1975: Saigon surrenders

[Zkribbler]

Uh...there was no such thing as "South Vietnam" until the U.S. created it. The U.S. knew that no one could defeat Ho Chi Minh in a free and open election, so it "created" South Vietnam and installed an anti-communist Catholic (Diem) as its first "president" (okay, dictator).

Diem started oppressing the Buddist minority, and presto, a civil war breaks out in the South. Sure, the North began helping the rebels. And the rest is history.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've heard a few conspiracy theorists say the Gulf of Tonkin incident was concocted but I have yet to see resposible historians say as much.

IIRC, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admitted this in his book on the war.

[Dinner]

As I recall Joseph has said he was actually around when these events took place so he probably knows them better then the rest of us since he lived them.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
But when the news about the guarantee to Castro and the Atlas missiles in Turkey emerged, we began to suspect that what Kennedy achieved was only a partial victory.

Ned it was Jupiter Missile and not the Atlas. The Jupiter was an IRBM and was nearing the end of its service life.
The Atlas was our first ICBM and never left the US.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Uh...there was no such thing as "South Vietnam" until the U.S. created it. The U.S. knew that no one could defeat Ho Chi Minh in a free and open election, so it "created" South Vietnam and installed an anti-communist Catholic (Diem) as its first "president" (okay, dictator).

Diem started oppressing the Buddist minority, and presto, a civil war breaks out in the South. Sure, the North began helping the rebels. And the rest is history.

And when the South came in, they all lived in slavery and millions braved brutal death and rape from pirates to escape the gulags.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


OMG, you mean Thomas Dewey actually got elected?!? Why wasn't I informed??

He is talking about the 52 election.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Oerdin
As I recall Joseph has said he was actually around when these events took place so he probably knows them better then the rest of us since he lived them.

Yes I was around. US Navy 2-13-62 to 3-26-65. And it helps when you can talk to another Sailor who was there and saw it happen. He was in one of the gun turret on the Turner Joy.

[SlowwHand]

Joseph, in reading through the posts briefly, did I understand you to say that you think the military led the military activity in Vietnam?
I will respect that opinion, if that is the opinion you take; but I don't agree.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Uh...there was no such thing as "South Vietnam" until the U.S. created it. The U.S. knew that no one could defeat Ho Chi Minh in a free and open election, so it "created" South Vietnam and installed an anti-communist Catholic (Diem) as its first "president" (okay, dictator).

Diem started oppressing the Buddist minority, and presto, a civil war breaks out in the South. Sure, the North began helping the rebels. And the rest is history.

Zkribbler, I would enjoy a link that shows documentation that the Viet Cong were founded by disaffected Buddists.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Joseph, in reading through the posts briefly, did I understand you to say that you think the military led the military activity in Vietnam?
I will respect that opinion, if that is the opinion you take; but I don't agree.

I said the Military part of Vietnam was a victory for us. Think of this, we won all of the major fire fights but lost the war. The only way that can happen, is if someone will not let you win the war. The US Government part of the war was a disaster. Johnson first and then the Congress when you were there.

[SlowwHand]

Ok, thanks. I agree, 100%.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Joseph
He is talking about the 52 election.

Yes, but in 1951, the 22nd Amendment became law. Truman couldn't run again because of term limitations.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Zkribbler, I would enjoy a link that shows documentation that the Viet Cong were founded by disaffected Buddists.

That was inaccurate of me. Sorry.

There were of course Communists in the South that opposed the Diem regime. And it was those guys who formed the Viet Cong.

There was also a huge portion of the population in the South that was Buddist, was neutralists and pacifist. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember the horrific incidents of Buddists monks burning themselves to death in protest of the Viet Cong-Diem regime conflict.

Diem took the position that those who were not for him were against him, and his regime began oppressing the Buddists, which pushed them into the Viet Cong camp.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Joseph
I said the Military part of Vietnam was a victory for us. Think of this, we won all of the major fire fights but lost the war. The only way that can happen, is if someone will not let you win the war.

The first sentence is correct. However, there's also other ways in which you can win the battles but lose the war.

First, is when the military is acting in such a ham-handed way that we "recruit" more enemy soldiers than we kill. That was true during the first part of the war. But as I mentioned earlier, the Tet Offensive essentially wiped out the Viet Cong as a fighting force.

Second, is when the enemy is willing to take casualties and you are not, which is what happened in the second part of the war. The U.S. was simply not prepared to continued to take tens of thousands of KIAs in defense of South Vietnam.

I know what we were fighting against in Vietnam--a Communist take over, with all the murderous oppression that such a take over would mean.

But what were we fighting for?? From it's birth until its death, South Vietnam was ruled by either military juntas or "Presidents" who were in fact dictators. They were just as bloody and oppressive as the Communists. South Vietnamese generals were natorious for setting up drug smuggling rings.

Defending South Vietnam was like defending Saddam's Iraq or defending the Mafia. Who is blazes wants to die for that "cause."

We lost the war the day Generals Thieu and Ky stole the election by driving out all the other candidates.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Yes, but in 1951, the 22nd Amendment became law. Truman couldn't run again because of term limitations.

wrong. He could have. No one after him. And he even had a decent excuse, because he only had one elected term. His first partial term was more than 2 years, so it would conflict with the amendment. But he was grandfathered.