The Vietnam War

johngalway

Prompted by the fantastic documentary series posted in another thread I done a little more reading on the Vietnam war, mostly the American involvement therein.

Had they foregone the "body count" strategy and went for a conventional territorial hold, I wonder would they have fared better?

I realise a lot of the country is mountainous jungle, or other difficult places like the Delta.

Having watched one episode where great effort was made to capture a hill, which would then be deserted and the VC/NVA would stroll back up it unchallenged.

Was not holding territory a mistake, or was it impossible? Widening the war early into Laos and Cambodia may have been no bad thing, as areas of those countries seemed to have been under North Vietnamese control in a practical sense given the Ho Chi Minh trail, and the amount of fighters and supplies that were distributed by it.

What are peoples thoughts on all of this, was the war ever winnable?

Cork boy 55

The USA had a plan and the plan was a good one from a pure tactical point of view however it was wrong both morally and strategically.

Plan
In 1965 USA had a kill ratio of 12-1 with their superior
transport and firepower.
The plan was simple, bleed the communists white
not just the NLF but their backers as well the USSR was spending 20 million dollars a day on Vietnam and the Chinese also massive support.
It was working by 1969 the southern vietcong was largely destroyed and had the USA maintained its troop levels for a couple more years war would have been won, the NVA would have ran out of rifle regiments.

The generals who devised this plan in 1965 where from a different generation.
They had been thru the meat-grinder campaigns of WW2 and Korea.
Normandy, Italy, the pacific island's etc
to them the USA losses where nothing compared to what they had seen.
and to the American of the 1940 and 1950s maybe also.

However the USA and the USA army changed utterly during the sixties.
It had undergone a huge social revolution in terms of culture, sex, women, race, drug use and liberalism, this revolution pulled the rug out from under the Generals and sapped the political will of congress to continue the war.
The media also beamed the war into peoples livings rooms nightly
degrading moral of the home front further.

The Vietnam war was won by the USA, it was lost when the Americans withdrew and then refused to support the SV post 1973. The Americans never lost a major battle and could have won with the original plan if the
new society had the stomach for war for just another couple of years or two. The 1965 plan would not be swallowed by 1969 American
who demanded withdrawal.

I think the war as it was conducted was morally wrong
Although the USA was right to resist the advance of communism
I think it was wrong to fight such a war in the countryside of indo-china
with the strategy and tactics deployed (agent orange, carpet bombing
free fire zones SAD, etc.

hindsight
What they should have done in 1965 the generals should have known
that A meatgrinder campaign in Vietnam was not going to be excepted by USA and global opinion and the Communists would win by just being there at the end and therefore they had to cut the Line of supply
of the NLF i.e. the ho chi minh trail

South Vietnam should have annexed the southern leg of Laos (with the
blessing of Laos government) and then built a chain of forts from the sea to Thailand( 400 km). With the Trail cut the NLF in south vietnam could have mopped
up in a couple of years using counter insurgency tactics, war won at much less cost in the long run.

Cork boy 55

http://www.grunt.com/corps/scuttlebutt/marine-corps-stories/gen-bui-tin-describes-north-vietnams-victory/

How North Vietnam Won The War
Taken from The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995

Gen. Bui Tin Describes North Vietnam’s Victory


Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Canvasser

johngalway wrote: »

Prompted by the fantastic documentary series posted in another thread I done a little more reading on the Vietnam war, mostly the American involvement therein.

Had they foregone the "body count" strategy and went for a conventional territorial hold, I wonder would they have fared better?

I realise a lot of the country is mountainous jungle, or other difficult places like the Delta.

Having watched one episode where great effort was made to capture a hill, which would then be deserted and the VC/NVA would stroll back up it unchallenged.

Was not holding territory a mistake, or was it impossible? Widening the war early into Laos and Cambodia may have been no bad thing, as areas of those countries seemed to have been under North Vietnamese control in a practical sense given the Ho Chi Minh trail, and the amount of fighters and supplies that were distributed by it.

What are peoples thoughts on all of this, was the war ever winnable?

You actually seem quite miffed that the American murder gangs didn't win the war. The Vietnamese fought a just war to liberate themselves from imperialism. It's just a pity the yankees had to murder 3 million of them and bomb their country into the stone age before deciding to withdraw. And the fact that Vietnamese liberation and unification did not lead to some communist takeover of the world proves the Americans had no right to fight that war.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/march-16-1968-u-s-soldiers-massacre-vietnamese-civilians-at-my-lai/



Vietnamese women and babies murdered by US marines.

Dogwatch

You have a very biased one sided simplistic view of this War and your photo shows dead civilians . How do you know who killed them?

Canvasser

Dogwatch wrote: »

You have a very biased one sided simplistic view of this War and your photo shows dead civilians . How do you know who killed them?

That's a well known photograph of the My Lai massacre. Similar massacres by US forces took place at scores of other villages.

The War was simplistic, it was about the Vietnamese fighting for liberation from an oppressive force. The only people who try to claim the war was complicated are people trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the disgraceful actions of the USA. The US war on Vietnam and her poor peasant people was one of the most disgusting episodes in world history. It's disturbing that several posters won't acknowledge that and even dream up more effective ways the US occupiers could have suppressed the Vietnamese people.

Cardinal Richelieu

Wasn't malnutrition and disease the major killer among the communist forces?

Cork boy 55

Canvasser wrote: »

You actually seem quite miffed that the American murder gangs didn't win the war. The Vietnamese fought a just war to liberate themselves from imperialism. It's just a pity the yankees had to murder 3 million of them and bomb their country into the stone age before deciding to withdraw. And the fact that Vietnamese liberation and unification did not lead to some communist takeover of the world proves the Americans had no right to fight that war.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/march-16-1968-u-s-soldiers-massacre-vietnamese-civilians-at-my-lai/



Vietnamese women and babies murdered by US marines.

Canvasser wrote: »

That's a well known photograph of the My Lai massacre. Similar massacres by US forces took place at scores of other villages.

The War was simplistic, it was about the Vietnamese fighting for liberation from an oppressive force. The only people who try to claim the war was complicated are people trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the disgraceful actions of the USA. The US war on Vietnam and her poor peasant people was one of the most disgusting episodes in world history. It's disturbing that several posters won't acknowledge that and even dream up more effective ways the US occupiers could have suppressed the Vietnamese people.

I don't think he expressed any political or moral opinion
only a questioning of tactics and strategy(this is the military forum)

I don't think it was an imperial war, I would view it a communist war of agression.

It was a civil war with massive international involvement on both sides.
If any side was being imperial it was north Vietnam with it's invasion of 3 different countries.
You are aware I assume of the massive level of support by the communist bloc.
The entire communist war effort was paid for by the USSR and Maoist China both totalitarian imperial powers
Huge numbers of communist bloc troops where deployed in the North Vietnam and on the upper parts of the HCM trail.
In 1967 there here 170,000 Chinese troops AAA troops alone in North Vietnam and thousands more Soviets, North Koreans and Cubans Manning AAA and SAMs and in engineering, training, logistics flying MIGs.etc
The soviets spent 2 million a day there
The south Vietnam government had significant support(despite its corruption, human rights problems, and incompetence) especially in the urban areas as did the Laos and Cambodia governments. Why was where there no mass uprisings In 1968, 1972 or 1974 during the failed NVA offensives
The vast majority of people in the towns and cities did not support the NLF
The communist propaganda combined with the Southern governments incompetence meant a significant percentage of
the uneducated and/or illerate peasants where fooled or terrorized into supporting the NLF.
The War was won in the end by NVA tanks and massive unflinching soviet support combined with a lack of support by USA post 1973 for the south not a South Vietminese peoples pro-communist uprising
Far more South Vietminese fought in the ranks of the ARVN than the VC.

What is your opinion on the South Vietminese, Laoation and Cambodians who died fighting communism and/or fled the region after the wars?

What is your opinion on the Korean war the two conflicts where remarkable simliar in many ways
both communist wars of agression.
One by conventional means the other by "guerilla/NVA" inflitration.
Do you think the Korean war was an imperial war?

Regarding your claim of bombing back to stone age
American bombing of north Vietnam was highly restricted until 1972
Restriction where lifted after the NVA lauched an all-out assualt on South Vietnam which was defeated by the ARVN albeit with huge USA air power.
The vast bulk of bombs where dropped on the jungle HCM trail in Laos and Cambodia. Most of North Vietnams urban areas where intact.

As for massacres as far as I am aware My Lai was the only large massacre of civilians of it type by USA troops remarkable given the nature of the fighting in the country side.
An other countries troops would have seen far more massacres
You should also acknowledge the Communist massacres and human rights abuses before, during and after the war contining to this very day. The planned cold blooded Hue massacre twenty times the size of My Lai springs to mind.


Regarding the domino theory the fall of Saigon lead directly to the fall of Cambodia and Laos. so it was true to some extent
The major advances made by the Asian "tiger " economies in the 60s and 70s and 80s and as well as various sucessfull anti-communist counter-insurgencies made the rest of Asia resiliant to its advance, had Indo-china fell in 1955 or 1965 we could have been looking at a very different situation

I say again that I think the tactics and strategy deployed i.e. an "meat grinder" war of attrition in the Indo-china country side with all that went with was morally wrong and flawed it was not worth the price payed.
They should have won the won in 1965 by seizing the decisive terrain of the southern Laoitian panhandle and cutting the trail or not done it all

Westmorelands bodycount strategy was wrong.
I understand by 1967 Westmoreland knew this and said in a speech to congress that the vietnam war would be won on the USA homefront
and he also asked LBJ fro permission to cut trail and was refused.

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I don't think he expressed any political or moral opinion
only a questioning of tactics and strategy(this is the military forum)

I don't think it was an imperial war, I would view it a communist war of agression.

It was a civil war with massive international involvement on both sides.
If any side was being imperial it was north Vietnam with it's invasion of 3 different countries.
You are aware I assume of the massive level of support by the communist bloc.
The entire communist war effort was paid for by the USSR and Maoist China both totalitarian imperial powers
Huge numbers of communist bloc troops where deployed in the North Vietnam and on the upper parts of the HCM trail.
In 1967 there here 170,000 Chinese troops AAA troops alone in North Vietnam and thousands more Soviets, North Koreans and Cubans Manning AAA and SAMs and in engineering, training, logistics flying MIGs.etc
The soviets spent 2 million a day there
The south Vietnam government had significant support(despite its corruption, human rights problems, and incompetence) especially in the urban areas as did the Laos and Cambodia governments. Why was where there no mass uprisings In 1968, 1972 or 1974 during the failed NVA offensives
The vast majority of people in the towns and cities did not support the NLF
The communist propaganda combined with the Southern governments incompetence meant a significant percentage of
the uneducated and/or illerate peasants where fooled or terrorized into supporting the NLF.
The War was won in the end by NVA tanks and massive unflinching soviet support combined with a lack of support by USA post 1973 for the south not a South Vietminese peoples pro-communist uprising
Far more South Vietminese fought in the ranks of the ARVN than the VC.

What is your opinion on the South Vietminese, Laoation and Cambodians who died fighting communism and/or fled the region after the wars?

What is your opinion on the Korean war the two conflicts where remarkable simliar in many ways
both communist wars of agression.
One by conventional means the other by "guerilla/NVA" inflitration.
Do you think the Korean war was an imperial war?

Regarding your claim of bombing back to stone age
American bombing of north Vietnam was highly restricted until 1972
Restriction where lifted after the NVA lauched an all-out assualt on South Vietnam which was defeated by the ARVN albeit with huge USA air power.
The vast bulk of bombs where dropped on the jungle HCM trail in Laos and Cambodia. Most of North Vietnams urban areas where intact.

As for massacres as far as I am aware My Lai was the only large massacre of civilians of it type by USA troops remarkable given the nature of the fighting in the country side.
An other countries troops would have seen far more massacres
You should also acknowledge the Communist massacres and human rights abuses before, during and after the war contining to this very day. The planned cold blooded Hue massacre twenty times the size of My Lai springs to mind.


Regarding the domino theory the fall of Saigon lead directly to the fall of Cambodia and Laos. so it was true to some extent
The major advances made by the Asian "tiger " economies in the 60s and 70s and 80s and as well as various sucessfull anti-communist counter-insurgencies made the rest of Asia resiliant to its advance, had Indo-china fell in 1955 or 1965 we could have been looking at a very different situation

I say again that I think the tactics and strategy deployed i.e. an "meat grinder" war of attrition in the Indo-china country side with all that went with was morally wrong and flawed it was not worth the price payed.
They should have won the won in 1965 by seizing the decisive terrain of the southern Laoitian panhandle and cutting the trail or not done it all

Westmorelands bodycount strategy was wrong.
I understand by 1967 Westmoreland knew this and said in a speech to congress that the vietnam war would be won on the USA homefront
and he also asked LBJ fro permission to cut trail and was refused.

That's a laughable account of the Vietnam war and wouldn't be out of place at a Tea Party meeting. The idea that we should congratulate the discipline of US troops for not massacring more civilians is particularly disturbing. Let me remind you 2 million Vietnamese civilians died in the war, the majority murdered by US bullets and bombs. Vietnam is the most bombed country in history. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in WW2 on Germany and Japan combined.

The entire premise of your post is completely wrong as it accepts that the US has the right to launch war against any nation simply because a non-friendly government comes to power. Vietnam is only one nation not two. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam and the foreign powers expelled. South Vietnam was an artificial country created by the imperialists with a puppet government in place. When it was obvious the people of Vietnam would vote for a united Vietnam the Americans ordered the elections to be cancelled.

It was not a civil war between North and South. The Viet Minh fighters (Viet Cong) were mainly from the southern part of Vietnam. The war was between the Vietnamese people and the US (plus a few Vietnamese quislings and mercenaries). Vietnam was a rural nation and the vast majority of them supported the Vietnamese war of liberation. The Americans were clearly the invaders with no right to be there. Your theory that the Vietnamese invaded their own country makes no sense.

I congratulate any states that sent anti-aircraft crews to defend the people of Vietnam from air attack. Maybe if more AA crews had been sent then the USAF would not have been able to kill so many civilians. It amazing the Soviets didn't send even more men and equipment to stop their allies being bombed. The eventual unification of Vietnam did not lead to a communist domino taking over the world like the US imperialists claimed it would. The unification of Vietnam was always inevitable. However the aggressive US foreign policy meant millions had to die needlessly.

Cork boy 55

Canvasser wrote: »

That's a laughable account of the Vietnam war and wouldn't be out of place at a Tea Party meeting. The idea that we should congratulate the discipline of US troops for not massacring more civilians is particularly disturbing. Let me remind you 2 million Vietnamese civilians died in the war, the majority murdered by US bullets and bombs. Vietnam is the most bombed country in history. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in WW2 on Germany and Japan combined.

The entire premise of your post is completely wrong as it accepts that the US has the right to launch war against any nation simply because a non-friendly government comes to power. Vietnam is only one nation not two. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam and the foreign powers expelled. South Vietnam was an artificial country created by the imperialists with a puppet government in place. When it was obvious the people of Vietnam would vote for a united Vietnam the Americans ordered the elections to be cancelled.

It was not a civil war between North and South. The Viet Minh fighters (Viet Cong) were mainly from the southern part of Vietnam. The war was between the Vietnamese people and the US (plus a few Vietnamese quislings and mercenaries). Vietnam was a rural nation and the vast majority of them supported the Vietnamese war of liberation. The Americans were clearly the invaders with no right to be there. Your theory that the Vietnamese invaded their own country makes no sense.

I congratulate any states that sent anti-aircraft crews to defend the people of Vietnam from air attack. Maybe if more AA crews had been sent then the USAF would not have been able to kill so many civilians. It amazing the Soviets didn't send even more men and equipment to stop their allies being bombed. The eventual unification of Vietnam did not lead to a communist domino taking over the world like the US imperialists claimed it would. The unification of Vietnam was always inevitable. However the aggressive US foreign policy meant millions had to die needlessly.

I did say they(USA troops) should be congratulated, My point is many other armies would have been far more brutal if they had been
put in a protracted Guerilla war of attrition in the country side like that
For example the south Koreans commited over a dozen My Lai massacres
despite having a much smaller force in revenge for ambushs and such.

The allied armies(Philippines New Zealand Thailand Australia South Korea USA) where invited by SV to defend it against a communist war of aggression.
The Army of the Republic of South Vietnam lost about 266,000 killed from 1959 through 1974.

A free and fair election would have been impossible in a chaotic post -imperial country filed with armed communist insurgents and economy in dire states and most of the farmers uneducated and/or illiterate.
The(communist) machine would have won by terror, fraud and lying and that would have been the last ever held.

Once the Vietminese had a certain degree of education, stability and peace and prosperity they would have rejected communism out of hand
but of course the North decided the drown the South in blood instead

Vietminese civilians deaths where 843,000 (Mid range estimate)
the 2 million figure is communist lies. Communists lie.
In a free society people have to tell the truth in communist countries they lie.
Lieing to the population is the main pilar of such societies.

of those
The NLF killed 164,000 civilians in South Vietnam 1968-1974(mid range estimate)

Then their is the Deaths Caused by North Vietnamese Communist Power Consolidation and their final 1975 blitzkreig on the southern people
There are estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi. as many as 2 million to sent camps. 3 million international refugees fled the ****-hole many dying at sea.

Not to mention the Vast war crimes commited in Cambodia and Laos
The communist's where noting more than violent, bullying scum
who devasted the region in a brutal war of agression, terror and opression
Thats the reality of Indo-china war. and threw away million troops to do it.
Was it worth it?

They where the real puppets of the Mao and Mosow.

Most of the vast amount bombs dropped(USA) where dropped on jungle bases, trails, roads, bridges not urban residental areas etc.
North Vietminese civilian causalties from aerial bombing are estimated at
50,000 to 182,000. Again due to restrictive nature of aerial bombing over north. More casualties in Laos and Cambodia of course the USA would not have to bomb the communist supply routes and bases there if the NLF had not invaded these countries in first place.

johngalway

Had the South Vietnamese and Americans annexed Laos, and cut, or severely disrupted the Ho Chi Minh trail, I wonder would the NVA have been spurred into action sooner. NVA (AFAIK) being regular NV army rather than guerilla VC.

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I did say they(USA troops) should be congratulated, My point is many other armies would have been far more brutal if they had been
put in a protracted Guerilla war of attrition in the country side like that
For example the south Koreans commited over a dozen My Lai massacres
despite having a much smaller force in revenge for ambushs and such.

The allied armies(Philippines New Zealand Thailand Australia South Korea USA) where invited by SV to defend it against a communist war of aggression.
The Army of the Republic of South Vietnam lost about 266,000 killed from 1959 through 1974.

A free and fair election would have been impossible in a chaotic post -imperial country filed with armed communist insurgents and economy in dire states and most of the farmers uneducated and/or illiterate.
The(communist) machine would have won by terror, fraud and lying and that would have been the last ever held.

Once the Vietminese had a certain degree of education, stability and peace and prosperity they would have rejected communism out of hand
but of course the North decided the drown the South in blood instead

Vietminese civilians deaths where 843,000 (Mid range estimate)
the 2 million figure is communist lies. Communists lie.
In a free society people have to tell the truth in communist countries they lie.
Lieing to the population is the main pilar of such societies.

of those
The NLF killed 164,000 civilians in South Vietnam 1968-1974(mid range estimate)

Then their is the Deaths Caused by North Vietnamese Communist Power Consolidation and their final 1975 blitzkreig on the southern people
There are estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi. as many as 2 million to sent camps. 3 million international refugees fled the ****-hole many dying at sea.

Not to mention the Vast war crimes commited in Cambodia and Laos
The communist's where noting more than violent, bullying scum
who devasted the region in a brutal war of agression, terror and opression
Thats the reality of Indo-china war. and threw away million troops to do it.
Was it worth it?

They where the real puppets of the Mao and Mosow.

Most of the vast amount bombs dropped(USA) where dropped on jungle bases, trails, roads, bridges not urban residental areas etc.
North Vietminese civilian causalties from aerial bombing are estimated at
50,000 to 182,000. Again due to restrictive nature of aerial bombing over north. More casualties in Laos and Cambodia of course the USA would not have to bomb the communist supply routes and bases there if the NLF had not invaded these countries in first place.

I think people like you should avoid politics and stick to masturbating over tanks.

Manic Moran

Canvasser wrote: »

I think people like you should avoid politics and stick to masturbating over tanks.

[Moderator]I think people like you should be a little more civil on this board if you wish to stay active on it. I let a lot of things slide, but you want to be a little more objective in your descriptions, and a little more polite in your discourse[/Moderator]

The eventual unification of Vietnam did not lead to a communist domino taking over the world like the US imperialists claimed it would.

There is little way of telling what the deterrent effect was of the US demonstrating that it was willing to endure about a decade of war and the associated loss in blood and treasure in its strive to prevent the spread of communism. For example, if the US was not going to quit during the Tet offensive, what sort of example did that give to anyone in Peking who might have been considering a move on Taiwan?

NTM

jonniebgood1

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is little way of telling what the deterrent effect was of the US demonstrating that it was willing to endure about a decade of war and the associated loss in blood and treasure in its strive to prevent the spread of communism. For example, if the US was not going to quit during the Tet offensive, what sort of example did that give to anyone in Peking who might have been considering a move on Taiwan?

NTM

In the short term, ie during tet this could be argued. Over a longer period of time though the opposite is surely the case given that the Vietnamese were able to drive the Americans out.

jonniebgood1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Vietminese civilians deaths where 843,000 (Mid range estimate)
the 2 million figure is communist lies. Communists lie.
In a free society people have to tell the truth in communist countries they lie.
Lieing to the population is the main pilar of such societies.

I am not sure where to start but I think your views on this conflict are biased in the extreme towards the US army view of the conflict.

What is your point above in selecting Rummels figure (the correct figures are probably more accurately estimated at 1 million in the BMJ article here )of 843,000 civilian deaths? Is that meant to be an argument as to why America was correct to invade Vietnam? What did sacrificing these people achieve -less communists in the world is hardly a great reason. Was it about protecting democracy do you think?

bluecode

Canvasser, your language is fascinating, a right throwback to the Cold war. Reads like a Communist pamphlet from the seventies. 'Puppet regime', 'imperialism'. I can just imagine it illustrated with crude images of an evil American soldier stabbing woman holding a baby!

Very nostalgic, but seriously man you need to move on. All that stuff has had it's day. The Soviet Union is long gone and even in Vietnam they are essentially capitalist in outlook and have very much watered down the rhetoric and are actively friendly towards the US. Indeed when I was there they was serious talk of allowing the Americans to base naval vessels in the old Camh Ranh Bay base. Even now the Vietnamese are cosying up to the Americans militarily because they fear their old allies the Chinese more.

You should visit the place, lovely country and friendly people. If you get to know any of them they might tell you that their biggest mistake was winning the war and installing a Communist regime. A mistake now being rectified slowly. The Vietnamese could be the dominant power in the region economically and politically.

So put away your red and white attitudes. They're obsolete really.

Cork boy 55

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am not sure where to start but I think your views on this conflict are biased in the extreme towards the US army view of the conflict.

What is your point above in selecting Rummels figure (the correct figures are probably more accurately estimated at 1 million in the BMJ article here )of 843,000 civilian deaths?

My point, I was countering the other poster who said the USA killed
two million Vietminese civilians.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is that meant to be an argument as to why America was correct to invade Vietnam? What did sacrificing these people achieve -less communists in the world is hardly a great reason. Was it about protecting democracy do you think?

If you read my first posts you would see that I said the war as it was fought was morally and strategically wrong.

(1)
Where the Allies right to resist Commmunism?

YES
I believe the Allies where right to resist the spread of communism in Asia, the last book I read Mao by Jung Chang has strengthened this view

(2)
If we start at 1965 where they right to commit Allied Ground troops
to assit South Vietnam?

Maybe
it's debatable, maybe it would have been better to let the Vietminese fight it out and draw the line elsewhere, maybe.
The Allies had a choice in 1965 support South Vietnam with Combat troops
or watch it fall how long it would have lasted is a matter of debate.


(3)
Was (the subject of this thread) General Westmorelands "bodycount"
strategy correct, morally and military?

NO
It was based on the 34 day campaign in the Ia Drang valley in 1965 which saw 305 USA to 3561 NVA dead 12-1.
From a pure war fighting POV Westmoreland was right, but
it was morally wrong to fight a war of attrition in Indochina
with all it entailed and a strategic blunder.
The prize was not worth the price.
and to top up this blunder after fighting and from a technical POV
winning the war of attrition they then curtailed air and logistics support for South Vietnam post 1973. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
...


My point is simple if Communism was worth stopping and South Vietnam was the place to do it and was worth fighting for then
They should have won the war in short sharp fashion with a decisive conventional permanent thrust at the enemy jugular in 1965 the Infiltration route of the NVA the HCM trail in the Laotian panhandle

Simliar in some respects to Mcarthur landing at Incheon during the Korean war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon

Cork boy 55

johngalway wrote: »

Had the South Vietnamese and Americans annexed Laos, and cut, or severely disrupted the Ho Chi Minh trail, I wonder would the NVA have been spurred into action sooner. NVA (AFAIK) being regular NV army rather than guerilla VC.

Do you mean pre-1965 if they learned of such a plan
Or post-1965 after or during the implentation of the plan
ie. A NVA attempt to destroy An isolated American section of the line by Siege aka the battles at Dien Bien Phu or Khe sanh.

Either way the conventational assualt options for the NVA where limited.

Canvasser

bluecode wrote: »

Canvasser, your language is fascinating, a right throwback to the Cold war. Reads like a Communist pamphlet from the seventies. 'Puppet regime', 'imperialism'. I can just imagine it illustrated with crude images of an evil American soldier stabbing woman holding a baby!

Very nostalgic, but seriously man you need to move on. All that stuff has had it's day. The Soviet Union is long gone and even in Vietnam they are essentially capitalist in outlook and have very much watered down the rhetoric and are actively friendly towards the US. Indeed when I was there they was serious talk of allowing the Americans to base naval vessels in the old Camh Ranh Bay base. Even now the Vietnamese are cosying up to the Americans militarily because they fear their old allies the Chinese more.

You should visit the place, lovely country and friendly people. If you get to know any of them they might tell you that their biggest mistake was winning the war and installing a Communist regime. A mistake now being rectified slowly. The Vietnamese could be the dominant power in the region economically and politically.

So put away your red and white attitudes. They're obsolete really.

You're absolutely right. The French and Americans were not "imperialists" they were humanitarians trying to spread freedom and democracy. The American airforce dropped humanitarian bombs on Vietnamese cities and liberated the communist held forests with Agent Orange. If the French and Americans had been left in Vietnam it would be the richest country in Asia today! There was no poverty when the French and American humanitarians ran Vietnam. Of course the South Vietnamese politicians were not US "puppets", they were democratically elected and loved by the Vietnamese people. They were entirely independent of the US and not influenced by them whatsoever.

You're absolutely right about Vietnam today too. The young Vietnamese are ashamed by the actions of their parents and grandparents in defeating the American Empire errr I mean American humanitarians and liberators. In fact most Vietnamese today think the My Lai massacre was a positive thing and was necessary to defeat the baby eating communists. Only American owned sweat shops can save the Vietnamese today from the Chinese.

PS I hope that post was a bit more modern and suited to the way the youth think today.

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

My point, I was countering the other poster who said the USA killed
two million Vietminese civilians.



If you read my first posts you would see that I said the war as it was fought was morally and strategically wrong.

(1)
Where the Allies right to resist Commmunism?

YES
I believe the Allies where right to resist the spread of communism in Asia, the last book I read Mao by Jung Chang has strengthened this view

Comical stuff. So you read a widely discredited book about Mao by a self loathing Chinese woman who pals around with the tories in Britain and it confirms to you that the "Allies" were right to murder communists in Vietnam? Firstly what does Mao have to do with Vietnam? The Chinese have historically been very hostile to the Vietnamese and the Chinese attacked Vietnam in 1979 and armed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in an attempt to de-stablise the Vietnamese communists. What exactrly do you mean by the communists anyways? You do realise the communists were usually just peasants and patriots who wanted to stop their oppression by western backed landlords? And who were the Allies? Apart from the US and the South Korean dictatorship no other country committed significant forces (Australia sent a tiny force)

Cork boy 55

Canvasser wrote: »

Comical stuff. So you read a widely discredited book about Mao by a self loathing Chinese woman who pals around with the tories in Britain and it confirms to you that the "Allies" were right to murder communists in Vietnam?

I have read many books i said it was the last one I read, It is not discredited but that book is for another thread I think.

Canvasser wrote: »

Firstly what does Mao have to do with Vietnam? The Chinese have historically been very hostile to the Vietnamese and the Chinese attacked Vietnam in 1979 and armed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in an attempt to de-stablise the Vietnamese communists.

a)
If communism produced Mao in China and Stalin in the USSR
What was it going to produce in Indo-china and elsewhere in asia?

b)
Mao has everything to do with the indochina war He payed for most of it and the Russians the rest, every round of ammo, liter of fuel, bike, sandal, SAM missile and tank. It was a Communist imperial war of agression the Vietminese where just used as pawns

c)

The Third indochina war i..e the vietminese invasion of cambodia and China attack on Vietnam happened post 1975.

Canvasser wrote: »

What exactrly do you mean by the communists anyways? You do realise the communists were usually just peasants and patriots who wanted to stop their oppression by western backed landlords?

The vietminese communist party.
I suggest you read up on the Communist land reform terror in North Vietnam and how North Vietnam dealt with its internal political enemies
from 1945- to this very day

The main reason the communist won the war it because they where far more ruthless and savage when dealing with their opponents.

Canvasser wrote: »

And who were the Allies? Apart from the US and the South Korean dictatorship no other country committed significant forces (Australia sent a tiny force)

The allied armies
(Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia, South Korea USA
South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos)

jonniebgood1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The main reason the communist won the war it because they where far more ruthless and savage when dealing with their opponents.

Come on- The casualties strongly show which side of the conflict was more ruthless with their opponents. There are many reasons why the communists won in Vietnam but it is a stretch of credibility to suggest that the communists general guerilla tactics was more savage than the area bombing campaigns.

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I have read many books i said it was the last one I read, It is not discredited but that book is for another thread I think.



a)
If communism produced Mao in China and Stalin in the USSR
What was it going to produce in Indo-china and elsewhere in asia?

b)
Mao has everything to do with the indochina war He payed for most of it and the Russians the rest, every round of ammo, liter of fuel, bike, sandal, SAM missile and tank. It was a Communist imperial war of agression the Vietminese where just used as pawns

c)

The Third indochina war i..e the vietminese invasion of cambodia and China attack on Vietnam happened post 1975.




The vietminese communist party.
I suggest you read up on the Communist land reform terror in North Vietnam and how North Vietnam dealt with its internal political enemies
from 1945- to this very day

The main reason the communist won the war it because they where far more ruthless and savage when dealing with their opponents.




The allied armies
(Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia, South Korea USA
South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos)

You're just taking the piss at this stage. Even the average American would be embarrassed by your attempts to justify the US murder campaign in Vietnam.

Cork boy 55

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Come on- The casualties strongly show which side of the conflict was more ruthless with their opponents. There are many reasons why the communists won in Vietnam but it is a stretch of credibility to suggest that the communists general guerilla tactics was more savage than the area bombing campaigns.

I was refering to the suppression of internal political opponents
during the pre-escaulation period pre-1965 (1955-1964)
in the context of replying to the other posters post, especially the drastic land reform terror carried out in north vietnam in the 1950's

What I should have said
was one of the reasons the communists won the war is that their rear area(north vietnam) was secure as they where far more ruthless and effective in dealing with internal enemies prior to 1964.
The viet minh started shooting vietminese people in 1945 that had a different opinion to them.

The south was faction riddled, corrupt, inept ,misgoverned and had a very poor human right's record although the human rights situation in the north was far worse in my opinion.
The North was ruthless, well organsied and united.
The south in theory was an emerging democray and I think if it had been left alone it would have evolved slowly into one with a decent economy by the 1970s-1980's like some other Asian countries(Tawian, South Korea etc)
I wonder if a more effective leader other than Diem had taken charge in 1954 would things have turned out different.

Whats your opinion on the OP?
What policy would you have pursed in post-war mainland south east asia if you where POTUS?

golden lane

vietnam...korea....

maybe the wrong type of wars (as the us the usa did not not use it's full power)....

but they have made the world as it is today......so they were a success....

jonniebgood1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Whats your opinion on the OP?
What policy would you have pursed in post-war mainland south east asia if you where POTUS?

To answer the OP I would say that circumstances meant that the war was not winnable. America going back to WWII and even WWI gave more importance to public opinion than any other nations traditionally had done beforehand. In WWII public opinion kept them out of battle until after Pearl harbour which had a uniting element. In Vietnam it was America that was seen as the agressor and they never dealt with the need to get public support. This was what beat them (public opinion) in reality more than any military reason. If we remove this restriction on the US they would obviously have committed more resources. A higher US casualty list could then have been tolerated- this would have been necessary. The casualties they did endure were relatively low but still to high to be justified to the public which I think reflected the view in the mid 60's of the cold war. The US had gone through a number of fairly obscene show trials of 'reds' since WWII, trials that would have not been out of place in Stalins era of rule. One of the most telling comments of the era IMO was that attributed to Muhammad Ali when he missed the draft "No Vietnamese ever called me a ******." There is alot in that statement that reflects the real problems with the intervention.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The south was faction riddled, corrupt, inept ,misgoverned and had a very poor human right's record although the human rights situation in the north was far worse in my opinion.
The North was ruthless, well organsied and united.
The south in theory was an emerging democray and I think if it had been left alone it would have evolved slowly into one with a decent economy by the 1970s-1980's like some other Asian countries(Tawian, South Korea etc)
I wonder if a more effective leader other than Diem had taken charge in 1954 would things have turned out different.

Lots of countries have the problems you state- it does not follow that they need to be invaded to put manners on them. People strive for different things right up to this day and it does not necessarily follow that a capitalist democracy fits these multi coloured societies. If you consider it you would recognise how wrong forcing this on every country is. In Vietnams case the country looked like it was going to become communist led. For this to happen the movement would have needed a level of support as any successful political movement does.

Canvasser

jonniebgood1

golden lane wrote: »

vietnam...korea....

maybe the wrong type of wars (as the us the usa did not not use it's full power)....

but they have made the world as it is today......so they were a success....

Thats debatable depending on ones view of the world as it is!

Lemming

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thats debatable depending on ones view of the world as it is!

The Vietnam war halted the spread of communism throughout South East Asia. In that, the war was a "success" (if you will) as we look back on it decades later framed in the context of events that followed. The battle that was Vietnam was ultimately lost for a variety of reasons most of which are not military. The wider, ideological 'war' that saw Vietnam used as a proxy however was not lost.

Ps. Canvasser, that cartoon is full of sh*t. The US never declared war in or around Vietnam.

jonniebgood1

Lemming wrote: »

The Vietnam war halted the spread of communism throughout South East Asia. In that, the war was a "success" (if you will) as we look back on it decades later framed in the context of events that followed. The battle that was Vietnam was ultimately lost for a variety of reasons most of which are not military. The wider, ideological 'war' that saw Vietnam used as a proxy however was not lost.

What spread of communism? It didnt stop it in Vietnam and there was no pan continental movement- most of the surrounding countries have consistent methods of government.

To claim that the war was successful in stopping something that was never a real issue is strange- Can you give some examples of what country or countries had communist movements that floundered as a result of America sending its military into Vietnam?

golden lane

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thats debatable depending on ones view of the world as it is!

of course....some people viewed communism as a success...i don't....
and it seems most people, given a choice hold my views...

we in the west have more now than we did when i was born.....on any scale, that is a success....

Lemming

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What spread of communism? It didnt stop it in Vietnam and there was no pan continental movement- most of the surrounding countries have consistent methods of government.

To claim that the war was successful in stopping something that was never a real issue is strange- Can you give some examples of what country or countries had communist movements that floundered as a result of America sending its military into Vietnam?

You have to go back to the 1950s first of all, and then start to track movements forward to see a pattern, that was coined the "Domino Theory" by the US government of the day.

Throughout the 1950s & 60s there was a rise in communist backed movements across south east Asia (although I'll note that some may have been more nationalist in nature, e.g. the Vietnamese). I'll not suggest they were all part of some pan-movement because they wouldn't have been; simply organisations funded & manipulated to fight a war by proxy by the Soviet Union - and to a lesser extent China at the time. Take a look at Korea, the French Indochina war which resulted in what became North & South Vietnam, Cambodia, & Laos, all of which would have had either strong communist ties or sizeable population numbers sympathetic to communist or nationalist rhetoric. The Malayan conflict, the Philippines, & extensive communist activity in Indonesia also occurred during this period. And of course "the Vietnam war".

There is an argument put forward that in getting involved in the Vietnam conflict for the better part of a decade, the US allowed surrounding countries such as Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to strengthen their economic base (and undermine Communist rhetoric) and focused Soviet attention & supply of materials into Vietnam instead of being spread across S.E. Asia. Only a couple of years after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam war, the Soviet Union was embroiled in Afghanistan, thus again diverting its attention away from spreading Communism throughout SE Asia. The Soviet Union fell soon after its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The domino theory has one main flaw, so it is by no means gospel even if the pattern it identifies seems accurate; the flaw was that surrounding countries, such as Thailand did not fall to Communism after Vietnam fell (so no conclusive "Domino" effect). We'll ignore Cambodia on this one because that's a whole other basket case full of crazy monkeys, and it was already on its way south during the conflict; such to the point that the Vietnamese invaded to halt the excesses of the Khmer Rouge in late '78.

So it's hard to say "here's exactly where a communist movement foundered because of the Vietnam war", but if you look at events after the war, the rise of Communist movements across the region effectively ended soon after. Some of the incidents I mentioned above happened before the Vietnam war; some movements were broken before the US ramped up involvement in 1965, but any real attempts after 1975 seem lacking the scale or determination of the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s.

jonniebgood1

golden lane wrote: »

of course....some people viewed communism as a success...i don't....
and it seems most people, given a choice hold my views...

we in the west have more now than we did when i was born.....on any scale, that is a success....

I would not view it as success either.

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

whitelines

The US involvement in Vietnam showed just how far they would go to defeat Communism. Perceived resolve is everything in ideological and other confrontations. Vietnam also drained Russian and Chinese resources - creating a logistical war with The US that these two states could not win in the long term.

It's no good being armed to the teeth if your potential enemy doubts your resolve to use those weapons. Proved many times, for example The Falklands, Northern Ireland, etc.

Canvasser

whitelines wrote: »

The US involvement in Vietnam showed just how far they would go to defeat Communism. Perceived resolve is everything in ideological and other confrontations. Vietnam also drained Russian and Chinese resources - creating a logistical war with The US that these two states could not win in the long term.

It's no good being armed to the teeth if your potential enemy doubts your resolve to use those weapons. Proved many times, for example The Falklands, Northern Ireland, etc.

Most disturbing jusification for murdering 3 milion people that I've seen.

Lemming

Canvasser wrote: »

Most disturbing jusification for murdering 3 milion people that I've seen.

I see nobody justifying what went on during the Vietnam war, never mind anything remotely "disturbing". With regards the Vietnam war, neither side of the equation covered themselves in glory, but since you seem to be so rabidly pro-socialist, the long catalogue of systematic war-crimes against south Vietnamese civilians by the VC & NVA seems lost on you.

So, do you engage in revisionism much? Or are you too busy licking the screen whilst reading indymedia to notice?

Canvasser

Lemming wrote: »

I see nobody justifying what went on during the Vietnam war, never mind anything remotely "disturbing". With regards the Vietnam war, neither side of the equation covered themselves in glory, but since you seem to be so rabidly pro-socialist, the long catalogue of systematic war-crimes against south Vietnamese civilians by the VC & NVA seems lost on you.

So, do you engage in revisionism much? Or are you too busy licking the screen whilst reading indymedia to notice?

The American military had absolutely no right to operate in Vietnam or bomb Vietnamese cities and civilians.

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

golden lane

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would not view it as success either.

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

yes, you have points there......but i do not know of any of those systems that where everybody is equal, or where most of the population prefer that system.......i believe in our form of democracy.....

Lemming

Canvasser wrote: »

The American military had absolutely no right to operate in Vietnam or bomb Vietnamese cities and civilians.

The US government was issued a formal request for military assistance by the South Vietnamese government. As a direct result of this, US forces were welcomed by the South Vietnamese government.

We could equally say that the Soviets/Chinese/North Vietnamese had no right to operate in South Vietnam or bomb South-Vietnamese cities & civilians. But they did.

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

LOL, you think I'm a proponent of the tea party? Well f*ck are you wide of the mark. Seriously, stop reading indymedia & whatever rag the SWP are handing out this week; you'll live longer for it.

Lemming

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

golden lane wrote: »

yes, you have points there......but i do not know of any of those systems that where everybody is equal, or where most of the population prefer that system.......i believe in our form of democracy.....

I once had a friend's father mention his days as a student in Glasgow to me and how he was quite the radical socialist at the time. He made an interesting comment on the notion of communism "working". Basically, in order for communism to work, the whole world would have to run under the system. And that of course still fails to take into account basic human nature.

Canvasser

Lemming wrote: »

The US government was issued a formal request for military assistance by the South Vietnamese government. As a direct result of this, US forces were welcomed by the South Vietnamese government.

We could equally say that the Soviets/Chinese/North Vietnamese had no right to operate in South Vietnam or bomb South-Vietnamese cities & civilians. But they did.




LOL, you think I'm a proponent of the tea party? Well f*ck are you wide of the mark. Seriously, stop reading indymedia & whatever rag the SWP are handing out this week; you'll live longer for it.

The South Vietnamese government was a puppet government set up by the US. It had no legitmacy. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as leader. Vietnam is one country not 2. To say that the Vietnamese had no right to be in Vietnam is tea party propaganda.

You should stick to salivating over the local blueshirt councillor. Maybe you'll get a medical card out of it.

Lemming

Canvasser wrote: »

The South Vietnamese government was a puppet government set up by the US.

Which one? There were several after the French withdrew from the region. You fail to realise that the North was engaged in open hostility long before 1965, or 1963 for that matter either.

It had no legitmacy. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as leader. Vietnam is one country not 2. To say that the Vietnamese had no right to be in Vietnam is tea party propaganda.

The Vietnamese people? Which people exactly? How many people exactly? Stop throwing hyperbole about like it's fact. Because it's not. Further, French-Indochina fractured into four distinct entities; two of which where North & South Vietnam respectively. "Vietnam" as you term it only existed after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Your arguments are deeply spurious and full of rhetoric & hyperbole, and you're just twisting words to try and suit your own pathetic agenda. As Noam Chomsky said during a lecture I was fortunate enough to have attended: "Facts matter, even when you don't like what they have to say".

You should stick to salivating over the local blueshirt councillor. Maybe you'll get a medical card out of it.

ты пидор

Manic Moran

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

[Mod]Well, that didn't take long.

Two weeks, now.[/Mod]

Chuck Stone

Lemming wrote: »

Which one? There were several after the French withdrew from the region.

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

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

BlaasForRafa

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

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

Do you really think that the Communists would engage in a free and fair election? After what the Communists of eastern europe did post WW2 I'd doubt it.

The USSR and China were imperialist powers meddling in Vietnam as well or are you just another one of those that plays the "Evil USA" card at every opportunity?

Both the West and the East had axes to grind in Vietnam, to view it otherwise is just taking a pretty myopic view of things.

Chuck Stone

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The USSR and China were imperialist powers meddling in Vietnam as well

Source?

or are you just another one of those that plays the "Evil USA" card at every opportunity?

Misrepresentation.

If you want an echo chamber why don't you make a private forum for back-slapping?

Lemming

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

You are referring to the Diem government; named after the Prime Minister who seized power by declaring himself for high office. He was deeply unpopular, not just because he was suspected as being somebody's puppet, but because he was viewed as deeply corrupt. There were also a series of short-lived assembled governments following that, and of course the Van Theiu "government" which lasted from 1967 through to 1975.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

You'll also need to consider that the Vietnamese were quite nationalistic courtesy of the French-Indochina war, and the communist bloc seized upon that, and meddled in affairs which "they had no right to". The US played counter balance with that, and hence (in part, as it's a very simplistic explanation) was formed South & North Vietnam.

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

And the Soviets/Chinese did not want Vietnam united under a flag of democracy. Did the Vietnamese want to be left alone to run their own country? Absolutely; they fought for it! But they were then exploited by both sides of the cold war; with the communists trying to muscle in on nationalist fervour as per their expansionist attempts across S.E. Asia throughout the 1950s, 60s, & 70s, followed by the USSR's spectacular fall after Afghanistan in the late 1980s which put paid to all of that.

Cork boy 55

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*

By R.J. Rummel

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*

By R.J. Rummel







http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Stick to reading the Beano and leave the politcs alone.

Manic Moran

Oh, I see. A ban from one subforum (eg Politics of War) doesn't apply to other subfora (Cold War). I shall see about fixing this.

You still have ten days to serve... fixing it for ten days in the interim.

Canvasser

I was recently reading about North Korean involvement in the Vietnam War. The DPRK sent pilots, advisers and anti-aircraft gunners to help the fight against American imperialism. Korean pilots claim to have shot down 26 imperialist aircraft. Fair play to them.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/nkidp-e-dossier-no-2-north-korean-pilots-the-skies-over-vietnam