Vietnam
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should we have fought?</div> I'm taking a class in Vietnam and thought I'd raise the topic here. Some questions to consider. I'll weigh in later:
1. Should the US have fought?
2. Why did we fight?
3. Was victory attainable?
4. Why did we lose?
1. Should the US have fought?
2. Why did we fight?
3. Was victory attainable?
4. Why did we lose?
Comments
2) domino theory - ( ie 50's fear that communism was actually going to bury us capitalists.)
3) yes - but only by invading north vietnam, china, and russia while servinginvg soviet misslies.
4) betrayed by leadership -( not willing to risk war with china or nuclear confronation with russia)
my assumptions are that of course china would attack teh US if we got close to the border ( see korea)
this war the us was / is arguably capable of winning. however the essence of russian forigen policy
is to create a buffer around their state. an attack on china would be view as an attack on socialism and on teh buffer casuing definate soviet involvemnt. assuming the us still wins the russians launch game over.
All that over a small south asian country where teh communists area amajroity that has a stratigic value of zero
(oh joy here it comes)
It's so hard for me to decide if we needed to fight that war, or if we could have defeated the North through other means (as we ultimately did decades later - North Vietnam is now doing the inevitable slide into capitalism). Why we fought was a product of the times, and 20/20 hindsight shows that it might not have been necessary. Communist silliness naturally crumbles under its own retarded weight (ala Warsaw Pact, China, Soviet Union, Vietnam). The only thing you need to do to fight it is let it crush itself, and keep up the relentless pressure of western culture and love for MTV and Levis. Sorry angry students, but it bears out in practice. We just didn't know that 40 or 50 years ago...
Victory was certainly attainable. With tremendous mismanagement and a seemingly intentional desire for our presidents to have us lose that war, the individual fighting units of the US forces still managed to win all the battles. If instead of fighting a defensive battle that never allowed the American forces to end the war, invading the north and eliminating the communist party and regular NVA would have won the war in 6 months. Without that though, we basically acted like the kung-fu hero in a movie with an endless supply of ninjas attacking him over and over, all sort of lined up. instead of just throwing a hand grenade into the waiting line and stopping the source...
I think the war was winnable without brining Russia and China into the conflict. The US won every major engagment between the forces- we just didn't have the confidence or the strength to win a war of attrition.
EDIT
I agree Monse. Hindsight is always 20/20. That war could have been won, although we would have need to have combat in Cambodia and Laos, as thats where the NVA supply lines ran. The problem was a terrible mismanagment of the military. The presidents worried too much about the PR and not enough about the outcome. Westmooreland said "I can win this in 3 years if you give me 200,000 more troops". LBJ denied him because of the lousy PR it would mean. Add in incidents like Mai Li and an Anti-War media, you've got Government propagand fighting 'reliable' media based Anti-War propaganda.
Not to get too OT, but I'm proud of Bush's hands-off approach to the military. He's the commander in chief, not the general. He shouldn't try to act like it.
th chinese were looking for a reson to enter the war in my understaing of the situation
Simultaneously vietnam was triyng desparately to keep them out
but if NV really lost the chinse were willing to "protect" them
much the way the russians "protected" czechloslovakia.
2. Why did we fight?
3. Was victory attainable?
4. Why did we lose?
1. at the time I guess so. There was alot domecide going on in N. vietnam. Even if the war was bloody its alot better then a cold war going hot. But when we pulled out the domecide still happened so I guess it would have been better if Viet Nam never happend
2. We sorta inherited the conflict from France. Also the containment theory I guess. The US had to show that we support our allies.
3. Of course but when your only containing your going to loose. NS teaches us that.
4. Well all we did was contain the enemy.
There was also another theory. That communists would back down if they met resistance. Later changed to, communists would back down if they met resistance unless communism existed in a place where the people wanted it.
In Vietnam there was going be an election between the north and the south in which they were to choose their government. The southern government realized that they would lose, and decided not to hold the election, the North invaded. The US came to the defense, because we were simply trying to stop communism. Wasn't that capitalism was the problem, any communistic country is inherently anti-US.
I think we had problems because we probably expected them to crumble, but since the north, <i>WANTED</i> communism, they continued to fight. Plus, probably, the guerilla tactics used, which led to the creation of the Green Berets. Etcetera etcera.
S. Vietnam's government was incredibly unstable. The US actually approved a coup against a leader at one point (Diem, if you care). Governments were corrupt, weak willed, and unpopular. Thats one thing people forget when they call our current wars, 'quagmires'.
In Vietnam, the people we were fighting for didn't all want us there. Those we needed the most help from (villagers with connections to NVA, information on movements, etc) were actually against us. In fact, a HUGE majority of the population supported Ho Chi Minh- which is why elections were cancelled.
Interesting side note: Ho Chi Minh had American support when he declared Vietnam's independence in the 1940s. He read the decleration of Independence and played the Star Spangled Banner. He flew the American flag. He saw Communism and Capitalism as economic systems and assumed that he could have a relationship with the West. Then... THE FRENCH... and the rest, as they (... who is they? ) is history.
(Capitalism and Communism are economic systems, true, but have evolved into government systems. Capitalism is based on individual rights, whereas communism is based on collective rights) But thats ot.
What saddens me is that capitalism is bringing the world with itself into decrepitude... just wait a few decades and see entropy growing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Victory was certainly attainable. With tremendous mismanagement and a seemingly intentional desire for our presidents to have us lose that war, the individual fighting units of the US forces still managed to win all the battles.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not exactly what happened.
Multiple president were indeed involved in a war they lost track of , and were hoping to sign a peace treaty before the elections... but the people who initiated the war and prevented peace were CIA agents and bloodthirsty generals mostly , and weren't brilliant at all...
They were fighting against determined people , who fought for their freedom against their oppressors. They won the war against the previous colonialist nation , so they weren't afraid of fighting the US.
The US army never won significant battles in Vietnam. Sure helicopters caused huge casualties to the "viet cong" and flamethrowers burned villages with ease , but even with just rifles and hijacked US material the vietnamese basically controlled the whole country. They also had USSR support , including machineguns and grenades... if the war lasted longer then poor helis would have been taken down by carriable anti air missiles...
The people of Vietnam would never had let the US control the smallest part of their country without fighting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If instead of fighting a defensive battle that never allowed the American forces to end the war, invading the north and eliminating the communist party and regular NVA would have won the war in 6 months...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The leaders weren't the problem. Most guerilleros didn't even follow orders , they just ambushed marines with their local squad. Heck even women were fighting... nuking Hanoi would just have made everyone more determined.
They weren't forced to obei to the party , unlike Saddam's troops. They were fighting for their ideals. Ideals are much more effective than generals , and can't be destroyed by B-52s.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Without that though, we basically acted like the kung-fu hero in a movie with an endless supply of ninjas attacking him over and over, all sort of lined up. instead of just throwing a hand grenade into the waiting line and stopping the source...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well , throwing hand grenades into cases and carpet bombing Hanoi was quite attacking the source... the people. Only a genocide would have worked here , and I don't think the world would have accepted something worse than the war's own horrors.
The Vietnam war WAS unwinnable by the US. Well , unless you call nuclear war a victory.
The US army never won significant battles in Vietnam. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been hearing that one for 225 years - US capitalism will die under its own weight! Still waiting...
And I'm not sure how much you've studied the war. Heard of Tet? Hue City? Khe San? All were US military victories, and US <i>political</i> defeats. The rest of the things said about guerrilla tactics and helicopters and grenades... uhhh, what? Can you explain yourself better as it doesn't make an enormous amount of sense to me. Try to be more complete and less Clif's-notes, and I may get it (as I am old and frail <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
Same applies to Columbia , where many of your rulers seriously consider bombing the jungle to destroy the FARC.
Chechnya fundamentalists still launch terrorist attacks and kill russian soldiers , even without the exhausted population's support. Did Putin ever announce that war was over here ? Guerrilla's strenght has been underestimated more than once.
You can fight soldiers , you can fight organizations , you can fight states , you can dismantle a country , you can wash ideas with propaganda , but you can't fight the people. When the people badly wants something , you can't prevent it from taking what it needs.
Ever heard of the afghani taliban? The iraqi fedayeen? The nazi werewolves? The vietcong? Yes, even the vietcong had ceased to exist as a fighting force by 1971. All fought the US armed forces, and all were pulverised eventually. The US learned to use its own guerrillas to fight them, and it worked very, very well, as they have the same advantages as the enemy, plus far superior training, leadership, and support.
And the vietnamese people want coca cola and britney spears now. You're right, no one can fight that... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Been hearing that one for 225 years - US capitalism will die under its own weight! Still waiting...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*shudder*
MonsE is undead!
I'm going to steer clear of this one entirely. I wasn't there, I don't know enough about it (save from Hollywood) and I'm sure that lessons learned have been taken, and inwardly digested.
OMG more proof!
*makes crucifix from 2 tongue depressors*
You're just factually wrong there. And there was a sizable (though certainly not the majority) porition of South Vietnam who supported the US. This was mainly the Urban Middle and Upper class however, so it didn't really do a whole lot of good in the field. Monse is correct in listing Tet, Khe San, Hue, and a host of others. And so what if they had Russian support? We had American support.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
That's not exactly what happened.
Multiple president were indeed involved in a war they lost track of , and were hoping to sign a peace treaty before the elections... but the people who initiated the war and prevented peace were CIA agents and bloodthirsty generals mostly , and weren't brilliant at all...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't understand Vietnam without understanding the political climate at the time, which you apparently don't. Americans, since World War I, want to feel like 'The Good Guy' in any conflict. We feel good, we support the war, we win. In Vietnam, public opinion shifted thanks to a number of factors which made the US look like "The Bad Guy". Peace became a campaign ploy. The war was winnable, unless you consider winning battles contrary to the goal of victory. Victory, however, would be seen as the US being 'the Bad Guy' yet again.
OMG more proof!
*makes crucifix from 2 tongue depressors* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Has Monsieur Evil been playing Return to Castle Wolfenstien lately? Yeah, give us a info source of the interestingly named Kraut military group you mention, please.
And why must one discuss the past. Why can't we just look to the future. If 'Nam never happened, the universe would be totally different. Some innovations that we have now wouldn't exist. Maybe if we didn't have that conflict, some terrors of this modern era wouldn't exist. Maybe the revelation of a new age armageddon would've come true. Maybe the Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed if the US (and other forces) didn't dare to go in and at least try. So many possibilites to this conflict.
... History repeats itself. Look at the effect Vietnam has had just in Iraq alone. Modern wars are declared 'Quagmires' and 'Another Vietnam' if we don't see progress in a matter of days. The US goes to extra measures to make sure we don't hurt civillans, aka Vietnam. Clearly it is relevant. In order to understand the effects, we need to understand the event.
OMG more proof!
*makes crucifix from 2 tongue depressors* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Has Monsieur Evil been playing Return to Castle Wolfenstien lately? Yeah, give us a info source of the interestingly named Kraut military group you mention, please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dahm your teachers to heeeeellllllll!!!
The werewolves were fanatic members of the Nazi resistance movement in 1944-45, primarily made up of hitler youth and SS pockets. They never materialized in great numbers, but certainly caused some occasional problems once the Allies came across the Rhein.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812814681/qid=1051118887/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4589878-2873529?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details' target='_blank'>Go read a book, dahm you!</a> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
So, thanks for the book suggestion!
Any good books on the Vietnam conflict?
We would not have:
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket
Forrest Gump
.
case closed.
Vietnam for the creation of superglue = good.
*changes garlic necklace and refills holy water*
Of course the derivation of werewolves has added significance when you consider Adolf (not his real name incidentally) means wolf.
Maybe thats why the a group of german U-Boats were called a <b>Wolf</b>pack
The problem with the Nothern Vietnamese was that they just wouldn't give up. We'd kill them by the thousands, burn their towns, take their weapons, blow up their holes, and Agent Orange their jungle, and they'd just keep coming back.
Keep in mind, Vietnam for them was a defensive war of their own country, and while their zeal kept them going, we won flat out when it came to casualties: we lost about 58, 000 men... That's comparable to about all the lives lost in the Battle of Gettysburg, the most bloody of the Civil War. That's also compared to a few million (if i remember right) North Vietnamese fighters.
Eventually, we just gave up on the effort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
?
Cyanoacrylate was originally invented during the second world war by researchers attempting to find a damage resistant replacement to glass for optical gun sights. It was then rediscovered by Dr Harry Coover by accident in 1951.
<a href='http://www.eff.org/Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.07' target='_blank'>http://www.eff.org/Publications/Bruce_Ster..._columns/fsf.07</a>