History's Greatest Crimes

Episode 2: Secrets and Lies: The Pentagon Papers Scandal

• Michael and Alana • Season 1 • Episode 2

Share episode

Send us a text

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.

Michael:

Welcome back to History's Greatest Crimes, the podcast where we, two professional historians, dissect the most intriguing and morally complex transgressions of the past. I'm Michael.

Alana:

And I'm Alana. This isn't your typical true crime podcast. We're not interested in blood and gore. Instead, we are diving deep into the context of the crimes, the motives, the cover-ups and what they mean for us today.

Michael:

Exactly Today we are tackling the Pentagon Papers, a set of secret documents about the controversial Vietnam War.

Alana:

This was a top-secret Defense Department study from 1945 to 1967, exposing decades of US government deception regarding the Vietnam War. It revealed a pattern of misleading the public by multiple presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, by multiple presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic.

Michael:

But the Pentagon Papers' juicy details released to the public in June 1971 was just the beginning of the controversy. In the aftermath, the Nixon administration's attempts to suppress them triggered a clash over the freedom of the press and national security, and it ultimately led to a landmark Supreme Court decision and a president's downfall.

Alana:

So was the crime the act of leaking those top secret papers? What about the crimes revealed within them? Or maybe it was the clash to suppress freedom of the press that was the crime?

Michael:

That's the million dollar question, elena, this episode isn't just about recounting the Pentagon Papers. We're going to dissect the social and political climate that created them. We'll examine the reasons they were made, why they were leaked to the public and the actions of those trying to suppress them, and, ultimately, how this shaped the Vietnam War and our relationship with the government the government. Before we get to the nitty-gritty of the Pentagon Papers themselves, we need to set the stage. We're talking about the 1970s and the ongoing Vietnam War. How did the US even get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

Alana:

Enter the United States, which, in the late 1940s and 1950s, was very much guided by the fear of global communism. Especially with the Cold War in full swing, communism was viewed like a domino line. If one country in Southeast Asia fell to communism, the thinking went that the rest would topple one by one. This belief was known as the domino theory.

Michael:

Exactly, the domino theory was the big idea that justified US intervention in numerous countries, not just Vietnam. It fit neatly into the broader Cold War strategy of containment where the US tried to check Soviet influence wherever it popped up.

Alana:

That's right. This was also the era of mutually assured destruction. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear capabilities that could wipe out civilization as a whole, theoretically deterring either side from ever firing the first nuke. But in practice these smaller conflicts, like in Vietnam, became proxy battles.

Michael:

Immediately after the war and for almost 10 years the French fought the Vietnamese, with little success, to regain control. During this time, the US provided money and resources to the French, With no resolution, a temporary peace treaty. The Geneva Accords were signed in 1954. The Geneva Accords of 1954 temporarily divided Vietnam into North and South, with elections planned to reunify the country. But the US feared that communist leader Ho Chi Minh would win those elections, so they supported the creation of a separate, anti-communist South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem.

Alana:

Diem turned out to be a problem. He was autocratic, repressive and, simply put, extremely unpopular within his own country. So disliked, Diem was assassinated in November of 1963, opening the door to a series of unstable governments in South Vietnam.

Michael:

And every time a new regime floundered, the US felt compelled to get more deeply involved. More military advisors, more money, more everything. By the mid-1960s, this involvement was skyrocketing.

Alana:

Right. The major turning point was the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August of 1964. President Lyndon B Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces had fired on American Navy ships in international waters, though later evidence suggests that this attack may have been exaggerated or misrepresented.

Michael:

Which led Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving Johnson almost unlimited authority to escalate US military involvement without a formal declaration of war. From there, johnson used that authority to ramp up troops in Vietnam from about 20,000 in 1964 to more than half a million by 1968. That's a massive military escalation.

Alana:

Let's not forget the strategies employed Heavy bombing campaigns under Operation Rolling Thunder, the use of Agent Orange to defoliate jungles and a high civilian casualty rate, Guerrilla warfare, dense jungles, a population that was often difficult to distinguish between friend and foe. It was a recipe for frustration and disillusionment back home and among American troops.

Michael:

Back home, the anti-war movement was gaining momentum Protests, demonstrations, teach-ins they were becoming a regular part of American life.

Alana:

And it wasn't just college students anymore. People from all walks of life were questioning the war. Civil rights leaders, religious figures, even some politicians started speaking out.

Michael:

Jackie Robinson, the man who broke baseball's color bar, even wrote to President Johnson in 1966 about the ongoing civil rights concerns that weren't going away just because the nation was embroiled in a massive war.

Alana:

By 1968, the conflict hit another watershed moment the Tet Offensive. Up to this point, president Johnson had been suggesting a light at the end of the tunnel, that the war was close to being over. But in January of 1968, north Vietnamese forces launched a series of attacks during the Tet holiday, revealing that American claims of being on the brink of victory were well, not exactly accurate.

Michael:

That shattered Americans' perception of the war. President Johnson's popularity plummeted. He chose not to run for re-election, further dividing a nation that was already on edge. The country was deeply divided, trust in the government was eroding and the Vietnam War was at the center of it all.

Alana:

Between the rising body count, moral qualms and the draft controversies, the war was a national nightmare. In the midst of that, robert McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defense, ordered an analysis of the war. He was struggling with a growing sense of frustration regarding the seemingly unending war and feared that it was unwinnable. He wanted to know what was actually behind the war, what was driving it and whether victory was even possible. The result was the Pentagon Papers.

Michael:

Exactly. This leads us to the Pentagon Papers themselves how they were compiled, what they contained and why the government fought so hard to keep them under wraps.

Alana:

Welcome back to History's Greatest Crimes. I'm Alaina.

Michael:

And I'm Michael, and we just set the stage by exploring the Vietnam War, a conflict that divided a nation.

Alana:

If you recall, we explored the tangled web of the Vietnam War. Now we lift the curtain on the Pentagon Papers, the explosive documents that confirmed many of Americans' worst suspicions about the war and the American government's role in it. These papers came out of a top-secret Defense Department study from 1945 to 1967 about the Vietnam War, ordered by the American Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. In 1971, the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the public, revealing unpopular and deceptive practices on the part of multiple government administrations over the past 20 years.

Michael:

Wait. So the architect of the war, at least on the US side, was the one who said let's do a deep dive, no holds bar of the war, at least on the US side, was the one who said let's do a deep dive, no holds barred analysis. That's quite the plot twist.

Alana:

I know it's surprising, but McNamara wanted a thorough historical record to figure out how the United States got into this quagmire with Vietnam. According to the Miller Center, he initiated the study partly because he was troubled by the ongoing conflict and wanted clarity on the decisions made.

Michael:

Who wrote this then? Was it McNamara himself?

Alana:

No, not exactly. Instead of using existing Defense Department historians, mcnamara assigned the investigation to his assistant director, john McNaughton, until John McNaughton actually died in a plane crash. Then Defense Department official Les Gelb took over, and it was a team effort 36 analysts working for about 18 months.

Michael:

That's a big commitment. What kinds of questions did this team tackle?

Alana:

McNamara gave them a laundry list of about 100 questions, including how confident can we be about body counts of the enemy? And were programs to pacify the Vietnamese countryside working? And what was the difference between what President Johnson was claiming about the war and what was happening on the ground? And finally, did the United States' escalation of violence violate the Geneva Accords?

Michael:

This was heavy stuff, so the final product was a massive, 47-volume report totaling 7,000 pages and was classified as top secret. It was a comprehensive history of US involvement in Vietnam, filled with narrative, analysis and supporting documents.

Alana:

And absolutely explosive. Once it got out, the Pentagon Papers exposed a pattern of deception and misrepresentation by the American government in five key ways. One, the Johnson administration had deliberately misled the public about the war's progress. Two, the United States had been involved in covert operations against North Vietnam long before the official escalation of the war. Three, officials had expressed doubts about the war's prospects even as they were telling the public that victory was in sight. Four, the Kennedy administration was complicit in the coup leading to South Vietnamese President Diem's assassination in November of 1963. And finally, five, plans to bomb North Vietnam had been laid out even before the 1964 election, undermining Johnson's campaign promises not to escalate the war.

Michael:

That's a spicy meatball. So how did all of these top secret papers end up in the hands of the New York Times newspaper?

Alana:

Enter Daniel Ellsberg. He was one of the analysts who worked on the project. He began as a supporter of the war, but what he learned changed his perspective entirely. He felt betrayed by the government's lying and decided to do something about it.

Michael:

So in 1971, Ellsberg believed the American public had a right to know the truth about this war. He secretly copied the papers and handed them over to the New York Times newspaper.

Alana:

Which began publishing excerpts on June 13th of 1971. It was a journalistic earthquake, to say the least.

Michael:

I'm picturing newspapers flying off the stands public outroar all of that. So what was the immediate reaction?

Alana:

Well, a few years earlier, in 1968, richard Milhouse Nixon won the American presidential election by running on a platform that included a plan to end the draft and end the war. So when the Pentagon Papers were leaked, nixon was initially more concerned about who leaked them than what was leaked.

Michael:

That's right, because those documents mostly covered the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. But very quickly the Nixon administration sought a court injunction to stop further publication, claiming national security was at stake.

Alana:

Nixon and his national security advisor, henry Kissinger, feared that it would 1. Hinder peace talks with North Vietnam and 2. Possibly reveal other secrets of Nixon's own handling of the war, including the secret bombing of Cambodia and the Chennault affair.

Michael:

Based on those fears and the current and potential public uproar, the Nixon government got a restraining order against the New York Times.

Alana:

Yes, a temporary one, but then the Washington Post newspaper jumped into the fray and started publishing. Then the Washington Post newspaper jumped into the fray and started publishing, followed by 19 other newspapers. Talk about solidarity.

Michael:

It was like the ultimate game of media whack-a-mole Stop. One and another pops up, so we're heading for a big legal showdown and the fight zooms straight to the Supreme Court in the case New York Times Company versus the United States.

Alana:

In the 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the government hadn't met the burden of proof to justify a prior restraint on publication by the newspapers. The Supreme Court's ruling against the government reinforced the principle that the press should generally be free from government censorship before publication.

Michael:

The ruling affirmed the essential role of a free and unrestrained press in the holding of government accountable in informing the public. It supported the idea that the press should be able to quote, bear the secrets of government and inform the people, end, quote. A major First Amendment victory indeed.

Alana:

Without a doubt, as one legal expert said. Quote through the years, the Pentagon Papers decision has served as an ongoing protector of liberty of the press. End quote.

Michael:

But the revelations and fallout didn't end with the Supreme Court's decision. Up next, we'll explore the aftershocks of the publication and the mania inside the Nixon administration, its infamous plumbers and how it paved the way for Watergate. Welcome back to History's Greatest Crimes. We uncovered how the New York Times and the Washington Post defied the Nixon administration and won the right to publish the Pentagon Papers. But what happened after the headline-grabbing victory? Good question.

Alana:

Historians mostly agree that, while the Pentagon Papers didn't instantly end the Vietnam War, they had a significant effect on public opinion. They revealed that the government had systematically misled the public, fueling an already robust anti-war movement.

Michael:

Which widened the credibility gap, the gulf between what the government claimed and what the people believed.

Alana:

Exactly. It wasn't just college students or activists protesting anymore. As a result of the Pentagon Papers, people from all walks of life now questioned the wisdom and morality of continuing a seemingly unwinnable conflict and sending more young men and women to fight.

Alana:

So the papers added fresh fuel to the anti-war fire, in other words Absolutely For context, the first massive anti-war demonstrations in the United States started taking off in April of 1967. The Pentagon Papers in 1971, a few years later, validated many of the anti-war arguments that the government had never been straightforward about its objectives or chances for success.

Michael:

But if the Nixon administration was so upset, why not just address the war's issues head-on?

Alana:

Well, that wasn't Nixon's style. He was obsessed with plugging leaks and punishing those responsible. Enter the so-called plumbers, a White House group formed to prevent future leaks and discredit Nixon's opponents.

Michael:

The plumbers.

Alana:

The name alone sounds like a clandestine operation from a dark comedy Right, but they were very real and did some shady things, like breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September of 1971, hoping to find information to ruin his reputation. Remember, ellsberg helped write the Pentagon Papers and was responsible for leaking them.

Michael:

Wow, that's basically a movie plot, except real and illegal. Nixon was, among other things, very paranoid. He feared that the release of the Pentagon Papers was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger coordinated effort by radical left-wing elements within the government and media to undermine his presidency.

Alana:

Nixon had an obsession with secrecy that the Pentagon papers exacerbated. Nixon saw the protection of government secrets as essential to maintaining the integrity of his administration and the nation, and those that were responsible for the leak were not only enemies of the state, but should also be punished.

Michael:

As a direct response to the leaks, Nixon created the White House Special Investigations Unit, known as the Plumbers, to stop the leaks and to conduct covert, often illegal, operations against his political adversaries. Nixon's reaction to the Pentagon Papers hardened his conviction that he would never be safe from a vast conspiracy seeking to destroy him.

Alana:

And thus you can trace a direct line from the plumbers to the Watergate scandal. About a year after the Pentagon Papers leak came the Watergate break-in in June of 1972. We will discuss Watergate in a future episode, but briefly, Watergate was a scandal that began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex. The break-in was orchestrated by the same plumbers under the direction of Richard Nixon, with the goal of bugging the DNC headquarters. The ensuing cover-up and President Nixon's involvement led to his resignation in 1974.

Michael:

So, in a weird twisted way, the Pentagon Papers indirectly helped trigger the events that would eventually force Nixon to resign.

Alana:

Exactly Nixon's paranoia and heavy-handed tactics to stop the leaks led him down a path of criminal activity, Watergate being the ultimate downfall.

Michael:

That's the cautionary tale if I've ever heard one. So what happened to Daniel Ellsberg in the end?

Alana:

Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, facing what could have been decades in prison.

Michael:

A harsh penalty for revealing the truth.

Alana:

Yes, but ironically the illegal break-in at his psychiatrist's office and other government misconduct led the judge to dismiss all charges. Government wrongdoing saved Ellsberg from prison.

Michael:

So the very actions taken to punish Ellsberg ended up exonerating him. That's some poetic justice.

Alana:

It is and it highlights the Nixon's administration's paranoia and its willingness to break the law to silence dissent.

Michael:

So, looking back, what's the big lesson from the Pentagon Papers fiasco?

Alana:

There are many lessons, but one stands out the importance of transparency and accountability in government.

Michael:

Why is that so important?

Alana:

Because, as President James Madison said, quote Because, as President James Madison said so, as we like to say, knowledge is power. Exactly, and a well-informed citizenry is essential for a healthy democracy.

Michael:

What about the argument that governments need to keep secrets to protect national security?

Alana:

That's a valid concern, but there's a difference between legitimate national security concerns and simply trying to avoid embarrassment or suppressed dissent. The burden is on the government to justify why information should be kept secret.

Michael:

So it's still relevant today, especially when you consider recently WikiLeaks, edward Snowden and other recent controversies about government leaks to the public.

Alana:

Yes, daniel Ellsberg himself compared his actions to what Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning did. The difference, of course, is how the leaks were managed and whether they risked lives or not, but the fundamental question should information about government wrongdoing be kept hidden from the public or not remains the same.

Michael:

So the Pentagon Papers stand as both a cautionary tale about the government overreach and a shining example of how critical a free press is to democracy.

Alana:

We've arrived at the part where we connect the dots from 1971 to our present day. The Pentagon Papers weren't the last major government leaks, and the debates they sparked are still reverberating.

Michael:

Right. Take WikiLeaks, for instance. Julian Assange, founder of Wikiileaks, released thousands of classified documents in 2010 about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people called him a new Ellsberg, others said he was reckless and endangering lives.

Alana:

Yes, the parallels and differences are fascinating. Daniel Ellsberg carefully vetted the Pentagon Papers, and the New York Times allegedly spent three months reviewing the documents, locking people up in hotel rooms to ensure they weren't going to harm American national security. In contrast, wikileaks was more indiscriminate but regardless. Both claimed to be acting in the public's interest, shining a light on hidden government actions.

Michael:

Ellsberg himself weighed in suggesting that leaking government misconduct can serve democracy, but he also acknowledged that releasing raw, unredacted data might carry more risks.

Alana:

Exactly. And then we have Edward Snowden, former National Security Agency intelligence contractor and whistleblower. Snowden revealed the NSA's massive domestic surveillance program. Like Ellsberg, he was charged under the Espionage Act, an old law from 1917 that's been dusted off whenever the government wants to go after leakers.

Michael:

The Obama administration, known for promising openness, actually prosecuted more leak cases under the Espionage Act than all other previous administrations since World War II combined.

Alana:

That's an eye-opening statistic. It proves the struggle between government secrecy and public accountability is alive and well.

Michael:

Technology has certainly made leaking easier no more lugging around huge boxes of photocopies like in Ellsberg's day but it also means the government can track digital trails more effectively.

Alana:

Right. It's a complicated landscape. Nowadays, courts often require the government to demonstrate real harm to national security if they want to prevent publication, but in practice, the fear of prosecution still casts a long shadow.

Michael:

So we circle back then to the central tension. The government argues it needs secrecy to protect national security, while whistleblowers argue that secrecy often conceals wrongdoings or mistakes.

Alana:

Yes, it's a fight for balance between secrecy and transparency, and it's a fight that every generation has to negotiate anew. And we should keep a healthy skepticism whenever officials warn that publications and it's a fight that every generation has to negotiate anew. And we should keep a healthy skepticism whenever officials warn that publication will cause grave harm. Sometimes that claim is valid, but historically it's been used to cover embarrassments or policy blunders.

Michael:

The Pentagon Papers were definitely a turning point. They legitimized the idea that revealing government wrongdoing can be an act of patriotism, and they reaffirmed the First Amendment's power in practice, not just in theory.

Alana:

We still feel those echoes in every major leak case today and it's a cautionary tale about the links to which some administrations will go to control the narrative. The plumbers Watergate and Nixon's resignation all connect back to how the White House responded to the narrative. The plumbers, watergate and Nixon's resignation all connect back to how the White House responded to the leak.

Michael:

So, dear listeners, let this episode serve as a reminder of how crucial and informed citizenry is. Knowledge truly is power. Without it, we can't hold our leaders accountable or foster genuine democracy.

Alana:

Well said, michael. Thank you all for joining us on this deep dive into the Pentagon Papers For History's Greatest Crimes. I'm Elena.

Michael:

And I'm Michael. Until next time, keep questioning. Thank you.

People on this episode

Contributor

Dr. Alana

Host
Contributor

Dr. Michael

Host