Walter Cronkite's Ridiculous Spin on the 1968 Tet Offensive in South Vietnam

[AZrailwhale]

I asked for proof of your allegations.

You have not done so.

He's listed book after book. Plus, I was in the Army from 1970 to 1973 the first time and we examined Tet in great detail. All the evidence, as well as interrogations of VC and NVA survivors agreed that it was a catastrophic defeat for the communists that they weren't expecting.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I took the same courses in the Army, and they said as long as we were not willing to invade NV, we could not win. That was ture.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, they don't.

You don't know what you're talking about. You obviously have not read the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong sources, or else you would know that, yes, they most certainly do debunk the myth that Communist victory was inevitable.

They know as long as they had four sanctuaries outside of NV plus Russian and Chinese supplie they would eventually wear out the opposition of the American people.

This bogus talking point became inexcusable at least 25 years ago, if not much earlier.

The NVA had suffered such a horrible thrashing during the Spring Offensive that even a majority of the Hanoi Politburo opposed resuming the war after the Paris Peace Accords, and they were actually able to vote down Le Duan's attempt to resume a full-scale resumption of the fighting.

However, this slim anti-war majority vanished (1) when Congress began slashing aid to South Vietnam and (2) when Congress prevented Nixon from launching further air raids to punish North Vietnam for not withdrawing NVA forces from Cambodia as required by the Accords.

Once the Politburo realized that Congress was not going to support South Vietnam and was not going to allow Nixon to enforce the Accords, they reversed course and approved a steady escalation of attacks on South Vietnam, culminating with the 1975 offensive.

Guess what? The Viets followed the principles of our revolutionaries in waiting out the British.

Oh my goodness. This is cockamamie nonsense. This not only indicates a severe lack of knowledge about the Vietnam War but an equally severe lack of knowledge about the War for Independence.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This >>> is exactly what happened. "They know as long as they had four sanctuaries outside of NV plus Russian and Chinese supplie they would eventually wear out the opposition of the American people."

And MikeGriffith above has been denying it for 25 years.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This >>> is exactly what happened. "They know as long as they had four sanctuaries outside of NV plus Russian and Chinese supplie they would eventually wear out the opposition of the American people."

And MikeGriffith above has been denying it for 25 years.

You just keep ignoring all contrary evidence and keep repeating Communist propaganda. The myth that Hanoi's victory was inevitable was a propaganda point that the Communists widely broadcast in the '60s and '70s. As an alleged Vietnam veteran, you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.

BTW, if you want documentation of the fact that the U.S. Air Force's decimation of the NVA and of North Vietnam's supply/military infrastructure in mid- and late 1972 caused even a majority of the Hanoi Politburo to oppose resuming full-scale warfare after the Paris Peace Accords, you can find it in numerous sources, including Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen's book Hanoi's War, Van Nguyen Duong's book The Tragedy of the Vietnam War, Frank Snepp's book Decent Interval, and Dr. Pierre Asselin's book Vietnam's American War.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

With four sanctuaries plus Russia and Chinese to support NV, America simply could not wait out a win.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

From Tet 1968 to April 1975 shows that Mike is wrong.

 

[AZrailwhale]

With four sanctuaries plus Russia and Chinese to support NV, America simply could not wait out a win.

We HAD a win. The PRVN surrendered by signing the Paris Peace Accords on January 27th, 1973. The PRVN couldn't even feed its citizens without the massive aid from China and the USSR and Nixon had cut all the road and rail links as well as mining the approaches to Haiphong Harbor and other North Vietnamese ports with mines that the Vietnamese and Russians lacked the technical ability to clear. That's why the US had to clear the minefields after the war using Sea Stallion helicopters pulling magnetic and influence sleds.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Treaty was to get us out of there.

It worked.

We lost. Period. We lost.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Treaty was to get us out of there.

It worked.

We lost. Period. We lost.

When the other side sues for an immediate peace after slow-walking negotiations for over a year, they are losing, not us.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They knew we were in a bad spot committed by the Treaty.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They knew we were in a bad spot committed by the Treaty.

Then why did they spend over a year arguing about things like the shape of the negotiating table? The US defeated the PRVN by cutting off the endless supplies of military and civilian aid coming from both China and the USSR. As I said, Hanoi couldn’t even feed its own people without that aid, let alone prosecute a war.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Enough aid got in. The USA was tricked in 1975 or deliberately sold out SVN.

We all knew what was going to happen. And it id.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Enough aid got in. The USA was tricked in 1975 or deliberately sold out SVN.

We all knew what was going to happen. And it id.

US aid essentially stopped in 1973. Once we cleared the mines blocking the PRVN's harbors, Soviet aid avalanched in. The Soviets took the defeated light infantry/guerrilla PAVN and turned it into a European-style heavy mechanized and armored Army that two years later invaded and conquered the Republic of Vietnam. There was no Chinese aid because the Vietnamese were on the outs with China. In 1979 China invaded and tried to conquer Vietnam. The PAVN handed the PLA its butt and sent it home crying to momma.

 

[mikegriffith1]

US aid essentially stopped in 1973. Once we cleared the mines blocking the PRVN's harbors, Soviet aid avalanched in. The Soviets took the defeated light infantry/guerrilla PAVN and turned it into a European-style heavy mechanized and armored Army that two years later invaded and conquered the Republic of Vietnam. There was no Chinese aid because the Vietnamese were on the outs with China. In 1979 China invaded and tried to conquer Vietnam. The PAVN handed the PLA its butt and sent it home crying to momma.

I agree with most of these points and with your overall thrust. Just a few caveats:

Even when the mines were cleared from Haiphong Harbor, the port's capacity was still well below pre-mining levels due to the extensive damage caused by our Linebacker II bombing. As a result, Soviet aid received through the port in 1973 was only partially restored after the mines were gone.

Therefore, Chinese aid to North Vietnam actually eclipsed Soviet aid in 1973, even though China reduced its aid that year compared to 1972. In 1972, Chinese aid to North Vietnam was $2.23 billion, but in 1973 it was $1.55 billion. Soviet aid to North Vietnam in 1973 was $1.0 billion.

Haiphong Harbor's port capacity was finally restored in 1974. As a result, Soviet aid overtook Chinese aid in 1974, with Soviet aid rising to $1.7 billion that year, which amounted to a 70% increase over the previous year.

Soviet and Chinese aid to North Vietnam in 1973 ($2.55 billion) was 14% higher than our aid to South Vietnam in 1973 ($2.2 billion), and the disparity grew larger in 1974 and 1975, thanks to the back-stabbing anti-war majority in the U.S. Congress.

Congress slashed our aid to South Vietnam for 1974 and 1975, cutting aid from $2.2 billion in 1973 to $1.1 billion in 1974 and then to $700 million in 1975. When Congress passed the first cut in aid in 1973--for fiscal year 1974--the news naturally hurt morale in South Vietnam and boosted morale in Hanoi.

Another relevant fact is that the Soviets agreed to train leading North Vietnamese commanders in combined-arms tactics in Moscow in 1973, while we were forbidden from providing additional training to ARVN by the Paris Peace Accords. This crucial form of aid was never counted as part of the dollar value of Soviet aid. Dr. Michael Kort:

One of the key reasons the Easter Offensive failed is that General Giap did not understand h ow to coordinate what is known as combined arms operations: that is, the simultaneous use of different military arms–such as infantry, armor, and artillery– in an operation. This is essential in modern warfare given the great variety of available weapons, and after 1972 , as Veith notes, the PAVN “needed to become a modern army, and only the Soviets could train it in this type of warfare.” Therefore, in the fall of 1973, by which time the Paris Accords precluded the United States from providing any additional advising to the South Vietnamese, several leading North Vietnamese commanders went to the Soviet Union to train in this kind of warfare. Not coincidentally, this was only a few months after the North Vietnamese Politburo had voted to resume full-scale warfare to conquer the South. There is no way to measure the value of this aid in dollars; it does not appear on any ledger. What one can say given the conventional invasion Hanoi launched against South Vietnam in late 1974–an invasion spearheaded by armor, the “key to victory” according to Veith–is that this particular form of Soviet aid was invaluable. (The Vietnam War Reexamined, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 207)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

AZrailwhale is 100% correct.

mike has failed his affirmation.

Let's close this thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

AZrailwhale is 100% correct.

mike has failed his affirmation.

Let's close this thread.

How about if you just stop posting inane replies in this thread? Go troll elsewhere. Or, better yet, go post in the Deep Politics Forum, where your denigration of our effort to keep South Vietnam free will be heartily welcomed.

Every single statement in my reply is documented fact that you can find in countless sources on the war. Once again, you're disputing stuff that I've never seen anyone else dispute. How about if you identify just one statement that I made that you think is wrong and then provide a source or two to back up your claim?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your assertions, Mike, have been refuted over and over and over.

Gosh help us if you working for a B. A. Here is Mike

"Hey, what about"?

NV could only lose when it stopped fighting, because we could not stop it. The leadership knew it could win if it wore down American psychological resistance,

 

[mikegriffith1]

Your assertions, Mike, have been refuted over and over and over.

You are not serious. The aid numbers I cited are found in countless sources. If you have different numbers, boy, I'd really like to see them--and your source.

Gosh help us if you working for a B. A. Here is Mike

View attachment 915354 "Hey, what about"?

So now you're resorting to this kind of juvenile pettiness.

NV could only lose when it stopped fighting, because we could not stop it. The leadership knew it could win if it wore down American psychological resistance,

Yeah, you keep repeating this Communist talking point and ignoring all the hard evidence that refutes it.

Again, why don't you go troll the Deep Politics Forum? They'll love your Communist propaganda on the Vietnam War.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are not serious. The aid numbers I cited are found in countless sources. If you have different numbers, boy, I'd really like to see them--and your source.



So now you're resorting to this kind of juvenile pettiness.


Yeah, you keep repeating the Communist talking point and ignoring all the hard evidence that refutes it.

Again, why don't you go troll the Deep Politics Forum? They'll love your Communist propaganda on the Vietnam War.

That talking point is objective and factual. You can't get over it. It was the American rebellion played out in southeast Asia.