The Vietnam War

prinz

Zebra3 wrote: »

America indulges in neo-impearilism as opposed to the tradtional way empires take over other countries.

You do know that it was Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese..... and that long after America was gone out of the Vietnam war, Vietnamese were still fighting and killing other Vietnamese?

Zebra3

prinz wrote: »

You do know that it was Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese..... and that long after America was gone out of the Vietnam war, Vietnamese were still fighting and killing other Vietnamese?

It was Vietnamese freedom fighters fighting the American backed puppet regime.

Latchy

JFK it seems was planning to pull the 1500 odd military experts who in 1963 were training the south Vietnamese ,out of Vietnam but no sooner had he died that president Johnson, with pressure from the top military advisers and generals ( many who were no fans of JFK ) urged him to contine sending troops .

It took the best part of 13 years , the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and two million Vietnamese for the Americans to realise that the war was a shambles and utter waste and the irony of it all was that there was no declaration of war against the Vietnamese by America ...it was just one long continious , escalation of men and machines against a formidible enemy who refused to give in to American agression .

Sappa

prinz wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

America indulges in neo-impearilism as opposed to the tradtional way empires take over other countries.

You do know that it was Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese..... and that long after America was gone out of the Vietnam war, Vietnamese were still fighting and killing other Vietnamese?

You do know that it was not just Vietnam that the Americans were at war with,they carpet bombed Laos dropping more bombs during that period than the entire amount dropped by either side in WWII.
They also set the scene for the Khmer Rouge and there genocide.
What the Vietnamese killed after the war the Americans effectively killed millions more and were the catalyst in tge entire region falling into chaos.

Latchy

Yes...the Americans left a bigger Vacum in Vietnam when they left which was only perfect for the Kemer Rouge to exploit and exploit they did .

prinz

Sappa wrote: »

You do know that it was not just Vietnam that the Americans were at war with....

Yeah I also know how many other countries also sent troops and materièl into Vietnam to fight and die and never get mentioned... and they weren't quite 'at war with Vietnam' it wasn't that simple no matter how much people love to believe it was. I am not defending what the US did in the region, just trying to correct the inaccurate nonsense.

Sea Filly

Ah, History, my one weakness, my Achilles heel if you will. :cool:

Er, option number three for me, please Cilla.

dasdog

The declaration of war was based on a ficticious attack in the gulf of Tonkin. 1-2 million local civilians killed and America scarred for a generation. The demonstration of Western might was a daft decision which could be summarised in Khe Sanh alone.

Dubnobass

mikemac1 wrote: »

Nobody cared while the poor and unemployed Americans who could not get exemptions were sent to fight in the early years
Of course there were professional servicemen[and women] already but draftees were needed too


But as soon as they targeted middle class people and who planned to go to college the whole anti-war movement took off

That movement was less about the war/peace and more about the self interest in not getting drafted

The Uneducated/ Draftee point is over exaggerated with regards to the Vietnam War.

[FONT=Arial,Arial,Times New Roman]25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial,Times New Roman]It was the best-educated and most egalitarian military force in America's history -- and with the advent of the all-volunteer military, is likely to remain so. In WWII, only 45 percent of the troops had a high school diploma. During the Vietnam War, almost 80 percent of those who enlisted had high school diplomas, and the percentage was higher for draftees -- even though, at the time, only 65 percent of military-age males had a high school diploma[/FONT]

http://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm

As for further reading I'd suggest these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Dispatches-Michael-Herr/dp/0679735259
http://www.amazon.com/Nam-Mark-Baker/dp/0425071685
http://www.amazon.com/Chickenhawk-Robert-Mason/dp/0140072187

And the most comprehensive book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vietnam-Definitive-Oral-History-Sides/dp/0091910110

And some documentaries worth checking out

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092851/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/

Renn

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0885252/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1644924/

Might be worth checking out those two as well.

the_syco

They went in to beat the commis, they seemed to stay so the commis wouldn't beat them.

The only good thing that came out of the war was the use of a helicopter as a war machine.

Latchy

dasdog wrote: »

The declaration of war was based on a ficticious attack in the gulf of Tonkin. 1-2 million local civilians killed and America scarred for a generation. The demonstration of Western might was a daft decision which could be summarised in Khe Sanh alone.

Just what some in the American military wanted knowing that the war ment billions of $ to be made ...something that president Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech when he said

'' In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together ''.

Eisenhower Speech

Sappa

prinz wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

You do know that it was not just Vietnam that the Americans were at war with....

Yeah I also know how many other countries also sent troops and materièl into Vietnam to fight and die and never get mentioned... and they weren't quite 'at war with Vietnam' it wasn't that simple no matter how much people love to believe it was. I am not defending what the US did in the region, just trying to correct the inaccurate nonsense.

I know other countries were involved in it but the yanks were the ring leaders calling the shots and using the hired help to there advantage.
The deaths are still continuing in these countries years later as a result of unexploded ordnance dropped by America 99% of the time.
A secret war outside of Vietnam in neighbouring countries killed thousands of civilians which America has never apologised for or acknowledged.
Kissinger and his lot had there own agenda and the lives of South East Asians and young Americans were irrelevant to them.
American foreign policy is pure bulls###,always has been and continues to be

prinz

Sappa wrote: »

I know other countries were involved in it but the yanks were the ring leaders calling the shots and using the hired help to there advantage.The deaths are still continuing in these countries years later as a result of unexploded ordnance dropped by America 99% of the time.
A secret war outside of Vietnam in neighbouring countries killed thousands of civilians which America has never apologised for or acknowledged.
Kissinger and his lot had there own agenda and the lives of South East Asians and young Americans were irrelevant to them.
American foreign policy is pure bulls###,always has been and continues to be

No complaints from me, but nothing to do with what I have posted on this thread.

Capt'n Midnight

was the documentary this one ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam:_The_Ten_Thousand_Day_War

Don't forget the Vietnam war started a lot earlier than most people think. September 1940. (I'm sure you could dig earlier skirmishes before that too)
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405184649_chunk_g9781405184649758

. On September 23, 1940 the Phuc Quoc (National Restoration) nationalists with the assistance of the Japanese army launched a short but intense attack on Lang Son in Northern Vietnam on September 23. The Phuc Quoc entered Tonkin with the Japanese army confident that they were commencing the liberation of their country. However, the Lang Son uprising was immediately quashed, as was the Bac Son communist uprising in Tonkin in late September, as was a subsequent intense communist insurrection on November 22, 1940 in 11 of the 20 provinces of Cochinchina.

And the Vietnam war didn't end in 1975 either, fighting with the Kyhmer Rouge in Cambodia had already started the previous year and ended up with the Vietnamese reaching Phnom Penh in January, China who was supporting the KR invaded Vietnam the following month. (the combined death toll of chinese and vietnamese was greater than the US lost in the vietnam war ) This meant the KR could regroup, also other groups formed and the fighting continued on into the 1980's with the troops being officially pulled out in 88-89. If you include border incursions then the the last fighting by the Vietnamese was in 1991.

Chuck Stone

prinz wrote: »

The US got itself involved in a civil conflict between clearly corrupt twats on one side in South Vietnam, and dirtbag communists in the North.

There were to be elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of reuniting the country. Those 'corrupt twats' (US patsies) scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

The US did not want a united Vietnam under a nationalist/communist regime and the Vietnamese, on the whole, just wanted the US to **** off home. Just like they did every other imperial power that had been meddling with it before then.

The Master of Disaster

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

After watching the DVD's it seems like the pro-vietnam war guys were trying to say that the anti-war ( or peace movement ) going on in the states was destructive to them winning the war. Would you agree?

To a large extent yes I would. Clausewitz said that you need three things to prosecute a war; government, a military and the people. If you lose any one of these things then the ability to wage a war is removed. In WW1 Russia withdrew from the conflict after it lost its monarchy/government through revolution. In WW2 the Axis powers lost because their armies were defeated (and as a result then their governments collapsed but that was inevitable after such comprehensive military defeat).

The US wasn't beaten militarily in Vietnam. They lost that war in the minds of the American public on TV cameras and radio reports and the stories of the GI's coming home. Id didn't matter that they weren't losing as such it was the way it was perceived. Most people have heard of the Tet Offensive whereby the Viet Cong and NVA launched a mass coordinated attack across the country. But most people don't realise it was a tactical American victory because that's not the way the media portrayed it and hence not the way the American public viewed it. Incidents like this, questions about the morality of the war and the economic and human cost turned them against it and the mass public pressure on the government eventually told. You can have the best army in the world but if you don't have the support of your own people than it means nothing*

*Unless you're George Bush Jr. and then you just do whatever the **** you want!

Manic Moran

gurramok wrote: »

Yes!

They lost the ground war so turned to air power. That resulted in massacring a few million civilians imperial style, not nice. Very cowardly.

The entire US military combat doctrine has been based on superior air and artillery power since 1942. US troops don't turn to indirect fire because they are cowards or they are 'beaten fair,' they use it because it works and they have it available. You can fight hard, or you can fight smart. You don't think the NVA would have been shelling the US firebases instead of conducting costly foot-assaults if they had the artillery to do it with?

NTM

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

And the US military war was largely based on body counts, the kill count in the hope that the enemy would lose hope and morale due to heavy losses. Most US victories in various battles were due to air firepower rather than ground combat, thats where the heavy loss of Viet life was, a tad unfair indeed. If the Vietnamese were about to overrun a military base due to hand on hand combat won fairly, the US sent in the airplanes to bomb them, sort of a cowardly way to win a battle.

The film Battle of Hamburger Hill(and documentary) shows the US strategy whereby it wasn't about holding rural territory but kill as many on that territory.

more like the smart way to fight a battle!

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

It was a horrible war that the Vietnamese deserved to win

What about the South Vietnamese? The boat people?

Dont forget it wasnt just the US involved....Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea were on one side supporting South Vietnam while you had China (who ended up having a border war with the Vietnamese communists after Saigon fell), Russia, Laos, Cambodia (King Sihanouk pretended to be neutral but sided with the North Vietnamese fuelling his own downfall as they supported the Communists who took over Cambodia the same month Saigon fell spawning Pol Pot and eventually a war between Cambodia & Vietnam) & the Eastern Bloc supporting the other - yes they actually built trucks and weapons in places like Poland.

When "the West" withdrew support for the South they were doomed as
the North still had massive support. It was certainly a regional war and not a civil war as many mistake. The domino effect proved correct.

I for one am damn glad I wasnt reared in a communist dictatorship and it does not count as "independence from America" as another poster put.

If South Vietnam succeeded it could of been like South Korea and Japan. We`d probably have some more cool innovative electronics or another car brand!!

Pro-war flag waving Americans should have their eyes burned out for still supporting a military that did so much damage to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. My girlfriend's family were involved in the war on the Vietnamese side and the anti-American sentiment is still strong behind closed doors.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

If South Vietnam succeeded it could of been like South Korea and Japan. We`d probably have some more cool innovative electronics or another car brand!!

A bit simplistic, but in a way I see what you are trying to say. Of all the countries I've been to I've never seen a work ethic and entrepreneurship as strong as in Vietnam, puts America to shame. Every house is a shop, and everybody is selling something, more capitalist than the capitalists themselves.

Deleted User wrote: »

Pro-war flag waving Americans should have their eyes burned out for still supporting a military that did so much damage to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. My girlfriend's family were involved in the war on the Vietnamese side and the anti-American sentiment is still strong behind closed doors.

Well you're up in Hà Nội (fantastic city - much nicer than Sài Gòn), the anti-US feeling is still strong up there, as well as the reverence for Ho.

"Uncle Ho" massacred people too, murdered the opposition in 1946.
His communist party murdered 172,000 of people in the land reform program.
Nut job communists. The reason the US blocked elections in Vietnam was because
A) the opposition was wiped out in the North & a murderous dictator was in charge
how the hell do you have free and fair elections with these guys pointing guns to peoples heads including the people down south.

Instead they said we`ll let the South remain free and the North can stay communist. And that is how it would of stayed if the North didnt invade the South.

FrostyJack

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

To a large extent yes I would. Clausewitz said that you need three things to prosecute a war; government, a military and the people. If you lose any one of these things then the ability to wage a war is removed. In WW1 Russia withdrew from the conflict after it lost its monarchy/government through revolution. In WW2 the Axis powers lost because their armies were defeated (and as a result then their governments collapsed but that was inevitable after such comprehensive military defeat).

The US wasn't beaten militarily in Vietnam. They lost that war in the minds of the American public on TV cameras and radio reports and the stories of the GI's coming home. Id didn't matter that they weren't losing as such it was the way it was perceived. Most people have heard of the Tet Offensive whereby the Viet Cong and NVA launched a mass coordinated attack across the country. But most people don't realise it was a tactical American victory because that's not the way the media portrayed it and hence not the way the American public viewed it. Incidents like this, questions about the morality of the war and the economic and human cost turned them against it and the mass public pressure on the government eventually told. You can have the best army in the world but if you don't have the support of your own people than it means nothing*

*Unless you're George Bush Jr. and then you just do whatever the **** you want!

+1

The Americans created the myth of the Viet Cong super solider who knew the land better than the US troops etc etc to create the impression they could never win. The Americans were much much better supplied, equiped and trained than the VC. Had the US been able to attack the North of the country at will the war would have had a better outcome for them. As mention above the Tet Offensive was put down as a loss for the Americans thanks to the media when it was an massive victory.

Nodin

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

.........

The US wasn't beaten militarily in Vietnam. They lost that war in the minds of the American public on TV cameras and radio reports and the stories of the GI's coming home. Id didn't matter that they weren't losing as such it was the way it was perceived. Most people have heard of the Tet Offensive whereby the Viet Cong and NVA launched a mass coordinated attack across the country. But most people don't realise it was a tactical American victory because that's not the way the media portrayed it and hence not the way the American public viewed it. Incidents like this, questions about the morality of the war and the economic and human cost turned them against it and the mass public pressure on the government eventually told. You can have the best army in the world but if you don't have the support of your own people than it means nothing*

*Unless you're George Bush Jr. and then you just do whatever the **** you want!

Or, you could view it as the Americans being faced with a choice - enforcing 'the peace of the graveyard', having killed the vast majority of the populace, or accepting that the Vietnamese people - or close to numerically - rejected their rule/presence assistance.

maninasia

The Americans would have never been able to hold Vietnam comfortably, even if the North temporarily fell to the Americans the Vietnamese communists or independence movement would have just withdrawn to neighbouring countries such as Cambodia and plan and launch attacks from there with the large numbers of sympathetic population left in Vietnam.

It's similar to what's happening in Afghanistan, only marginally control the territory but you can never win the war. It becomes a pointless exercise in the end. The Vietnamese war also involved drafted soldiers and a huge number of young Americans were dragged into it. It just wasn't winnable as the majority of the population did not want foreign occupiers..whether they were Americans, French or Chinese!

maninasia

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the South Vietnamese? The boat people?

Dont forget it wasnt just the US involved....Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea were on one side supporting South Vietnam while you had China (who ended up having a border war with the Vietnamese communists after Saigon fell), Russia, Laos, Cambodia (King Sihanouk pretended to be neutral but sided with the North Vietnamese fuelling his own downfall as they supported the Communists who took over Cambodia the same month Saigon fell spawning Pol Pot and eventually a war between Cambodia & Vietnam) & the Eastern Bloc supporting the other - yes they actually built trucks and weapons in places like Poland.

When "the West" withdrew support for the South they were doomed as
the North still had massive support. It was certainly a regional war and not a civil war as many mistake. The domino effect proved correct.

I for one am damn glad I wasnt reared in a communist dictatorship and it does not count as "independence from America" as another poster put.

If South Vietnam succeeded it could of been like South Korea and Japan. We`d probably have some more cool innovative electronics or another car brand!!

Where was the domino effect proved correct? Indonesia never became communist, neither did Thailand, neither did the Phillipines, neither did Myanmar, neither did India etc etc. Only Laos and Cambodia did precisely because they were so impoverished and part of the same conflict, the break up of the Indochine empire.

As mentioned already the Vietnamese fought a war right after the Vietnamese war that we all hear about ended, against ANOTHER communist regime that they despised in Cambodia and against the Chinese communist regime! If this doesn't prove that the Vietnamese were basically fighting a war of independence and nationalism then I don't know what does.

suicide_circus

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dj6gZefW4yEA&v=j6gZefW4yEA&gl=IE

http://www.lyricsmode.com/?i=print_lyrics&id=347073

wendell borton

Uncle Ho was apparently a big Chealsea FC fan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#In_England

cocoshovel

Youd have to be brainwashed to side with America on this one....its a shame millions of people are brainwashed when it comes to siding with America in matters like this.