem wasassassinated In November of 1963,
opening the door to a seriesof unstable governments in South
Vietnam.
And every time a new regimefloundered, the US felt compelled
to get more deeply involved.
More military advisors, moremoney, more everything.
(05:41):
By the mid-1960s, thisinvolvement was skyrocketing.
Right.
The major turning point wasthe Gulf of Tonkin incident.
In August of 1964, PresidentLyndon B.
Johnson claimed that NorthVietnamese forces had fired on American
navy ships in international waters.
Though later evidence suggeststhat this tack may have been exaggerated
(06:03):
or misrepresented.
Which led Congress to pass theGulf of Tonkin resolution giving
Johnson almost unlimitedauthority to escalate US military
involvement without a formaldeclaration of war.
From there, Johnson used thatauthority to ramp up troops in Vietnam
from about 20,000 in 1964 tomore than half a million by 1968.
(06:27):
That's a massive military escalation.
Let's not forget thestrategies employed.
Heavy bombing campaigns underOperation Rolling Thunder, the use
of Agent Orange to defoliatejungles and a high civilian casualty
rate.
Guerrilla warfare, dense jungles.
A population that was oftendifficult to distinguish between
(06:48):
friend and foe.
It was a recipe forfrustration and disillusionment.
Back home and among Americantroops back.
Home, the anti war movementwas gaining momentum.
Protests, demonstration teachings.
They were becoming a regularpart of American life.
And it wasn't just collegestudents anymore.
People from all walks of lifewere questioning the war.
(07:11):
Civil rights leaders,religious figures, even some politicians
started speaking out.
Jackie Robinson, the man whobroke baseball's color bar, even
wrote to President Johnson in1966 about the ongoing civil rights
concerns that weren't goingaway just because the nation was
embroiled in a massive war.
By 1968, the conflict hitanother watershed moment.
(07:34):
The Tet Offensive.
Up to this point, PresidentJohnson had been suggesting a light
at the end of the tunnel, thatthe war was close to being over.
But In January of 1968, NorthVietnamese forces launched a series
of attacks during the Tetholiday, revealing that American
claims of being on the brinkof victory were, well, not exactly
(07:55):
accurate.
That shattered Americansperception of the war.
President Johnson's popularity plummeted.
He chose not to run for reelection, further dividing a nation
that was already on edge.
The country was deeply divided.
Trust in the government waseroding, and the Vietnam War was
at the center of it all.
(08:16):
Between the rising body count,moral qualms and the draft controversies,
the war was a national nightmare.
In the midst of that, RobertMcNamara, the United States Secretary
of Defense, ordered ananalysis of the war.
He was struggling with agrowing sense of frustration regarding
the seemingly unending war andfeared that it was unwinnable.
(08:38):
He wanted to know what wasactually behind the war, what was
driving it, and whethervictory was even possible.
The result was the Pentagon Papers.
Exactly.
This leads us to the Pentaconvapors themselves.
How they were compiled, whatthey contained, and why the government
fought so hard to keep themunder wraps.
(09:03):
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes.
I'm Elena.
And I'm Michael.
And we just set the stage byexploring the Vietnam War, a conflict
that divided a nation.
If you recall, we explored thetangled web of the Vietnam War.
Now we lift the curtain on thePentagon Papers, the explosive documents
that confirmed many ofAmericans worst suspicions about
(09:26):
the war and the Americangovernment's role in it.
These papers came out of a topsecret Defense department study from
1945 to 1967 about the Vietnam War.
Ordered by the AmericanSecretary of Defense, Robert McNamara,
in 1971, the Pentagon Paperswere leaked to the public, revealing
(09:48):
unpopular and deceptivepractices on the part of multiple
government administrationsover the past 20 years.
Wait, so the architect of thewar, at least on the US Side, was
the one who said, let's do adeep dive, no holds barred analysis.
That's quite the plot twist.
I know it's surprising, butMcNamara wanted a thorough historical
record to figure out how theUnited States got into this quagmire
(10:11):
with Vietnam.
According to the Millercenter, he initiated the study partly
because he was troubled by theongoing conflict and wanted clarity
on the decisions made.
Who wrote this then?
Was it McNamara himself?
No, not exactly.
Instead of using existingDefense Department historians, McNamara
assigned the investigation tohis assistant director, John McNaughton.
(10:36):
Until John McNaughton actuallydied in a plane crash.
Then Defense Departmentofficial Les Gelb took Over.
And it was a team effort.
36 analysts working for about18 months.
That's a big commitment.
What kinds of questions didthis team tackle?
Mcnamara gave them a laundrylist of about 100 questions, including
(10:57):
how confident can we be aboutbody counts of the enemy?
And were programs to pacifythe Vietnamese countryside working?
And what was the differencebetween what president Johnson was
claiming about the war andwhat was happening on the ground?
And finally, did the UnitedStates escalation of violence violate
(11:18):
the Geneva accords?
This was heavy stuff.
So the final product was amassive 47 volume report totaling
7,000 pages and was classifiedas top secret.
It was a comprehensive historyof US Involvement in Vietnam filled
with narrative analysis.
And supporting documents, andabsolutely explosive once it got
(11:41):
out.
The Pentagon papers exposed apattern of deception and misrepresentation
by the American government infive key One, the Johnson administration
had deliberately misled thepublic about the war's progress.
Two, the United States hadbeen involved in covert operations
against North Vietnam longbefore the official escalation of
(12:04):
the war.
Three, officials had expresseddoubts about the war's prospects
even as they were telling thepublic that victory was in sight.
Four, the Kennedyadministration was complicit in the
coup leading to southVietnamese president Diem's assassination
in November of 1963.
And and finally, five, plansto bomb North Vietnam had been laid
(12:29):
out even before the 1964election, undermining Johnson's campaign
promises not to escalate the war.
That's a spicy meatball.
So how did all of these topsecret papers end up in the hands
of the New York Times newspaper?
Enter Daniel Ellsberg.
He was one of the analysts whoworked on the project.
(12:49):
He.
He began as a supporter of thewar, but what he learned changed
his perspective entirely.
He felt betrayed by thegovernment's lying and decided to
do something about it.
So in 1971, Ellsberg believedthe American public had a right to
know the truth about this war.
He secretly copied the papersand handed them over to the New York
(13:10):
Times.
Newspaper, which beganpublishing excerpts on June 13th
of 1971.
It was a journalisticearthquake, to say the least.
I'm picturing newspapersflying off the stands, public outroar,
all of that.
So what was the immediate reaction?
Well, a few Years earlier, in1968, Richard Milhouse Nixon won
(13:33):
the American presidentialelection by running on a platform
that included a plan to endthe draft and end the war.
So when the Pentagon paperswere leaked, Nixon was initially
more concerned about wholeaked them than what was leaked.
That's right, because Thosedocuments mostly covered the Kennedy
and Johnson administrations.
(13:53):
But very quickly, the Nixonadministration sought a court injunction
to stop further publication,claiming national security was at
stake.
Nixon and his NationalSecurity advisor, Henry Kissinger,
feared that it would one,hinder peace talks with North Vietnam,
and two, possibly reveal othersecrets of Nixon's own handling of
(14:16):
the war, including the secretbombing of Cambodia and the Chenal
Affair.
Based on those fears and thecurrent and potential public uproar,
the Nixon government got arestraining order against the New
York Times.
Yes, a temporary one.
But then the Washington Postnewspaper jumped into the fray and
(14:36):
started publishing, followedby 19 other newspapers.
Talk about solidarity.
It was like the ultimate gameof media whack.
A mole stop one and anotherpops up.
So we're heading for a biglegal showdown.
And the fight zooms straightto the Supreme Court in the case
New York Times Company versusthe United States.
(14:57):
In the 6:3 decision, the courtruled that the government hadn't
met the burden approved tojustify a prior restraint on publication
by the newspapers.
The Supreme Court's rulingagainst the government reinforced
the principle that the pressshould generally be free from government
censorship before publication.
The ruling affirmed theessential role of a free and unrestrained
(15:20):
press in the holding ofgovernment accountable and informing
the public.
It supported the idea that thepress should be able to, quote, bear
the secrets of government andinform the people, end quote.
A major First Amendmentvictory indeed.
Without a doubt.
As one legal expert said,quote, through the years, the Pentagon
paper's decision has served asan ongoing protector of liberty of
(15:43):
the press, end quote.
But the revelations andfallout didn't end with the Supreme
Court's decision.
Up next, we'll explore theaftershocks of the publication and
the mania inside the Nixonadministrations, its infamous plumbers
and and how it paved the wayfor Watergate.
(16:08):
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes.
We uncovered how the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post defied
the Nixon administration andwon the right to publish the Pentagon
Papers.
But what happened after theheadline grabbing victory?
Good question.
Historians mostly agree thatwhile the Pentagon Papers didn't
instantly end the Vietnam War,they had a significant effect on
(16:29):
public opinion.
They revealed that thegovernment had systematically misled
the public, fueling an alreadyrobust anti war movement which widened
the credibility.
Gap, the gulf between what thegovernment claimed and what the people
believed.
Exactly.
It wasn't just collegestudents or activists protesting
anymore.
As a result of the PentagonPapers, people from all walks of
(16:53):
life now questioned the wisdomand morality of, of continuing a
seemingly unwinnable conflictand sending more young men and Women
to fight.
So the papers added fresh fuelto the anti war fire.
In other words.
Absolutely.
For context, the first massiveanti war demonstrations in the United
States started taking off inApril of 1967.
(17:15):
The Pentagon Papers in 1971, afew years later validated many of
the anti war arguments thatthe government had never been straightforward
about its objectives orchances for success.
But if the Nixonadministration was so upset, why
not just address the war'sissues head on?
Well, that wasn't Nixon style.
(17:36):
He was obsessed with pluggingleaks and punishing those responsible.
Enter the so called Plumbers,a White House group formed to prevent
future leaks and discreditNixon's opponents.
The Plumbers.
The name alone sounds like aclandestine operation from a dark
comedy.
Right?
But they were very real anddid some shady things.
(17:57):
Like breaking into DanielEllsberg's psychiatrist office in
September of 1971, hoping tofind information to ruin his reputation.
Remember, Ellsberg helpedwrite the Pentagon Papers and was
responsible for leaking them.
Wow, that's basically a movie plot.
Except real and illegal.
(18:18):
Nixon was, among other things,very paranoid.
He feared that the release ofthe Pentagon Papers was not an isolated
incident, but rather part of alarger coordinated effort by radical
left wing elements within thegovernment and media to undermine
his presidency.
Nixon had an obsession withsecrecy that the Pentagon Papers
(18:40):
exacerbated.
Nixon saw the protection ofgovernment secrets as essential to
maintaining the integrity ofhis administration and the nation.
And those that wereresponsible for the leak were not
only enemies of the state, butshould also be punished.
As a direct response to theleaks, Nixon created the White House
Special Investigations Unitknown as the Plumbers to stop the
(19:03):
leaks and to conduct covert,often illegal operations against
his political adversaries.
Nixon reaction to the PentagonPapers hardened his conviction that
he would never be safe from avast conspiracy seeking to destroy
him.
And thus you can trace adirect line from the Plumbers to
the Watergate scandal.
About a year after thePentagon paper's leak came the Watergate
(19:27):
break in in June of 1972.
We will discuss Watergate in afuture episode, but briefly.
Watergate was a scandal thatbegan with a break in at the Democratic
National Committeeheadquarters in the Watergate complex.
The break in was orchestratedby the same Plumbers who, under the
direction of Richard Nixon,with the goal of bugging the DNC
(19:48):
headquarters.
The ensuing cover up andPresident Nixon's involvement led
to his resignation in 1974.
So in a weird, twisted way,the Pentagon Papers indirectly helped
trigger the events that wouldeventually force Nixon to resign.
Exactly.
Nixon's paranoia and heavyhanded tactics to stop the leaks
(20:10):
led him down a path ofcriminal activity, Watergate being
the ultimate downfall.
That's the cautionary tale ifI've ever heard one.
So what happened to DanielEllsberg in the end?
Ellsberg was charged withconspiracy, espionage and theft of
government property.
Facing what could have beendecades in prison.
A harsh penalty for revealingthe truth.
(20:32):
Yes, but ironically, theillegal break in at his psychiatrist's
office and other governmentmisconduct led the judge to dismiss
all charges.
Government wrongdoing savedEllsberg from prison, so.
The very actions taken topunish Ellsberg ended up exonerating
him.
That's some poetic justice.
(20:52):
It is.
And it highlights the Nixon'sadministration's paranoia and its
willingness to break the lawto silence dissent.
So, looking back, what's thebig lesson from the Pentagon Papers
fiasco?
There are many lessons, butone stands out.
The importance of transparencyand accountability in government.
Why is that so important?
(21:13):
Because as, as President JamesMadison said, quote, people who mean
to be their own governors mustarm themselves with the power that
knowledge gives.
End quote.
So, as we like to say,knowledge is power.
Exactly.
And a well informed citizenryis essential for a healthy democracy.
What about the argument thatgovernments need to keep secrets
(21:33):
to protect national security?
That's a valid concern.
But there's a differencebetween legitimate national security
concerns and simply trying toavoid embarrassment or suppress dissent.
The burden is on thegovernment to justify why information
should be kept secret.
So it's still relevant today,especially when you consider recently
WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden andother recent controversies about
(21:57):
government leaks to the public.
Yes, Daniel Ellsberg himselfcompared his actions to what Julian
Assange and Chelsea Manning did.
The difference, of course, ishow the leaks were managed and whether
they risked lives or not.
But the fundamental question,should information about government
wrongdoing be kept hidden fromthe public or not?
(22:20):
Remains the same.
So the Pentagon Papers standas both a cautionary tale about the
government overreach and and ashining example of how critical a
free press is to democracy.
We've arrived at the partwhere we connect the dots.
(22:41):
From 1971 to our present day,the Pentagon Papers weren't the last
major government leaks.
And the debates they sparkedare still reverberating.
Right.
To take WikiLeaks forinstance, Julian Assange, founder
of WikiLeaks, releasedthousands of classified documents
in 2010 about the wars in Iraqand Afghanistan.
(23:01):
Some people called him a new Ellsberg.
Others said he was recklessand endangering lives.
Yes, the parallels anddifferences are Fascinating.
Daniel Ellsberg carefullyvetted the Pentagon Papers and the
New York Times, allegedlyspent three months reviewing the
documents, locking people upin hotel rooms to ensure they weren't
(23:22):
going to harm Americannational security.
In contrast, WikiLeaks wasmore indiscriminate.
But regardless, both claimedto be acting in the public's interest,
shining a light on hiddengovernment actions.
Ellsberg himself weighed in,suggesting that leaking government
misconduct can serve democracy.
(23:42):
But he also acknowledged thatreleasing raw, unredacted data might
carry more risks.
Exactly.
And then we have EdwardSnowden, former National Security
Agency intelligence contractorand whistleblower.
Snowden revealed the NSA'smassive domestic surveillance program.
Like Ellsberg, he was chargedunder the Espionage act, an old law
(24:05):
from 1917 that's been dustedoff whenever the government wants
to go after leakers.
The Obama administration,known for promising openness, actually
prosecuted more leak casesunder the Espionage act than all
other previous administrationssince World War II combined.
That's an eye opening statistic.
It proves the struggle betweengovernment secrecy and public accountability
(24:28):
is alive and well.
Technology has certainly madeleaking easier.
No more lugging around hugeboxes of photocopies like in Ellsberg's
day.
But it also means thegovernment can track digital trails
more effectively.
Right?
It's a complicated landscape.
Nowadays, courts often requirethe government to demonstrate real
harm to national security ifthey want to prevent publication.
(24:52):
But in practice, the fear ofprosecution still casts a long shadow.
So we circle back then to thecentral tension.
The government argues it needssecrecy to protect national security,
while whistleblowers arguethat secrecy often conceals wrongdoings
or mistakes.
Yes, it's a fight for balancebetween secrecy and transparency.
(25:13):
And.
And it's a fight that everygeneration has to negotiate anew.
And we should keep a healthyskepticism whenever officials warn
that publication will causegrave harm.
Sometimes that claim is valid,but historically it's been used to
cover embarrassments or policy blunders.
The Pentagon Papers weredefinitely a turning point.
(25:33):
They legitimized the idea thatrevealing government wrongdoing can
be an act of patriotism.
And they reaffirmed the FirstAmendment's power in practice, not
just in theory.
We still feel those echoes inevery major leak case today.
And it's a cautionary taleabout the links to which some administrations
will go to control the narrative.
(25:54):
The plumbers, Watergate andNixon's resignation all connect back
to how the White Houseresponded to the leak.
So, dear listeners, let thisepisode serve as a reminder of how
crucial and informed citizenry is.
Knowledge truly is powerwithout it, we can't hold our leaders
accountable.
Or foster genuine democracy.
(26:14):
Well said, Michael.
Thank you all for joining uson this deep dive into the Pentagon
Papers.
For history's greatest crimes.
I'm Elena.
And I'm Michael.
Until next time, keep questioning.
Sam.
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes, the podcast where
we two professional historiansdissect the most intriguing and morally
complex transgressions of the past.
I'm Michael.
And I'm Alaina.
This isn't your typical truecrime podcast.
We're not interested in bloodand gore.
Instead, we are diving deepinto the context of the crimes, the
(01:43):
motives, the COVID ups, andwhat they mean for us today.
Exactly.
Today we are tackling thePentagon Papers, a set of secret
documents about thecontroversial Vietnam War.
This was a top secret Defensedepartment study from 1945 to 1967,
exposing decades of USgovernment deception regarding the
(02:04):
Vietnam War.
It revealed a pattern ofmisleading the public by multiple
presidential administrations,both Republican and Democratic.
But the Pentagon paper's juicydetails, released to the public in
June 1971, was just thebeginning of the controversy.
In the aftermath, the Nixonadministration's attempts to suppress
(02:25):
them triggered a clash overthe freedom of the press and national
security.
And it ultimately led to alandmark Supreme Court decision and
a President's downfall.
So was the crime the act ofleaking those top secret papers?
What about the crimes revealedwithin them?
Or maybe it was the clash tosuppress freedom of the press that
(02:47):
was the crime.
That's the million dollarquestion, Elena.
This episode isn't just aboutrecounting the Pentagon Papers.
We're going to dissect thesocial and political climate that
created them.
We'll examine the reasons theywere made, why they were leaked to
the public, and the actions ofthose trying to suppress them, and
ultimately how this shaped theVietnam War and our relationship
(03:08):
with the government.
Before we get to the nittygritty of the Pentagon Papers themselves,
we need to set the stage.
We're talking about the 1970sand the ongoing Vietnam War.
How did the US even getinvolved in Vietnam in the first
(03:29):
place?
Enter the United States, whichin the late 1940s and 1950s was very
much guided by the fear ofglobal communism.
Especially with the Cold Warin full swing, communism was viewed
like a domino line.
If one country in SoutheastAsia fell to communism, the thinking
went, that the rest wouldtopple one by one.
(03:51):
This belief was known as thedomino theory.
Exactly.
The domino theory was the bigidea that justified U.S.
intervention in numerouscountries, not just Vietnam.
It fit neatly into the broaderCold War strategy of containment,
where the US Tried to checkSoviet influence wherever it popped
up.
That's right.
(04:12):
This was also the era ofMutually Assured Destruction.
Both the United States and theSoviet Union had nuclear capabilities
that could wipe outcivilization as a whole, theoretically
deterring either side fromever firing the first nuke.
But in practice, these smallerconflicts, like in Vietnam, became
proxy battles.
(04:33):
Immediately after the war.
And for almost 10 years, theFrench fought the Vietnamese with
little success to regain control.
During this time, the USprovided money and resources to the
French with no resolution.
A temporary peace treaty thatthe Geneva Accords were signed in
1954.
The Geneva Accords of 1954temporarily divided Vietnam into
(04:56):
North and south, withelections planned to reunify the
country.
But the US feared thatcommunist leader Ho Chi Minh would
win those elections.
So they supported the creationof a separate anti communist South
Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem.
Diem turned out to be a problem.
He was autocratic, repressive,and simply put, extremely unpopular
(05:19):
within his own country.
So disliked, Diem wasassassinated In November of 1963,
opening the door to a seriesof unstable governments in South
Vietnam.
And every time a new regimefloundered, the US felt compelled
to get more deeply involved.
More military advisors, moremoney, more everything.
(05:41):
By the mid-1960s, thisinvolvement was skyrocketing.
Right.
The major turning point wasthe Gulf of Tonkin incident.
In August of 1964, PresidentLyndon B.
Johnson claimed that NorthVietnamese forces had fired on American
navy ships in international waters.
Though later evidence suggeststhat this tack may have been exaggerated
(06:03):
or misrepresented.
Which led Congress to pass theGulf of Tonkin resolution giving
Johnson almost unlimitedauthority to escalate US military
involvement without a formaldeclaration of war.
From there, Johnson used thatauthority to ramp up troops in Vietnam
from about 20,000 in 1964 tomore than half a million by 1968.
(06:27):
That's a massive military escalation.
Let's not forget thestrategies employed.
Heavy bombing campaigns underOperation Rolling Thunder, the use
of Agent Orange to defoliatejungles and a high civilian casualty
rate.
Guerrilla warfare, dense jungles.
A population that was oftendifficult to distinguish between
(06:48):
friend and foe.
It was a recipe forfrustration and disillusionment.
Back home and among Americantroops back.
Home, the anti war movementwas gaining momentum.
Protests, demonstration teachings.
They were becoming a regularpart of American life.
And it wasn't just collegestudents anymore.
People from all walks of lifewere questioning the war.
(07:11):
Civil rights leaders,religious figures, even some politicians
started speaking out.
Jackie Robinson, the man whobroke baseball's color bar, even
wrote to President Johnson in1966 about the ongoing civil rights
concerns that weren't goingaway just because the nation was
embroiled in a massive war.
By 1968, the conflict hitanother watershed moment.
(07:34):
The Tet Offensive.
Up to this point, PresidentJohnson had been suggesting a light
at the end of the tunnel, thatthe war was close to being over.
But In January of 1968, NorthVietnamese forces launched a series
of attacks during the Tetholiday, revealing that American
claims of being on the brinkof victory were, well, not exactly
(07:55):
accurate.
That shattered Americansperception of the war.
President Johnson's popularity plummeted.
He chose not to run for reelection, further dividing a nation
that was already on edge.
The country was deeply divided.
Trust in the government waseroding, and the Vietnam War was
at the center of it all.
(08:16):
Between the rising body count,moral qualms and the draft controversies,
the war was a national nightmare.
In the midst of that, RobertMcNamara, the United States Secretary
of Defense, ordered ananalysis of the war.
He was struggling with agrowing sense of frustration regarding
the seemingly unending war andfeared that it was unwinnable.
(08:38):
He wanted to know what wasactually behind the war, what was
driving it, and whethervictory was even possible.
The result was the Pentagon Papers.
Exactly.
This leads us to the Pentaconvapors themselves.
How they were compiled, whatthey contained, and why the government
fought so hard to keep themunder wraps.
(09:03):
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes.
I'm Elena.
And I'm Michael.
And we just set the stage byexploring the Vietnam War, a conflict
that divided a nation.
If you recall, we explored thetangled web of the Vietnam War.
Now we lift the curtain on thePentagon Papers, the explosive documents
that confirmed many ofAmericans worst suspicions about
(09:26):
the war and the Americangovernment's role in it.
These papers came out of a topsecret Defense department study from
1945 to 1967 about the Vietnam War.
Ordered by the AmericanSecretary of Defense, Robert McNamara,
in 1971, the Pentagon Paperswere leaked to the public, revealing
(09:48):
unpopular and deceptivepractices on the part of multiple
government administrationsover the past 20 years.
Wait, so the architect of thewar, at least on the US Side, was
the one who said, let's do adeep dive, no holds barred analysis.
That's quite the plot twist.
I know it's surprising, butMcNamara wanted a thorough historical
record to figure out how theUnited States got into this quagmire
(10:11):
with Vietnam.
According to the Millercenter, he initiated the study partly
because he was troubled by theongoing conflict and wanted clarity
on the decisions made.
Who wrote this then?
Was it McNamara himself?
No, not exactly.
Instead of using existingDefense Department historians, McNamara
assigned the investigation tohis assistant director, John McNaughton.
(10:36):
Until John McNaughton actuallydied in a plane crash.
Then Defense Departmentofficial Les Gelb took Over.
And it was a team effort.
36 analysts working for about18 months.
That's a big commitment.
What kinds of questions didthis team tackle?
Mcnamara gave them a laundrylist of about 100 questions, including
(10:57):
how confident can we be aboutbody counts of the enemy?
And were programs to pacifythe Vietnamese countryside working?
And what was the differencebetween what president Johnson was
claiming about the war andwhat was happening on the ground?
And finally, did the UnitedStates escalation of violence violate
(11:18):
the Geneva accords?
This was heavy stuff.
So the final product was amassive 47 volume report totaling
7,000 pages and was classifiedas top secret.
It was a comprehensive historyof US Involvement in Vietnam filled
with narrative analysis.
And supporting documents, andabsolutely explosive once it got
(11:41):
out.
The Pentagon papers exposed apattern of deception and misrepresentation
by the American government infive key One, the Johnson administration
had deliberately misled thepublic about the war's progress.
Two, the United States hadbeen involved in covert operations
against North Vietnam longbefore the official escalation of
(12:04):
the war.
Three, officials had expresseddoubts about the war's prospects
even as they were telling thepublic that victory was in sight.
Four, the Kennedyadministration was complicit in the
coup leading to southVietnamese president Diem's assassination
in November of 1963.
And and finally, five, plansto bomb North Vietnam had been laid
(12:29):
out even before the 1964election, undermining Johnson's campaign
promises not to escalate the war.
That's a spicy meatball.
So how did all of these topsecret papers end up in the hands
of the New York Times newspaper?
Enter Daniel Ellsberg.
He was one of the analysts whoworked on the project.
(12:49):
He.
He began as a supporter of thewar, but what he learned changed
his perspective entirely.
He felt betrayed by thegovernment's lying and decided to
do something about it.
So in 1971, Ellsberg believedthe American public had a right to
know the truth about this war.
He secretly copied the papersand handed them over to the New York
(13:10):
Times.
Newspaper, which beganpublishing excerpts on June 13th
of 1971.
It was a journalisticearthquake, to say the least.
I'm picturing newspapersflying off the stands, public outroar,
all of that.
So what was the immediate reaction?
Well, a few Years earlier, in1968, Richard Milhouse Nixon won
(13:33):
the American presidentialelection by running on a platform
that included a plan to endthe draft and end the war.
So when the Pentagon paperswere leaked, Nixon was initially
more concerned about wholeaked them than what was leaked.
That's right, because Thosedocuments mostly covered the Kennedy
and Johnson administrations.
(13:53):
But very quickly, the Nixonadministration sought a court injunction
to stop further publication,claiming national security was at
stake.
Nixon and his NationalSecurity advisor, Henry Kissinger,
feared that it would one,hinder peace talks with North Vietnam,
and two, possibly reveal othersecrets of Nixon's own handling of
(14:16):
the war, including the secretbombing of Cambodia and the Chenal
Affair.
Based on those fears and thecurrent and potential public uproar,
the Nixon government got arestraining order against the New
York Times.
Yes, a temporary one.
But then the Washington Postnewspaper jumped into the fray and
(14:36):
started publishing, followedby 19 other newspapers.
Talk about solidarity.
It was like the ultimate gameof media whack.
A mole stop one and anotherpops up.
So we're heading for a biglegal showdown.
And the fight zooms straightto the Supreme Court in the case
New York Times Company versusthe United States.
(14:57):
In the 6:3 decision, the courtruled that the government hadn't
met the burden approved tojustify a prior restraint on publication
by the newspapers.
The Supreme Court's rulingagainst the government reinforced
the principle that the pressshould generally be free from government
censorship before publication.
The ruling affirmed theessential role of a free and unrestrained
(15:20):
press in the holding ofgovernment accountable and informing
the public.
It supported the idea that thepress should be able to, quote, bear
the secrets of government andinform the people, end quote.
A major First Amendmentvictory indeed.
Without a doubt.
As one legal expert said,quote, through the years, the Pentagon
paper's decision has served asan ongoing protector of liberty of
(15:43):
the press, end quote.
But the revelations andfallout didn't end with the Supreme
Court's decision.
Up next, we'll explore theaftershocks of the publication and
the mania inside the Nixonadministrations, its infamous plumbers
and and how it paved the wayfor Watergate.
(16:08):
Welcome back to History'sGreatest Crimes.
We uncovered how the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post defied
the Nixon administration andwon the right to publish the Pentagon
Papers.
But what happened after theheadline grabbing victory?
Good question.
Historians mostly agree thatwhile the Pentagon Papers didn't
instantly end the Vietnam War,they had a significant effect on
(16:29):
public opinion.
They revealed that thegovernment had systematically misled
the public, fueling an alreadyrobust anti war movement which widened
the credibility.
Gap, the gulf between what thegovernment claimed and what the people
believed.
Exactly.
It wasn't just collegestudents or activists protesting
anymore.
As a result of the PentagonPapers, people from all walks of
(16:53):
life now questioned the wisdomand morality of, of continuing a
seemingly unwinnable conflictand sending more young men and Women
to fight.
So the papers added fresh fuelto the anti war fire.
In other words.
Absolutely.
For context, the first massiveanti war demonstrations in the United
States started taking off inApril of 1967.
(17:15):
The Pentagon Papers in 1971, afew years later validated many of
the anti war arguments thatthe government had never been straightforward
about its objectives orchances for success.
But if the Nixonadministration was so upset, why
not just address the war'sissues head on?
Well, that wasn't Nixon style.
(17:36):
He was obsessed with pluggingleaks and punishing those responsible.
Enter the so called Plumbers,a White House group formed to prevent
future leaks and discreditNixon's opponents.
The Plumbers.
The name alone sounds like aclandestine operation from a dark
comedy.
Right?
But they were very real anddid some shady things.
(17:57):
Like breaking into DanielEllsberg's psychiatrist office in
September of 1971, hoping tofind information to ruin his reputation.
Remember, Ellsberg helpedwrite the Pentagon Papers and was
responsible for leaking them.
Wow, that's basically a movie plot.
Except real and illegal.
(18:18):
Nixon was, among other things,very paranoid.
He feared that the release ofthe Pentagon Papers was not an isolated
incident, but rather part of alarger coordinated effort by radical
left wing elements within thegovernment and media to undermine
his presidency.
Nixon had an obsession withsecrecy that the Pentagon Papers
(18:40):
exacerbated.
Nixon saw the protection ofgovernment secrets as essential to
maintaining the integrity ofhis administration and the nation.
And those that wereresponsible for the leak were not
only enemies of the state, butshould also be punished.
As a direct response to theleaks, Nixon created the White House
Special Investigations Unitknown as the Plumbers to stop the
(19:03):
leaks and to conduct covert,often illegal operations against
his political adversaries.
Nixon reaction to the PentagonPapers hardened his conviction that
he would never be safe from avast conspiracy seeking to destroy
him.
And thus you can trace adirect line from the Plumbers to
the Watergate scandal.
About a year after thePentagon paper's leak came the Watergate
(19:27):
break in in June of 1972.
We will discuss Watergate in afuture episode, but briefly.
Watergate was a scandal thatbegan with a break in at the Democratic
National Committeeheadquarters in the Watergate complex.
The break in was orchestratedby the same Plumbers who, under the
direction of Richard Nixon,with the goal of bugging the DNC
(19:48):
headquarters.
The ensuing cover up andPresident Nixon's involvement led
to his resignation in 1974.
So in a weird, twisted way,the Pentagon Papers indirectly helped
trigger the events that wouldeventually force Nixon to resign.
Exactly.
Nixon's paranoia and heavyhanded tactics to stop the leaks
(20:10):
led him down a path ofcriminal activity, Watergate being
the ultimate downfall.
That's the cautionary tale ifI've ever heard one.
So what happened to DanielEllsberg in the end?
Ellsberg was charged withconspiracy, espionage and theft of
government property.
Facing what could have beendecades in prison.
A harsh penalty for revealingthe truth.
(20:32):
Yes, but ironically, theillegal break in at his psychiatrist's
office and other governmentmisconduct led the judge to dismiss
all charges.
Government wrongdoing savedEllsberg from prison, so.
The very actions taken topunish Ellsberg ended up exonerating
him.
That's some poetic justice.
(20:52):
It is.
And it highlights the Nixon'sadministration's paranoia and its
willingness to break the lawto silence dissent.
So, looking back, what's thebig lesson from the Pentagon Papers
fiasco?
There are many lessons, butone stands out.
The importance of transparencyand accountability in government.
Why is that so important?
(21:13):
Because as, as President JamesMadison said, quote, people who mean
to be their own governors mustarm themselves with the power that
knowledge gives.
End quote.
So, as we like to say,knowledge is power.
Exactly.
And a well informed citizenryis essential for a healthy democracy.
What about the argument thatgovernments need to keep secrets
(21:33):
to protect national security?
That's a valid concern.
But there's a differencebetween legitimate national security
concerns and simply trying toavoid embarrassment or suppress dissent.
The burden is on thegovernment to justify why information
should be kept secret.
So it's still relevant today,especially when you consider recently
WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden andother recent controversies about
(21:57):
government leaks to the public.
Yes, Daniel Ellsberg himselfcompared his actions to what Julian
Assange and Chelsea Manning did.
The difference, of course, ishow the leaks were managed and whether
they risked lives or not.
But the fundamental question,should information about government
wrongdoing be kept hidden fromthe public or not?
(22:20):
Remains the same.
So the Pentagon Papers standas both a cautionary tale about the
government overreach and and ashining example of how critical a
free press is to democracy.
We've arrived at the partwhere we connect the dots.
(22:41):
From 1971 to our present day,the Pentagon Papers weren't the last
major government leaks.
And the debates they sparkedare still reverberating.
Right.
To take WikiLeaks forinstance, Julian Assange, founder
of WikiLeaks, releasedthousands of classified documents
in 2010 about the wars in Iraqand Afghanistan.
(23:01):
Some people called him a new Ellsberg.
Others said he was recklessand endangering lives.
Yes, the parallels anddifferences are Fascinating.
Daniel Ellsberg carefullyvetted the Pentagon Papers and the
New York Times, allegedlyspent three months reviewing the
documents, locking people upin hotel rooms to ensure they weren't
(23:22):
going to harm Americannational security.
In contrast, WikiLeaks wasmore indiscriminate.
But regardless, both claimedto be acting in the public's interest,
shining a light on hiddengovernment actions.
Ellsberg himself weighed in,suggesting that leaking government
misconduct can serve democracy.
(23:42):
But he also acknowledged thatreleasing raw, unredacted data might
carry more risks.
Exactly.
And then we have EdwardSnowden, former National Security
Agency intelligence contractorand whistleblower.
Snowden revealed the NSA'smassive domestic surveillance program.
Like Ellsberg, he was chargedunder the Espionage act, an old law
(24:05):
from 1917 that's been dustedoff whenever the government wants
to go after leakers.
The Obama administration,known for promising openness, actually
prosecuted more leak casesunder the Espionage act than all
other previous administrationssince World War II combined.
That's an eye opening statistic.
It proves the struggle betweengovernment secrecy and public accountability
(24:28):
is alive and well.
Technology has certainly madeleaking easier.
No more lugging around hugeboxes of photocopies like in Ellsberg's
day.
But it also means thegovernment can track digital trails
more effectively.
Right?
It's a complicated landscape.
Nowadays, courts often requirethe government to demonstrate real
harm to national security ifthey want to prevent publication.
(24:52):
But in practice, the fear ofprosecution still casts a long shadow.
So we circle back then to thecentral tension.
The government argues it needssecrecy to protect national security,
while whistleblowers arguethat secrecy often conceals wrongdoings
or mistakes.
Yes, it's a fight for balancebetween secrecy and transparency.
(25:13):
And.
And it's a fight that everygeneration has to negotiate anew.
And we should keep a healthyskepticism whenever officials warn
that publication will causegrave harm.
Sometimes that claim is valid,but historically it's been used to
cover embarrassments or policy blunders.
The Pentagon Papers weredefinitely a turning point.
(25:33):
They legitimized the idea thatrevealing government wrongdoing can
be an act of patriotism.
And they reaffirmed the FirstAmendment's power in practice, not
just in theory.
We still feel those echoes inevery major leak case today.
And it's a cautionary taleabout the links to which some administrations
will go to control the narrative.
(25:54):
The plumbers, Watergate andNixon's resignation all connect back
to how the White Houseresponded to the leak.
So, dear listeners, let thisepisode serve as a reminder of how
crucial and informed citizenry is.
Knowledge truly is powerwithout it, we can't hold our leaders
accountable.
Or foster genuine democracy.
(26:14):
Well said, Michael.
Thank you all for joining uson this deep dive into the Pentagon
Papers.
For history's greatest crimes.
I'm Elena.
And I'm Michael.
Until next time, keep questioning.
Sam.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.