The Vietnam War

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?