Vietnam War was unwinnable

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

from your link:

. When we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war

????!!!!!! --won the war????!!!!!!!??? = that link is crap

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

from The Vietnam War by Ken Burns:
'''the North Vietnamese remained immovable''--- regarding negotiations
''the Vietnamese [ North ] were determined to fight to the end''

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

Convinced that the war was unwinnable, he left the Pentagon in 1968 to head the World Bank.

We were just wrong, both military leaders and civilian leaders, in failing to recognize the nature of the conflict and failing to recognize early on that the strategy we were following would not accomplish our objective,"

MCNAMARA: U.S. DIDN'T BELONG IN VIETNAM

 

[harmonica]

Convinced that the war was unwinnable, he left the Pentagon in 1968 to head the World Bank.

MCNAMARA: U.S. DIDN'T BELONG IN VIETNAM

 

[harmonica]

Bottom line is that it was unwinnable because we were not fighting to win. Politicians got in the way, Our Military leaders just wanted to play with the latest equipment , soldier's lives be damned. We should never get involved in a country;s civil war.
This lesson still has not been learned by our government

..and the French?? and in Afghanistan--the Brits AND the Russians?? the US, French, Brits and Russians are not fighting to win?

 

[mikegriffith1]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

Please read the links I provided.

 

[rightwinger]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

NV never was on the verge of surrender. They had no reason to do so
The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more

We were

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

NV never was on the verge of surrender. They had no reason to do so
The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more

We were

thank you--I don''t know how mikeg could even say that crap

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

Please read the links I provided.

hahahahahhaah--are you out of your mind!!!!????
quote the details now..specify the page

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

Please read the links I provided.

I just proved the Nixon link is crap

 

[mikegriffith1]

NV never was on the verge of surrender.

Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.

They had no reason to do so.

Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.

The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.

No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.

Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.

Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.

 

[harmonica]

NV never was on the verge of surrender.

Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.

They had no reason to do so.

Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.

The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.

No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.

Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.

Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.

quote your proof/specify the page/etc

 

[mikegriffith1]

General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:

“What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

Please read the links I provided.

I just proved the Nixon link is crap

You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.

Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.

 

[harmonica]

Furthermore, the NVese were ready to surrender again in 1975 because they feared we were returning in large numbers.

In Memoriam: Vo Nguyen Giap, Admitted US ‘Almost Won’ Vietnam War In 1975

they are ''rolling into the presidential palace'' and would've surrendered....?????
BULLSHIT mg--- the Duffel Blog !!!!!!! hahahhahahah
Ken Burns says the opposite

He said in articles published in Hanoi in 1967: “The United States imperialists want to fight quickly. To fight a protracted war is a big defeat for them. Their morale is lower than grass. . . . National liberation wars must allow some time — a long time. . . . The Americans didn’t understand that we had soldiers everywhere and that it was very hard to surprise us.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[MaryL]

What if we had actually listened to Ho chi Min, and came to the aid of the Vietnamese instead of the French colonialists? McNamara knew that, it cost us...plenty.

 

[harmonica]

General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:

“What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

Please read the links I provided.

I just proved the Nixon link is crap

You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.

Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.

In his most recent statement on the matter that we’re aware of, a 1996 interviewconducted for a CNN series on the Cold War, General Giap attributed the Communists’ eventual military victory to their courage, determination, wisdom, tactics, intelligence, and sacrifices, along with Americans’ lack of knowledge about the Vietnamese nation and its people, but he said nothing about a defeated Vietminh preparing to give up the effort before U.S. protesters and news media changed the course of the war.

It’s possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the Wall Street Journalpublished an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

 

[harmonica]

By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Bui Tin

 

[Rambunctious]

It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...

 

[rightwinger]

NV never was on the verge of surrender.

Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.

They had no reason to do so.

Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.

The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.

No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.

Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.

Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.

The North Vietnamese never had any reason to surrender. Surrender would mean they surrender to the South and cease to exist. Wasn’t going to happen. All we could hope for was they would agree to existing borders. At no time during the war, did we ever hope for more

Vietnam rarely chose to go head to head with us. They knew they would come out on the short end. They preferred to attack us piecemeal and inflict casualties. After almost 60,000 we had enough

 

[harmonica]

It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...

give us a scenario for winning--how would we ''fight it to win''?