Vietnam war: how did the north Vietnamese win?

I saw a couple of episodes of the PBS series mentioned above - it was shown in Ireland, it’s now finished AFAIK, good and quite detailed. Contrary to what some say about not hearing of the Vietcong dead, a visit to Vietnam and a few military museums would change that view very quickly; generally any guided tour soon turns into a diatribe against the Americans.

The US lost in Vietnam because they had neither the understanding nor the will necessary to win. During the war the US strategy changed frequently and the Vietcong adapted, as they had done to the French before that. Any answer really depends on the timeframe, but there is a theme/undercurrent of ‘guerrilla warfare’ that lies beneath the strategy of the Vietcong.
The Vietcong strategy was largely that of Mao Zedong, who was a great strategist (despite his subsequent murderous history), writing for e.g. On Protracted War. It was he who coined “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”

The American-led counterinsurgent strategy initially was in two stages, firstly to “drain the sea”- i.e. get rid of the population, thereby destroying the support base and making the guerrilla ‘fish’ identifiable. Area by area they literally destroyed villages, transplanted entire communities and left poisoned rice caches. But of course not all were cleared.
The second stage was to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local population. This could never work - how could it when you destroy a village, often kill inhabitants and transplant the remainder? The US Command lost focus, became ineffective, failed to isolate and destroy the enemy, angered -and worse- turned the population against them and actually caused support for the Vietcong to increase. As a result it brought the Vietcong better access to intelligence (more people describing what was happening locally), and material and moral support.

Indiscriminate carpet bombing, (for its 'effectiveness' read up on the tunnels e.g. those at Cu Chi) mistreatment of locals, despising ARVIN allies and no feeling for what should be done resulted in intensifying the communist belief and fervour of Vietcong troops/supporters and it rallied thousands to their cause. (What Uncle Sam and its allies did and continues to do today in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan is doing the very same, and converting many Muslims to fighters for the jihadist cause. )

The average GI grunt was badly educated, from an underclass, had no idea of local conditions, had no interest in what was going on and just wanted to serve his time as easily as possible and go home. The few (very few) senior brass who did understand were changed regularly at political whim or in accordance with whatever idea was flavour of the month. The US had no hope from day 1.

Books - Dispatches by Michael Herr is a seventies classic, as is Tim O’Brien’s If I Die in a Combat Zone.
Robert Mason’s Chickenhawk is a light read, very entertaining and sets a good background.
More serious is A Vietnam War Reader: American and Vietnamese Perspectives by Michael Hunt – I’ve only dipped into it, it gives stories from both sides and what I read was good.

The 1992 movie Dien Bien Phu (in French, don’t know if the CD release has subtitles) is great for the Indochine era, and the writer/ director (Pierre Schoendoerrfer, a French veteran) released a book on it sometime later. Donald Pleasance has a key role as a journalist, is great and has a cool French accent!

robp wrote: »

I dont think we can attribute the NV victory to American warcrimes, as the North Vietnamese committed far more against the Vietnamese people. The question is, how did they win despite immense brutality. Or did they really win hearts.

I did not use the word warcrimes. I agree the NV were more ruthless, wiping out about a million of those they viewed as against them.

Militarily, it was a matter of body count. The US were and are reluctant fighters. They had WW2 and Korea in the two decades before Vietnam. That influenced their strategy, just as Vietnam had a huge impact on their strategy in the first Iraqi war. (Note) The NV leadership valued the lives of their troops (and others) at a much lower level then the US did theirs. The NV troops were highly skilled and motivated e.g. even as late as 1978 and outnumbered 3 to 1 they contained a Chinese incursion and generally are accepted as victors of that conflict.

Politically the North built on indoctrination, the government of the South was increasingly seen as corrupt (it was) and in the pockets of the French / Americans, so was regarded as no different to the Colonials. The general population wanted independence, in the South it was worn down – Indochina had been ceded to Japan by Vichy in 1940 so there was anti-Japanese/Colonial warfare since then. About 4 million were killed, one tenth of the population about one thirds of that number murdered, mostly by the NVA. These two tables give background data to the death count
Here and Here

The anti-communist population saw the end in sight once US aid was reduced and it was a capitulation of will in the South, not a winning of minds by the North.

(Note) This was why Bush Snr. did not finish the job properly. The allies had been expecting very heavy casualties, as indicated by the enormous field hospital structure; when this did not happen and the Iraqi’s fell back to Baghdad, the American led forces stopped short and then encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Sadam. They did, received no support so they had chance and were annihilated.

Del.Monte wrote: »

^^^ Great incisive post - it was all the wicked Yankees fault - the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were community workers. Vietnam was horrible but it was just one of many surrogate wars between the two big ideologies - after WW.II. it was East against West with countries in South East Asia, Africa, South America caught in the middle. A no-win scenario for all concerned. War is ****.

Indeed. I did not bother to respond to either of Balcomb's posts as they are embarrassingly ill-informed, the latter a plain rant. I never wrote that the US forces did not commit atrocities, I wrote that the NV were more ruthless. That is fact.
His political leanings guide his views so he either refuses to accept or is unaware of the massacre by the VC of 6,000 civilians in Hué.

Or the deliberate shelling by the VC of fleeing civilians on the Quang Tri Highway? That too killed thousands and it’s still known by the whispered name of ‘the Highway of Terror’.

Never heard of the Dak Son Massacre when Viet Cong systematically killed a couple of hundred women and children with flame-throwers and grenades in a "vengeance" attack on a small village.

Unaware that at one period the VC commissars had murder quotas, e.g. the guy in charge of an area near Danang in 1970 was told to arrange the killing of 1,500 people he deemed to be ‘government tyrants’.

Or their atrocities to the Hill Tribes e.g. Hmong. Or the execution of thousands, those viewed as collaborators after the Sino War purely because they lived in the border area.
Or the ‘re-education’ of anyone who had risen above peasant status and was thus ‘an enemy of the people’.
Or their use of infantry as probing tactics.

Instead, poor old Balcombe focusses (in unnecessary graphic detail) on a few war crimes by US troops.