Originally Posted by Blue
I was only 4.

I have 2 points that often get overlooked in context of his speech:
Saigon fell in '75.
The second point is that the NVA let the VC take the brunt of the Tet offensive and they lost the key part of their leadership and the VC were nothing more than puppets from Hanoi after that.
Interesting analysis... he was wrong. It did not end in stalemate or peace.
The piece about killing two birds... again interesting. Perhaps three birds. Everyone won except the VC. Without a doubt the U.S. and ARVN won the battles involved in the 1968 Tet Offensives; every attack except Lang Vei and Kham Duc were repelled. 32,204 NVA/VC confirmed killed, and 5,803 captured. US losses were 1,015 KIA, while ARVN losses were 2,819 KIA.
Yet media following Tet helped open a very real credibility gap for the US government at home and it sapped the will of President Johnson to continue fighting in Vietnam.
I am not going to go so far as to say that had Cronkite not said these things, the war might have ended in a stalemate. Yet still, one might posit the notion that had he not, he'd have been right, and that by saying it he at least contributed to an alternate reality. One in which he was essentially wrong.
Originally Posted by Blue
Edit Edit: I still think Cronkite was one of the 3 greatest TV anchors from the 20th Century and probably the greatest. I would have liked to see him re-visit the Tet after the North Vietnamese documents were declassified a few years ago.
You asked for it...
YouTube - Walter Cronkite Remembers His Tet Offensive Editorial
woof!