Talk:Pentagon Papers

Neutrality

Is "traitor-in-keeping-with-his-kind", added on June 9, 2010, really voice neutral? 75.145.19.1 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gap

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.

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)

I am reading David Rudenstine's The Day the Presses Stopped: A History of the Pentagon Papers Case (1996) and he claims that the official title of the Pentagon Papers was "History of U.S. Decision Making Process on Vietnam Policy." This conflicts with what the wiki page says---and there is not citation for what it up there now...wondering if Rudenstine is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletfires (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/ says "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force" 24.118.168.217 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Not surprisingly, the article spends as little time discussing the content of the PPs as was talked about back when the Papers were released. Instead, the big hubbub back then was all about all that was round and about them, especially Mr. Ellsberg himself and his courage etc. I doubt anyone could point to any one thing the papers exposed; it was just the very fact of exposure that made all the "difference." Mr. Ellsberg thumbed his nose at authority, went on to make millions of dollars, took credit for ending Nixon's presidency, took credit for ending the war, and claimed to have saved thousands of lives. But what was actually in the Papers no one can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.218 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"But what was actually in the Papers no one can say." Are you for real? It showed that everything the US government was saying was a lie. For example, Johnson said the US fought to defend the democratic government of south Vietnam. The Pentagon Papers made it clear that the "South Vietnam" was the creation of the US and the CIA official in Saigon, Edward Lansdale, described the government of South Vietnam in the late 1950s as an "emerging fascist state." But the perhaps most damaging aspect of the papers were that they put into question if the US was a democracy. The only thing the papers did not expose was that Johnson lied about the the Gulf of Tonkin incident. That did not become public record until a couple of years ago. But most historians never believed Johnson's story. At least outside of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for editing the above paragraph for spacing, but it took up a lot of space. I did not edit any content. Let me say this about the above, however. I completely disagree. The Pentagon Papers did not prove that the war in Vietnam was a lie. It simply pointed out the difference between the publicly stated motivations for the war (political arguments, presidential campaigns, democrat v republican bloviation, etc.) and the actual realities on the ground in the country. In order for everything to have been a lie, you would have to show that the communist North did not invade the democratic (such as it was) South, and all the rest. One thing to keep in mind is that, when we left Vietnam, there was a bloodbath that took the lives of something like 2 million people. If nothing else, our presence there delayed that slaughter. If you have any integrity in your body, you have to admit that we did that, and regardless of the actual motivations, that was a noble thing.Bigdatut (talk)

McNamara et al did not lie brazenly to the public? The war was a "noble thing"? What is wrong with you? Coward. 181.128.103.252 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

All of you keep talking about whether or not the war was correct, and I don't seem to understand because I do not know what the papers exactly exposed. There should be more about what was in the paper for this article, such as the events and planning.66.183.59.211 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How is a difference between "publicly stated motivations for the war" and "actual realities on the ground" not a lie? Are you suggesting they didn't actually know the realities on the ground? That's a stretch. Also, South Vietnam was never a democracy. It never even achieved a shred of legitimacy. I don't doubt that atrocities were committeed in the aftermath of the Fall of Saigon, though you're inflating the number of deaths significantly. If you're willing to point out those massacres, it's only fair to point out that the American and South Vietnamese forces were guilty of vast atrocities as well, all in the name of this "noble" cause. A noble resolution to the war would have been to accept the Geneva Accords, allow an election to proceed in 1956 to reunite the country, and embraced Ho Chi Minh as an ally (everyone knew he was the presumptive winner), just as we did Tito in Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to one of the anonymous IP's, evidently Ellsworth either ignored or dismissed the fact that the Republic of Vietnam which he claimed was " a creation of the US," was in fact descended from the Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng, which rebelled against French colonial rule before the Indochinese Communist Party split from the French Communist Party, and was attacked by the ICP before Indochina was occupied by the Japanese. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"This article doesn't really say how or why their publication mattered,"

The article is trying to explain what they were. What happened to them, and what they did is a such a larger multidimensional question, it staggers the mind. Literally, and that is why most of the above answers, barely scratch the surface: What they were, is a secret report on the history of the objectives of a failed policy of hostilities in a country that was, in appearance, a significant deterrence to communism, and a quagmire of failed preparedness and policies that cost a significant amount of causalities for objectives that had changed perceptions during the duration of the conflict. It is not possible to explain why 7000 pages of a classified report were necessary to explain the breadth and history of the impact of this policy. There have been books, and movies made about it, some of which capture some of the breadth of the impact better than others. Why their publication mattered is explained in the first sentences of the article, but only covers the aspects of the impact of what happened in politics, no attempt was made to cover the impact it had on the military, the culture, the diplomacy or the power of government. The big deal is that this had those types of impact. It also raised the question in society about the value of a human life, and the privilege of the rich and elites to avoid serving in combat. Some people refer to the current president as "president bone-spurs" as a result of the cultural change that the Pentagon Papers brought about. If you could simply boil down the value of a human life to a few short sentences, be my guest.

The impact of the disclosure is still impacting us today at this very moment:

Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old US Army private who is alleged to have leaked secret documents to WikiLeaks, and is being detained pending hearings on his own serious criminal charges, may not be so fortunate.

The impact of The Pentagon Papers 40 years on

[ A marine viewing the list of casualties in 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial#/media/File:Vietnam-memorial-soldier.jpg] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In the closing scenes of the movie "The Pentagon Papers" (2003) The following statements were displayed: "58,148 American Solders and over 2 million Vietnamese died during the Vietnam War. ( The Defense department, lists the official casualty list at 58,220 )

"The decision by Daniel Ellsberg to release the PENTAGON PAPERS in an effort to protect American Democracy, posed the Government’s lies to the public and placed the truth of the Vietnam War at the center of National debate.

"In 1975, America’s longest war ended.

References

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

As aired on PBS tonight, Jan 5, 2019, the program mentioned that on the initial day, Sunday, that the papers were published, Nixon on the tapes was interested in how it would negatively impact the democrats, and on the reflection on the presidency of both Kennedy and Johnson, and not necessarily on revealing Nixon's secret bombings, in a few days, by Tuesday of that week, Nixon was in full form, discussing with the Attorney Jon Mitchell about creating an injunction to stop the publication. This page will reflect the source of this podcast [ https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Futher evidence: "In reference to the Pentagon Papers, President Nixon says that “My view is to prosecute the goddamn pricks {bleeped} that gave it to them” 52:00: President Nixon says “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files.” [ The Pentagon Papers: Secrets, lies and leaks https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/the-pentagon-papers-secrets-lies-and-leaks-update/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

I also thought the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident being falsified, yet was used to justify war, was one of the most important revelations of the Pentagon Papers? Yfrwlf (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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.

Absolutely untrue. Daniel Elsburg provided *complete* copies to New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe. They may be locked away, but the copies are circulating, and those copies provided by Daniel Elsburg were complete, over 7000 pages. The original reports were Pentagon Reports partially authored by Daniel Elsburg. They were "Pentagon" papers, may want to look carefully at that word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

More sources: "“This was a secret history project to try to figure out why we were in such a national security tangle. And now with all the material together in one place, you can see how our government wrestled with the problem,” said Timothy Naftali, the director of the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, one of three presidential libraries that has a complete classified set of the Pentagon Papers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/pentagon-papers-to-be-declassified-at-last/2011/06/08/AGA0VuOH_story.html

"With a simple press release on June 8, 2011 the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announced that five days later the United States Government would declassify and make public the full forty-seven volumes of the set of studies universally known as the “Pentagon Papers.” The studies acquired that name when they were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, one of the analysts who had worked on them but had subsequently gone into the opposition on U.S. policy in the Vietnam war. The National Security Archive here posts, for the first time anywhere, a combined, comparative, and searchable set of all the major editions of the Pentagon Papers together with a cross-referencing index to all the sets."

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB359/

Note: I must, at this point, disclose that I work for gwu.edu, but am not involved with this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A timeline, consistant with Ellsburgs oral history:

[USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy http://topsecretplay.org/timeline/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.140.124 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers

NOTE: I did not mean to move this, but when I was trying to sign my signature I did something wrong. So I'm putting back the original headline that was already here, plus my contribuution. I apologize to the original poster for messing up your stuff.

This what the original text said with in the headline:

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.

This is what I added:

You're right. I believe Einsenhower had been involved with some inital activites that got the ball rolling on Vietnam in some aspect or another, but I can't get to my sources right now. As soon as I have some evidential proof, I'll return to ths section and update.

The Pentagon Papers' official title was "The History of the United States Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy". This is according to Katherine Graham's A Personal History (1997 Hardback edition p. 444, pp 4). Graham was the daughter of Eugene Meyer, the owner and publisher of the Post. She later became the owner and publisher of the The Washington POst Company was so during this PP and Watergate. This book was a great read for the history of the Washington Post and their involvment with this political controversy. I think this article would do well to elaborate a little on what both the Post and the Times went through to get this out there to the public. This book is a great reference and has a treasury of names, dates, and the emotions and consciousness of the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.4.23 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Vitaluv|Vitaluv]] (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)==

Gettin' a date

"however, none of the consensus actions recommended on September 7 involved bombing North Vietnam" Oh, yes? Maclear's 10000 Day War (PB, p.124) says the 2-phase bombing plan was endorsed 17 Mar 64.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Pentagon papers

When discussing the naming of another incident Pentagon Papers was mentioned as an example. However, shouldn't the p in Paper be lowercase, as in Pentagon papers?WP:CAPS appears to agree with me. Any objections?

Scope question

In the Impact section there's a list of precentages of reasons for staying in Viet Nam that's tagged with note [7] (the Nixonland book). It's introduced as a memo from the DoD under Johnson.

Was this list actually part of the Pentagon Papers? If not, it doesn't belong in this article, and should be removed, or made into a footnote itself.

If anyone has insight into the inclusion of this as part of the PP, then please respond. I'll wait, then do some checking to see if I can find out if it belongs, then move it to a footnote or elide it entirely if appropriate.
198.207.0.5 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Further prosecution

A line notes, "A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents." This is a patent lie - most of the judges do not comment on that. The source itself is very biased (Airforce Magazine), it states a line earlier that "The Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers had nothing to do with freedom of the press." and yet the opinions of the judges are filled with statements about the intentions of the first amendment and three judges explicitly say that it prohibits any such case. Blahage23 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

More info?

I have heard that the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in a heavily edited (censored) version and subsequently Senator Mike Gravel arranged with Ellsberg to have the uncensored version published by the Unitarian Universalist Church. Senator Gravel also used his senatorial privilege to read the papers into the congressional record, thus making them legally public, so the Nixon administration was unable to suppress publication. Kissinger wanted Gravel prosecuted for treason, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled in his favor.

This info., properly sourced, should probably be included (or made clearer) in the article.173.77.97.119 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in edited form, as 7000 pages /47 volumes of military speak about the reality and gap between what was happening and what were the objectives would be hard to publish in a daily newspaper. They were not censored, and that is a weasel word. You have heard wrong, and I heard a podcast of both Daniel Elsburg, and the NYT correspondent discussing it. Gravel read it into record so it could not be classified except by act of congress. The copy published by the UUC was 11 words short.

Your timelines are all off. Nixon initally welcomed them as damaging to the democrats, then in a few days went into a flying rage to Kissenger and Mitchell, and wanted Mitchell to prosecute Ellsburg for treason. (Nixons call, Nixons words ) Michell got the supreme court to stop the publication by the Times, and the next day, the publication went to the Washington Post, who were also to stop publication, which then went to the Boston Globe. A powerful game of whack-a-mole between Nixons administration and the Press, which Nixon hated. Ellsburg had arranged to have made multiple copies over the 6 months he had before he gave them to the Press.

The next event in the Watergate timeline was that Nixon wish to prosecute Ellsburg for disclosure/dissemination of them was that he hired the plumbers to get dirt on Ellsburg, which when Ellsburg eventually went to trial, the charges were not dismissed, a mistrial was declared, leaving open the possibility of a new trial, which never occurred.

References

Trivia? What were the exact addresses of the copy shop and apartments where the Pentagon Papers were first copied? and wouldn't this be of interest to Boston area tourism and tour guides like the Paul Revere House? The Edmond Pettus Bridge? and the St. Augustine Swimming Pool? and the boat factory that made the Granma? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.200.114 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Top Secret Sensitive

"("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that the study's publication would be embarrassing.) " I would like to see a citation for this use of the term sensitive. The way it is written now, it sounds like an opinion. Sensitive, when used by it self usually means a restriction on disemination. It is unlikely that this report was SCI. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pentagon Papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051204121721/https://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/48.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/48.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703224833/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828101935/http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/talk/podcasts.html to http://nytimes.whsites.net/talk/podcasts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703224833/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F07%2F02%2F1331255
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111014647/http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=851936 to http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=851936

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Story out of sequence

The two paragraphs about Senator Mike Gavel's actions starting on June 29 should come after the court injunction and the Supreme Court case, which played out earlier in the month. Telling these stories out of sequence is confusing. I will work on changing this in a few days. HowardMorland (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

USER:CLCStudent

How did you review my editd with your volume of edits, 5 in the minute concerned, where was the application of assume good faith? or why not help in the manner I requested? rather than go for volume?121.99.108.78 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Section "Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime"

This is a relatively minor point. In the section titled "Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime", the last part currently states: "As early as August 23, 1963, an unnamed U.S. representative had met with Vietnamese generals planning a coup against Diem.[20] According to The New York Times, this U.S. representative was later identified to be CIA officer Lucien Conein.[21]" Citation 20 is to the Pentagon Papers and citation 21 is to the obituary of Lucien Conein in The New York Times. The NYT obit does not specifically state that Conein was involved in the August 23, 1963 meeting, but this statement gives the impression that it was the NYT that revealed that information. Conein's meetings are even referenced a few pages later in that section of the Pentagon Papers, but as far as the August 23rd meeting it only states that Don met a CAS officer. Even so, it was Conein who met Don (see [2] and [3]). Not sure how to fix this, but this was known well before the NYT obit. - Location (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Secret bombing of Camboidia and Laos

This entry claims the Pentagon Papers revealed secret US bombings of Cambodia and Laos ('Operation Menu'). What's the source fot this information? According to my records, it was not part of the New York Times scoop at the time. Nor could it have been: Operation Menu was instigated by president Nixon and happened (1969/1970)after the Pentagon Papers were completed. The Papers covered the American involvement in Vietnam up until 1968. What are the facts here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastpak (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Slight inaccuracy in statement preceding quotation by McNamara

McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.

This quotation by McNamara does not support the preceding statement that he accused China of harboring imperial ambitions. It merely states that McNamara feared that China would "undercut" the United States' "importance and effectiveness in the world".
Only part of the preceding statement can be deduced from the quotation. I propose to either find a reference to support the statement that McNamara accused China of imperial ambitions or to modify the first sentence of the preceding statement to correctly reflect the quotation that follows it. --185.13.30.131 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You're applying a very narrow reading to the quote. I see no reason to change the article text. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument that my reading is too narrow does not quite convince me. I am pointing out that "looms as a major power threatening to undercut [the US'] importance and effectiveness in the world" or "remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against [the US]" is not semantically equivalent to "accused China of harboring imperial aspirations". Now, it is absolutely possible that McNamara accused China of imperial ambitions, however, this is not deducible from the given quotation, which the colon at the end of the statement would usually imply. I propose the preceding statement be changed to something accurate, for example "McNamara described China as a threat to American influence in the world like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were. According to McNamara, the Chinese threatened to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:". Are there any objections? --185.13.30.131 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Official title of the document is wrong

This article says that the official title for the document is "The History of U.S. Decision-Making in Vietnam, 1945–1968," but that is wrong. The correct name is "Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force." The mistake happened probably just because of misreading the quoted text: "documents from 47 volumes, that comprised the history of the U.S. decision making process on Vietnam policy, better known as the Pentagon Papers." StaciMore2004 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)