Fifty Years After Saigon: Remembering the Nobility of a Betrayed Cause

[mikegriffith1]

It is not a myth.

Yes, it is a myth. Your argument is simplistic and misleading. South Vietnam and the U.S. were entirely willing to hold elections if they were UN supervised, but North Vietnam rejected UN supervision. This is a matter of record and is documented in untold numbers of books on the Vietnam War.

You are arguing against the agreement to hold elections.

You cannot be serious. The U.S. and South Vietnam did not sign the agreement. We did not sign it because it did not require that the reunification elections be UN supervised. Why was that? Because North Vietnam refused to agree to UN-supervised elections, and so the Geneva Accords did not require UN supervision for those elections. The Communists wanted elections that they could rig because they that knew North Vietnam's population was 2-3 million larger than South Vietnam's, but they could not rig the elections under UN supervision.

Who was at fault? That is what is up for debate

It is only up for debate if you swallow Communist propaganda and ignore indisputable historical fact. It is not up for debate among serious, objective researchers. Here is what then-Senator John F. Kennedy said about North Vietnam's desire to hold elections in 1956, explaining that the elections would be "obviously stacked and subverted in advance":

I include in that injunction a plea that the United States never give its approval to the early nationwide elections called for by the Geneva Agreement of 1954. Neither the United States nor Free Vietnam was a party to that agreement – and neither the United States nor Free Vietnam is ever going to be a party to an election obviously stacked and subverted in advance, urged upon us by those who have already broken their own pledges under the Agreement they now seek to enforce.

A New York Times editorial agreed, saying the following on April 6, 1956:

The plain fact is that neither the truce commission nor the signatories to the Geneva Agreement have as yet established in North Vietnam the essential conditions provided by the agreement for a “free expression of the national will”. . . . In these circumstances, Mr. Diem . . . is duty-bound to reject the proposed elections until the necessary conditions for freedom have been established in the North.”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You arguments are illusory and false.

We lost the war because

(1) the American public would not support the effort it would take;

(2) our leaders had no idea what Red China would do and still smarted from getting caught by it in the Korean War;

(3) the sanctuaries were not destroyed that allowed reinforcements, munitions, and other supplies to flow into the South;

and (4) the incredible corruption of so many of the South Vietnamese privileged that preserved their positions to the disadvantage of the country's needs.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You arguments are illusory and false.

No, they are factual and profusely documented. For more info on the Geneva Accords and the 1956 elections, see Colonel (Ret.) Robert Walker's book America and Vietnam, 1954-1963.

We lost the war because

Cue the North Vietnamese/Hanoi Jane talking points.

(1) the American public would not support the effort it would take;

False. See my book Reclaiming the Vietnam War. See Dr. Mark Moyar's book Triumph Regained. See Dr. James Robbins' book This Time We Win.

(2) our leaders had no idea what Red China would do and still smarted from getting caught by it in the Korean War;

False. See Dale Walton's book The Myth of Inevitable US Defeat in Vietnam. Mao made it known early on that he had no intention of intervening with combat troops as long as we did not attack Chinese territory. If you know anything about the history of Red China, you should know that China was in no condition to intervene in Vietnam and take on American firepower from 1965 onward, especially from 1966 through 1973. Military experts and CIA analysts, noting China’s difficult internal situation, repeatedly argued that Mao would not intervene, but LBJ rejected their counsel. When Nixon approved massive bombing of North Vietnam and mining Haiphong Harbor in 1972, China did not enter the war, even though we bombed facilities right next to the Chinese border and even destroyed some Chinese ships in North Vietnamese waters.

(3) the sanctuaries were not destroyed that allowed reinforcements, munitions, and other supplies to flow into the South;

Nixon inflicted enormous damage on the sanctuaries. You are decades behind the information curve. See Dr. George Jay Veith's books Drawn Swords in a Distant Land and Black April, and see Major General (Ret.) Ira Hunt's book Losing Vietnam. After 1970, we made steady progress in reducing the flow of weapons and supplies from key sanctuaries. But, Congress treasonously undid this progress starting in 1973.

and (4) the incredible corruption of so many of the South Vietnamese privileged that preserved their positions to the disadvantage of the country's needs.

You follow the Communist line and smear South Vietnam. North Vietnam was far more corrupt and repressive than South Vietnam. It is not even a close call. See Dr. Keith Taylor's book Voices from the Second Republic of South Vietnam (1967-1975), and Dr. Stephen Pan and Daniel Lyons' book Vietnam Crisis. Taylor is the world's leading expert on South Vietnam. His book deals with the substantial progress toward democracy that South Vietnam made from 1967 onward. The Pan-Lyon book documents the tremendous progress that South Vietnam made under Ngo Dinh Diem. Dr. Pan studied under Ho Chi Minh but soon realized he was a monster.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike uses all his failed arguments from before.

He would fail a frosh history course with this nonsense.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Mike uses all his failed arguments from before.

He would fail a frosh history course with this nonsense.

You have not challenged those arguments or proven any of them a failure

He is documenting what he states. You are making baseless assertions

Your claim is actually a reflection of the fact that college history courses are worthless and teaching crap to brainwashed simpletons

 

[gipper]

You arguments are illusory and false.

We lost the war because

(1) the American public would not support the effort it would take;

(2) our leaders had no idea what Red China would do and still smarted from getting caught by it in the Korean War;

(3) the sanctuaries were not destroyed that allowed reinforcements, munitions, and other supplies to flow into the South;

and (4) the incredible corruption of so many of the South Vietnamese privileged that preserved their positions to the disadvantage of the country's needs.

Yeah it was so noble using B-52 bombers to mass murder civilians.
mikegriffith1

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yeah it was so noble using B-52 bombers to mass murder civilians.
mikegriffith1

You don't seem to understand that war is nothing but barely controlled savagery. The sole object of war is to win, not to coddle the enemy; doing anything less than what is necessary to win is to betray our own troops who die in unnecessary numbers because of your faint heart. The WWII generation understood that; you and your ilk don't and would rather our people die than the enemy's.

I'd love to live in a world where conflict and war were unnecessary, but homo sapiens is violent creature and that will never come to pass.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You have not challenged those arguments or proven any of them a failure

He is documenting what he states. You are making baseless assertions

Your claim is actually a reflection of the fact that college history courses are worthless and teaching crap to brainwashed simpletons

You don't give respect to a bush leaguer, or his defenders.

 

[gipper]

You don't seem to understand that war is nothing but barely controlled savagery. The sole object of war is to win, not to coddle the enemy; doing anything less than what is necessary to win is to betray our own troops who die in unnecessary numbers because of your faint heart. The WWII generation understood that; you and your ilk don't and would rather our people die than the enemy's.

I'd love to live in a world where conflict and war were unnecessary, but homo sapiens is violent creature and that will never come to pass.

Except you’ve learned nothing from history. Mass murdering civilians is a war crime, even during war. Ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? Education yourself before posting please.

You believe in total war because you've been brainwashed to think that’s war. It’s not, though it is the way the American government has fought most wars.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except you’ve learned nothing from history. Mass murdering civilians is a war crime, even during war. Ever heard of the Geneva Conventions? Education yourself before posting please.

You believe in total war because you've been brainwashed to think that’s war. It’s not, though it is the way the American government has fought most wars.

DELIBERATELY killing civilians is a war crime. Collateral damage is not.

 

[gipper]

DELIBERATELY killing civilians is a war crime. Collateral damage is not.

Except it’s never collateral damage. It a purposeful policy and you support it, until you’re on the killing end of it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except it’s never collateral damage. It a purposeful policy and you support it, until you’re on the killing end of it.

Bull, you never have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[Deadstick]

You don't seem to understand that war is nothing but barely controlled savagery. The sole object of war is to win, not to coddle the enemy; doing anything less than what is necessary to win is to betray our own troops who die in unnecessary numbers because of your faint heart. The WWII generation understood that; you and your ilk don't and would rather our people die than the enemy's.

I'd love to live in a world where conflict and war were unnecessary, but homo sapiens is violent creature and that will never come to pass.

Who decides who the enemy is? i wouldn't have thought a Vietnamese peasant fighting for years living in the Jungle to drive foreign Colonialists out of his Country is the enemy, the criminal politicians who sent thousands of young men to the other side of the World to die are the enemy.

 

[Deadstick]

Except it’s never collateral damage. It a purposeful policy and you support it, until you’re on the killing end of it.

Some people really have not learnt a damn thing since Vietnam have they?

 

[gipper]

Some people really have not learnt a damn thing since Vietnam have they?

Exactly. It’s amazing how they’ve failed to learn anything from history.

The baby boom generation (1946-1964) was the generation of peace and love. The hippies. The generation that professed a rejection of authority. Who opposed the Vietnam War vigorously. Somehow many of them were completely brainwashed to support a criminal government and acquiesce to authority.

 

[gipper]

Bull, you never have any idea what you are talking about.

If we had lost WWII, Truman, his generals and advisors all are hung for war crimes.

Think you jack ass.

TOTAL WAR IS A WAR CRIME.

 

[Deadstick]

Exactly. It’s amazing how they’ve failed to learn anything from history.

The baby boom generation (1946-1964) was the generation of peace and love. The hippies. The generation that professed a rejection of authority. Who opposed the Vietnam War vigorously. Somehow many of them were completely brainwashed to support a criminal government and acquiesce to authority.

They became the establishment, very much like the greens in Germany.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If we had lost WWII, Truman, his generals and advisors all are hung for war crimes.

Think you jack ass.

TOTAL WAR IS A WAR CRIME.

Just like the Germans and Japanese did, although the Axis wouldn't have provided the fair trials the WAllies did. Civilians ALWAYS suffer in war, usually worse than combatants.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Who decides who the enemy is? i wouldn't have thought a Vietnamese peasant fighting for years living in the Jungle to drive foreign Colonialists out of his Country is the enemy, the criminal politicians who sent thousands of young men to the other side of the World to die are the enemy.

You mean the North Vietnamese who spent the war torturing anyone who supported the Republic of Vietnam's government, or the ones who executed between three and six thousand civilians in Hue during the Tet Offensive: "the Battle of Huế began on 31 January 1968, and lasted for 26 days. During the months and years that followed, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế. The estimated death toll was between 2,800 and 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war, or 5–10% of the total population of Huế. The Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) released a list of 4,062 victims identified as having been either murdered or abducted. Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes buried alive. Many victims were also clubbed to death. You are backing the wrong side as usual.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You don't give respect to a bush leaguer, or his defenders.

That is what you are a bush leaguer