The Vietnam War 50 years later: A timeline of events
BLOUNTVILLE, Tenn. (WJHL) — April 30 will mark 50 years since the Fall of Saigon. It was the day South Vietnam's capital city was captured, bringing an end to the Vietnam War.
As we approach the anniversary, News Channel 11 is delving into the history, sharing the stories of those who served and discussing the issues those veterans still face today.
In the first part of our series, we learn more about the war, what led up to it and why it still shapes American military decisions today.
Stuart Frye is an assistant professor of history and humanities at Northeast State Community College. He teaches several lectures on the Vietnam War, along with classes on military science and history.
The conflict in French-occupied Indochina started well before the Vietnam War. The French had colonized Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in 1858 for rubber and tea plantations.
'They began armed conflict. That was a popular uprising. The Cong Viet, as they were called, began fighting the French and sort of at a low level,' Frye said. (The Cong Viet were later referred to as the Viet Cong).
The French were defeated and left. That's when Paris signed the Peace Accords with the North Vietnamese, which allowed them to create a military presence in South Vietnam.
'South Vietnam was essentially created at that point,' Frye said. 'And they had to almost immediately start building up a defense network, a military.'
The Kennedy Administration gave them special forces in 1961, which Frye describes as a 'force multiplier,' where a certain number of men are trained, they train more, and so on, eventually creating an army.
After Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson took the Oval Office. In August of 1964, Johnson told the nation American ships had been attacked twice near the Gulf of Tonkin, which is on the northern part of the country.
'Johnson went to Congress and received what was called the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and that allowed him to put U.S. military personnel, active boots on the ground in South Vietnam,' Frye said.
Frye says it was part of the Truman Doctrine from the Cold War to stop communist expansion at any cost.
'There was a lot of communist involvement in Southeast Asia. The Korean War had occurred in '51-'52, and there was this belief at the top level of the American government of what they called the domino theory, that if one of these Southeast Asian countries would fall and they would just all fall,' Frye said.
By the mid-60s, there were 650,000 American soldiers in Vietnam. Young men were drafted and sent into the battlefield.
'The draft really changed, though, under the Kennedy and Johnson administration[s]. They made certain exemptions. So if you could go to college or you could get into a National Guard Reserve unit, you were exempt from service over in Vietnam,' Frye said. 'People may be from the poor, working class, people that couldn't get into college, those were the people that tended to be drafted.'
The war raged on, and the casualties grew. The American public was on board with the war effort at first, but what happened during the Lunar New Year in early 1968 was a turning point in shifting opinions.
The TET Offensive shocked the American people. General Westmoreland told leaders that the war was being 'successfully prosecuted.' That event proved the opposite, and that the North Vietnamese were fully capable of conducting military operations in South Vietnam.
'Anti-war and counterculture movements sort of coalesced together in the sixties, and [it] was quite a divisive war here in the United States politically,' Frye said. 'Many people thought of this as an example of American imperialism. That we were going there to colonize South Vietnam. And they thought, well, this is a war that has nothing to do with American political interests. Why are we sending American soldiers over there to die?'
There were anti-war protests, sit-ins on college campuses and Hollywood was getting in on the movement too.
'It wasn't uncommon for US soldiers, especially later on after the Tet Offensive. 68, 69, for them to be treated quite poorly,' Frye said. 'When they came back, they weren't heroes–looked upon as heroes defending the nation from communist aggression, but rather as imperialists conducting an evil foreign policy overseas. And that's regrettable because they did deserve much better than what they received.'
Politics played a major role in the war. In 1973, Nixon had the opportunity to use air power to push back.
'We were not allowed to attack North Vietnam per se. So what we were left with then is essentially trying to guard thousands of locations all over South Vietnam. And what we did then is we seeded the enemy [in] the field. They were able to concentrate forces at a specific area. And we just had to constantly guard all of these different strategic locations. And it just took that many troops to be able to do it effectively,' said Frye. 'The United States had exited militarily in 1973. The North Vietnamese immediately broke their treaty obligations. They had formally recognized South Vietnam and agreed not to attack. Of course, as soon as we left, they did exactly that. They attacked South Vietnam… Congress essentially cut off all the money. And Nixon has used up all of his political capital. There was nothing that we could do essentially by 1975 to stop the North Vietnamese, and they just simply rolled through South Vietnam.'
Frye describes South Vietnam as a 'political basket case.'
'You had pro-South Vietnamese government, South Vietnamese, and then you had anti-South Vietnamese government, South Vietnamese,' he said. 'So it was an internal civil war struggle even within South Vietnam.'
On April 30, 1975, South Vietnam's capital was captured.
'There was nothing that we could do essentially by 1975 to stop the North Vietnamese, and they just simply rolled through South Vietnam,' Frye said. 'The collapse really happened very, very quickly… so quickly that the ability to remove American personnel, civilians, especially a lot of civilian personnel were still in South Vietnam, it was quite difficult.'
What happened during the Fall of Saigon and throughout the Vietnam War still shapes American policy overseas.
'Any time the US military is proposed to be engaged in overseas conflict, the first thing that is said is that 'do we have an exit strategy, something that we didn't have in Vietnam?'' Frye said. 'So there's always a reference back to the end of the Vietnam War and how we don't want to make that same mistake again today.'
You can watch an extended interview with Professor Frye on the WJHL+ app.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Nearly 200 House members signed onto a bipartisan letter this week to express support for Job Corps after the Department of Labor recently announced it would soon be pausing operations at centers nationwide. In the letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers express support 'for the continuation of the Job Corps program,' while noting it remains funded through government funding legislation that passed earlier this year. 'Nearly 20,000 young people utilize Job Corps to learn skills for in-demand vocational and technical job training,' the letter said. 'Job Corps is one of the few national programs that specifically targets the 16-24-year-old population that is neither working, nor in school, and provides them with a direct pathway into employment openings in industries such as manufacturing and shipbuilding.' Job Corps, established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, is a free residential education and job training program for low-income people between 16 and 24 years of age. In an announcement explaining the Labor Department's decision to suspend operations at Job Corps centers, Chavez-DeRemer said the program was found to no longer achieve 'the intended outcomes that students deserve,' citing what she described as 'a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis.' 'We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program's possibilities.' The department said it will begin a 'phased pause' initiating 'an orderly transition for students, staff, and local communities.' The pause will occur by June 30, the office said. The move was met with swift backlash from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who defended the program in a statement expressing strong opposition to the department's move to pause operations. 'Serving nearly 500 students in Maine, the Loring Job Corps Center and the Penobscot Job Corps Center have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults,' Collins said at the time. In the new letter sent to the secretary Thursday, the group of lawmakers said by 'filling job openings, Job Corps ensures that young people become productive members of the American workforce.' 'No other program takes homeless youth and turns them into the welders, electricians, shipbuilders, carpenters, nurses, mechanics, and vocational workers of the future,' the letter said. The letter came a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from suspending operations at Job Corps centers as critics argue the move is illegal. 'The Department of Labor is working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order,' the agency said in a statement to The Hill on Friday. 'We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law.' Updated: 12:51 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi Hit With Formal Demand to Answer Musk's Claim About Trump and Epstein
House Democrats have urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to respond to a bombshell claim from Elon Musk that Donald Trump is named in the so-called 'Epstein files.' Reps. Stephen Lynch and Robert Garcia, who serve on key congressional oversight panels, sent a letter to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel obtained by Axios, demanding that they 'immediately clarify whether this allegation is true.' The lawmakers want Bondi and Patel to produce a detailed timeline of the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files and to explain why there have been no new disclosures since February, according to the letter. Trump 'is in the Epstein files,' billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk wrote in a post on X Thursday, alleging that 'that is the real reason they have not been made public.' Musk signed the post off by writing: 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk added in a follow-up post: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' He was referring to files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges. Officials in the first Trump administration determined that Epstein's death was a suicide, but conspiracy theories that he was killed to shield high-profile individuals including Trump, Britain's Prince Andrew, and former President Bill Clinton have proliferated nonetheless. The Trump administration in February declassified and released files related to Epstein, but they were highly redacted and did not offer major revelations. The FBI hasn't indicated when more files will be released. Lynch and Garcia want answers about who was involved in the review and redaction process. The Daily Beast has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' the lawmakers wrote in a three-page letter. 'Musk, one of the President's closest and most influential advisors, alleges that the President may be described in additional files related to this investigation. This allegation implies that the President may be involved in determining which files should be released and whether files will be withheld from the public if he personally chooses to withhold them,' the House Democrats said. Giving a June 20 deadline, the House Democrats asked Bondi and Patel to provide a timeline timeline for the declassification and public release of all remaining files; to describe why the DOJ hasn't released additional files since February; to describe Trump's role in reviewing documents pertaining to the investigation and prosecutions of convicted sex offenders Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as his role in determining DOJ's ability to declassify and make public these documents. They also demanded Bondi and Patel provide a list of all personnel whose approval is required to facilitate the declassification and public release of the documents, and to explain why the previously released files 'contained significant redactions.' In a statement to Axios, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the letter as 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' 'These are the same left-wing lunatics who neglected their oversight duties regarding the Biden administration's lawless actions and concocted hoax after hoax on President Trump during his first term. No one takes them or their petty letters seriously,' said Fields. Musk pushed the explosive claim amid an epic public feud with the president, which centers on the Trump-backed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' Musk has criticized the spending package, describing it as fiscally reckless and a 'disgusting abomination.' He's said the bill would undermine his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by adding trillions to the U.S. budget deficit. But Trump claimed Thursday that Musk was really upset about the effect the bill will have on his electric vehicle company, Tesla. In their rift Thursday, Musk also suggested Trump be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, and asked his 220 million followers in a poll on X whether he should create ' a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' Trump has said he's 'very disappointed' in Musk and suggested he has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Reports that pair could be set to make amends as soon as Friday with a Trump team-scheduled call with Musk to broker peace were quickly rebuffed by the president, who said Musk had 'lost his mind' and had no plans to talk to him. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it does not include the policies he wanted.'