Was the Vietnam War Won (and then lost) - Forgotten History of the Vietnam War?

i want to point out that this is not about whether we should have gone into vietnam or not. Nor whether we should have stayed in so long.

Funny when i used to hear about the tet offensive in school by liberal professors, they stated it as a major victory for the viet cong and nva. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. First, the viet cong was decimated and was no longer an effective fighting unit. The damage of this failed operation knocked them out.

http://www.marines.mil/portals/59/p...the defining year 1968 pcn 19000313800_1.pdf
horrendous losses inflicted on viet cong units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. Macv estimated that 181,149 viet cong and north vietnamese troops had been killed during 1968.from this point forward, hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the viet cong's ranks with north vietnamese regulars

second, the tet offensive also critically wounded the nva.



Prior to nixon taking office, lbj was wary of china and/or russia directly entering the war as china did in the korea war. Therefore, the loser approach, was not to engage in operations in north vietnam, cambodia or laos. Nixon understood you couldn't win if you didn't take out north vietnam resupplying capability. Therefore he stated the bombing of the north. He then also took the fight to cambodia and laos. I know the revisionist will say this did nothing. However, the bombing of the north, which should have happened years before, crippled the north in resupplying and decimated their economy.

This forced them to the table of at the paris peace accords, which they previously refused to do. The sides signed the accords. Then watergate occurred. The democrats took congress, they defunded all war operation (as it was agreed upon in the paris accords) and went back on all promises they made the south vietnamese. They left the south without the weapons promised, with out the foreign aid, without the air support promised and left them on a silver platter for the north. The north saw this act of weakness and started to attack the south. Make no mistake, if the north won't have tested the us, if they though the bombing campaign of the north would have continued.

bbc on this day | 21 | 1975: Vietnam's president thieu resigns
nixon was driven from office due to the watergate scandal in 1974 and when the north vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the united states congress (controlled by the democratic party) refused to appropriate the funds needed by the south vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the u.s. Of betrayal in a tv and radio address:

"at the time of the peace agreement the united states agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the united states did not keep its word. Is an american's word reliable these days? The united states did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the united states lost 50,000 of its young men"

the nva tested whether the us would keep it's promise with a small attack in the north against buôn ma thuột. The us did nothing. Since the us did nothing, they pushed on. When they saw the news that the democrats in control of congress stated no funding, no air support and no support at all, they pushed it into full gear.

Make no mistake, the south vietnamese army wasn't the best army, but if they were equipped funded and supported with us air support they would have been able to stop this next offensive. If the us then bombed the north the north would have backed off.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqyghzcjwk]the truth about the vietnam war - youtube[/ame]

we lost because we were fighting a non-existent enemy. We thought it was about communism, but it was about nationalism. We were fighting for an ideology, they were fighting for their country. We never stood a chance.

exactly!
 
I think it was a poor decision to enter the Vietnamese civil war. We lost 58,000 men and it was costly.

As Kissinger once said about foreign policy, sometimes all the options are bad, and you go with the option that is least bad. It was necessary to go in, especially after JFK's decision to assassinate Diem, which made going in pretty much the only option. We had our SEATO allies to assure, for one, and no one wanted a major Soviet naval base there, which would have happened if we hadn't gone in. Look at a map of Asian shipping lanes for the very good reason why nobody wanted a Soviet base there.

Yes, it was costly moneywise, but that is because of domestic corruption, not a result of foreign policy. And, VN was a win from a policy view; no Soviet naval base, and driving the USSR to bankruptcy and forced into the 'Detente' era before their final collapse, followed by the opening up of China to U.S. influence; they didn't want a Soviet base there either, not to mention the U.S. intervention and escalation probably prevented a war between the Soviets and China that was brewing, which would have inevitably brought on a much bigger war we would have been dragged in to. Overall the Viet Nam war counts as a 'win'. We withdrew because it was no longer necessary for us to be there by 1972 and the Nixon/Kissinger China diplomacy.

The war also sucked Soviet resources away from the ME and Africa as well as other Asian countries; this cost them influence, especially in the ME, when their 'allies' lost both wars to exterminate Israel. Whether or not the Soviets were really to blame doesn't matter, as they were the scapegoat used by the ME dictators.

And, the only people who can 'lose' a civil war are the people in the country involved, not those backing one side or the other.

In the end, Vietnam shifted toward a market based economy, with private property, private enterprise, private bankers and foreign investment anyways. Much in the same way China did.
Well, we can disagree on what they shifted to, but yes they had to seek markets to export to, and had plenty of dirt cheap labor they could peddle to foreigners; like China they are a police state and have no 'labor problems'. They are essentially labor racketeers.
 
Last edited:
So did America win or lose the Vietnam War?

Apparently you were too young to see the fall of Saigon, or recall the South Vietnamese people in full panic storming our embassy hoping for rescue.

Who won?

Watch:


Too young, I wish.
Nope, I not only saw the fall of Saigon but was alive when Bataan fell, in fact, finally went over and helped recapture Bataan. Another mistake. America has made some dilly mistakes and Vietnam was a beaut, along with Iraq, and the War of 1812. With history we can now see not only some battles as mistakes but total wars as mistakes. Wonder how many of both, battles and wars could be seen as mistakes before the event?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone else wonder, who won?

Hey stupid fuck! Yes the fall of Saigon happened and the North won. No won is denying that you mental midget. However, what you are ignoring is that the Tet Offensive was a tactical mistake by the North that knocked out the VC and 2 the bombing of the North brought the North to the negotiating table and a peace agreement was signed. Many promises were made, including, but not limited to, resupplying the South, foreign aid to the South, air support to the South, bombing of the North if they invaded and other support. When the Democrats took Congress, they went back on everything. First, they defunded the aid to the South, therefore the SV government went bankrupt and collapsed. Second, they never resupplied the South, so the South didn't have any equipment to fight. Third, the US provided no air support. Lastly, the US didn't bomb the North. IF the US lived up to their promises, the South would have been able to fight the North and we would have seen a similiar North/South stalemate like we saw in Korea!
 
We lost because we were fighting a non-existent enemy. We thought it was about communism, but it was about nationalism. We were fighting for an ideology, they were fighting for their country. We never stood a chance.

Not true! The Korean War was the exact same war. The North back by the Commies and the South backed by the west. In Korea, the South was kicking the shit out of the North and pushing forward for victory and then the Chinese entered the war and pushed the South back and eventually into a stalemate. In that war we declared the entire North as an enemy and took the fight directly to them. There was no commie resistance in the South like in Vietnam. However, I think we won that war. Look at the state of the North, one of the poorest in the world. They produce nothing, have a shit economy and famine is a yearly occurrence. However, the South has one of the fast growing economies in the world. They are a 1st world industrialized nation.

LBJ developed a Vietnam war strategy based on his fears in of the Chinese. He was afraid the Chinese would enter the war as they did in Korea, if we invaded the North. It was a loser's strategy. He should have taken the fight to the North right away. He should have started bombing the North right away. He should have attacked their sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia right away. However, because of his fear of a Chinese direct involvement he started out of the North. It wasn't until Nixon escalated the war that we attacked their positions in Laos and Cambodia, bombed the North and took the fight to them. At that point the US was justifiable war wary and tired of a YES AN UNNECESSARY war (I have never claimed it was smart or necessary that we got involved in Vietnam, in fact we should have stayed out). We didn't have the will to keep up that fight at that point.
 
So did America win or lose the Vietnam War?

Apparently you were too young to see the fall of Saigon, or recall the South Vietnamese people in full panic storming our embassy hoping for rescue.

Who won?

Watch:


Too young, I wish.
Nope, I not only saw the fall of Saigon but was alive when Bataan fell, in fact, finally went over and helped recapture Bataan. Another mistake. America has made some dilly mistakes and Vietnam was a beaut, along with Iraq, and the War of 1812. With history we can now see not only some battles as mistakes but total wars as mistakes. Wonder how many of both, battles and wars could be seen as mistakes before the event?


When our nation goes to war, it must do so as a last resort. Thus, the decision to go to war must be made with a clear eye on the possible outcome, formed by looking at the cost-benefits and the unintended consequences - something clearly lacking in the Iraq policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FDR was determined that the European powers would not reclaim their colonies after WWII ended. Churchill and DeGaulle differed. Vietnam and other Asian areas saw WWII as their chance to be independent particularly since they had fought the Japanese. I think a number of their leaders asked America for help to gain their freedom, but after FDR died, America could not decide. And then the communist threat entered the picture, would we be helping communists take over those areas? So we dwaddled as their wars for independence continued. What would have happened if America had helped Ho and the others gain independence, despite communism?

JFK was worried that the Diems and Ho and their attempts at unilateral peace talks, hence the approval to assassinate them ;JFK didn't want a peace agreement making him look 'soft on Communism' in his re-election campaign. The generals went overboard and killed both Diems, and that made an escalation inevitable.

Ho was a Red, so I don't see the U.S. helping him, even in hindsight, regardless of who was President. I wouldn't call it 'dwaddling'; we were busy on at least four continents going up against the 'Khrushchev Doctrine', and with a fledging foreign intelligence agency that had yet to develop much expertise and long relationships anywhere outside Europe and S. America.

As I said before, we did pretty well overall, and managed to placate our other allies in S.E. Asia as to our treaty commitments, and essentially sent China back into a neutral stance. Our interests in VN were over by the end of 1972, regardless of who won there. Americans were still in 'WW II' mode, and judging the war based on an obsolete definition of 'victory'; it took some time to get used to the kind of wars the Soviets were conducting, guerrilla insurgencies, etc.
 
Last edited:
Think about it for a minute. The radical left demonstrated against LBJ's policies but the democrat majority in congress kept up the funding for the conflict. Once Nixon defeated McGovern the brave people of South Vietnam who supported the US effort were doomed. Democrats couldn't stand a US victory or even an honorable truce under a republican president so they stopped the funding and abandoned the effort and the South Vietnamese people ironically after the VC was defeated. It's all about politics and modern democrats are the sleaziest most callus dishonest thugs in history.
 
As I remember Nixon campaigned on a plan to end the VN war, it was a secret plan and only Nixon knew how to implement the secret plan. Five years later and thousands of lives later the war ended. Did we ever discover what Nixon's secret plan was or is still a secret, or why it took five years to end the war?
 
Nixon also sabotaged the Paris peace talks while campaigning, to convince the N. Vietnamese to call off the agreements being reached, in order to keep Johnson from getting credit for reaching an agreement. Later Nixon had to launch a massive bombing offensive to get them back to the peace table, as a result.

LBJ Tapes: Nixon Sabotaged Vietnam Peace Talks

Republicans love to sabotage foreign policy while campaigning for office. They also made deals with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the elections to help Reagan win.
 
Last edited:
The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

They were fighting well before that.
 
Nixon also sabotaged the Paris peace talks while campaigning, to convince the N. Vietnamese to call off the agreements being reached, in order to keep Johnson from getting credit for reaching an agreement. Later Nixon had to launch a massive bombing offensive to get them back to the peace table, as a result.

LBJ Tapes: Nixon Sabotaged Vietnam Peace Talks

Republicans love to sabotage foreign policy while campaigning for office. They also made deals with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after the elections to help Reagan win.

Nixon had no power to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks. Walter Cronkite was guilty of treason when he told America that the US victory in the Tet offensive was really a "stalemate". John Kerry committed treason when he met with North Vietnamese in Paris while allegedly on vacation while he was still in the Navy reserves. LBJ sabotaged the "peace talks" himself when he threw in the towel in his 3/31/68 address where he said he would not run for reelection. Everyone in the "intelligence" network should have known that the V.C. ceased to exist after their resounding defeat in the Tet offensive and it was LBJ's chance to take the offensive in the talks but he failed again just as he failed every critical aspect of his presidency.
 
The US military is brilliant at the tactical level, but stupid at the strategic level and delusional at the political level. Civilian control (e.g., Hitler) over military strategy is almost always a bad idea. (FDR's best contribution to WW2 was letting the generals win the war; his worst contribution was losing the peace.)

Case #1: Our sole military objective in the Vietnamese civil war should have been to secure the borders against outside (e.g., North Vietnamese) incursions. Instead our CIC couldn't resist the chance to play with toy soldiers.

Case#2: Our sole military objective in Iraq (after removing Saddam) should have been to establish secure administrative districts (e.g., Kurds) which could function autonomously unless/until a legitimate national government could be formed. Instead, our CIC couldn't resist the chance to proselytize democracy to this tribal fiefdom. (His successor then followed FDR's example by snatching defeat from the jaws of any victory.)

Case#3: Our sole military objective in Afghanistan should be to limit that country's ability to foment terrorist activities outside of its borders. Instead, we have tried to instill our political and social values on this tribal fiefdom. As in Iraq, our CIC is now forfeiting any gains by abandoning that country back to our enemies.

Instead of asking the military to come up with a plan to implement his own political objectives, our CIC should ask the military what objectives are within its capability to achieve (i.e., NOT being the world's police or social workers).

You can't call the military stupid at the strategic and political level since politicians, not the military set the parameters and decide the strategy, and other than voting as private citizens, the military is not involved officially at the political level.

The military IS asked to come up with an impossible strategy to suit the will of the politicians. Not the same as the military doing what it wants.
 

Forum List

Back
Top