The United States won the Vietnam War

[Dis]

not me. I was born the year the U.S. left the conflict.

But I'm not naive enough to believe that we can impose present day moral values on past situations.

But I may be wrong. maybe it is O.K. to remove pictures of Washington and Jefferson as they were slave owners. They are bad people.

[Tingkai]

You're just a youngin compared to me.

By the way, I don't think anyone is applying today's morality to a different time. Millions of people around the world opposed the war in Vietnam for the same reasons listed in this thread. The times were not that different from what they are now. Although there are days when I think we have become more cold-blooded. During the early 70s, there was a tremendous uproar about civilians being killed by the American military. It is a non-issue these days.

[steelehc]

The casualty statistics I posted earlier were not meant to be bragging. I was saying that the NVA and the VC did not kick our ass, which they did not do.

It seems to me that this thread has degenerated. The way I see it, the United States failed in its intervention in Vietnam, however, the United States MILITARY was successful in its actions. It was politics that forced the military out of Vietnam, not military defeat, not supply shortages, the things that are sure signs of loss.

Re: Economic Production, Wartime Footing, the US came off a wartime footing for the last time in August of 1945, and has never gone back. In WW2, anything being manufactured had to be essential for civilian life, or have a practical military purpose. This has not held true at any other time in history.

Re: 1812. The British Army at New Orleans was not the "bulk" of the British Forces, those were in Canada and Virginia. We were handed our asses on a silver platter by the Brits in that war.

Steele

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dissident
But I may be wrong. maybe it is O.K. to remove pictures of Washington and Jefferson as they were slave owners. They are bad people.

It is difficult to give moral judgement on people of another time and with another moral value.

We have to acknowledge (without supporting it) the dark side of our society.

People with slaves weren't evil necessary. They could be judged evil if they acted ill for the moral value of their time.

Removing this pictures is hiding a part of your short history to give an Disney version of an history were Fair Good Americans where all good, didn't slaughter the indian and didn't used slaved sold by Fair Kind Europeans (who didn't buy the slaves to Fair Good Arabs or some Fair Good African Tribes).

All is perfect on this Fair Good Old World.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Double post. Sorry.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Osweld
You're the only one throwing around insults and making personal attacks, Chris. As usual.

Wrong again, Osweld, as usual, but at least your consistant.

The only "irony" would be if you actually posted something that was your own idea, instead of something you parroted from others.

Oringinally posted by Tinky
Chris: I never said you were insulting me. What I said was that your insults are predictable. Any time there is a discussion and you disagree with someone, your standard response is to throw out some asinine childhood insult. The only thing you achieve is to make yourself look ridiculous. You're not impressing anyone and you're certainly not contributing to this discussion.

Nice go at back-peddling, but as with all your arguments, it doesn't hold water.
You tried a personal swipe, and got it batted into your face, same as always.

I didn't want to get into this, because it's already filled with the wrong interpretation of the war, not from my view, but from Giap's.

The Tet Offensive is a long story. ... It was our policy, drawn up by Ho Chi Minh, to make the Americans quit. Not to exterminate all Americans in Vietnam, [but] to defeat them.

It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign. But of course, if we had gained more than that it would be better.

And [after Tet] the Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that's why we could claim the achievement of the objective.

The words of Vo Nyugen Giap

That's what he said of TET.

You yourself already gave the "Abby Hofman" view of the war, with all the misconceptions built up over thirty years.

It begins with your assinine statement about "machinegun-toting peasants" or something close top it, a line you threw in just to rile some people up, but is laughed at by anyone who even superficially has read about this war.

I grow tired of having to continually correct all the false history that you and your ilk spew, so I didn't dig deeper into it.

I will say this:

If you think "Machinegun-toting peasants" won the war, you are a grade a moron.

A good example of how you get it wrong:

"Simple, the Americans did not win every battle in Vietnam. They lost numerous firefights on a regular basis. They lost the battle for heart and mind of the ordinary Vietnamese. They lost the battle for public support at home and abroad. "

The first sentance is correct, the second is ridiculous, the third is incorrect (Even in 75, millions of Vietnamese supported the USA, and attempted to flee, ever hear of the boat people?) the last is both right and wrong, but an over simplifacation.

"The Tet offensive proved that the Americans did not truely control major cities in the south. After the battle, the American generals claimed victory and said they had wiped out the VC, but no one believed them because before the battle the generals claimed the VC was a spent force and that the south was safe. "

Look again at what Giap said. He wanted the USA to talk, not to control cities.
You got this completely wrong.

And thus, we see this:

"It wasn't the media that turned the Tet offensive into a victory. It was the lies of the generals. "

The exact opposite of the facts.
Many US officers wern't lying, they DID think the war was nearly over, and were caught off gaurd by the size of tet, and wern't lying when they reported the victory over NLF forces after TET.
You have this COMPLETLY wrong.

When you make these kind of historical errors, it makes it impossible to follow your conclusions on other matters.

"The main reason the war was lost was that the American public finally woke up to the fact that it was a stupid war. The US had no right to install and prop up corrupt, puppet governments in Vietnam. The deaths of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans was achieving nothing. "

Again, we see right and wrong in this statement.
Some correct, some right out of the anti-war movement.

"What has been forgotten is that the witdrawal of US forces from Vietnam was a victory for democracy. The American people forced their government to change its foreign policy and to end a war that the majority were against."

And so we see, you get the correct result for the wrong reasons.

"Instead of denying the truth, Americans should acknowledge the valour and skill of the Vietnamese. They should acknowledge that the American military failed in Vietnam. If the Americans refuse to accept the facts then they are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past."

This may be one of the stupidest posts yet seen.

The US military was sucessful from day one foward, it was never given any real objective.
All you show is your left leaning, dear boy.

And keep this is mind: Ho wasn't popular, most supported the war because they wanted foreigners out, not because they were good little communists. First and formost, they believed in their country, not ideology.

Here is an interesting little site about TET and it's effects:

http://www.vwam.com/vets/tet/tet.html

And here is a nice little list of books you should read before launching into yet another of these debates as unarmed as you were here:

War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History, Vol 2 by Robert Asprey
The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the white house by James Barber
Vietnam at war, The History: 1946-1975 by Lt Gen Phillip Davidson
The vantage point: Perspectives on the Presidency by LYdon Johnson
Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow
The Battle for Hue: Tet 1968 by Keith Nolan
Dictionary of the Vietnam War by James Olsen
On Strategy: A Critical analysis of the Vietnam War by Harry Summers jr
The History of the Vietnam war by Douglas Welch
A Soldier reports by William Westmorland
Also read the Pentagon papers.

I scoff at you Tinky, becuase your an amature that spouts populist tripe, without ever delving into a subject, same as in those other threads.

When you learn something, then come and talk to me, stop wasting my time with giving you history lessons.

[Tingkai]

I'll give credit where credit is due. The post by Chris62 is a worthy contribution to this discussion [Not that I agree with everything he says ] My intent is not to be patronizing. I just want to encourage these types of replies rather than the insults he often sends off.

However, his response was marred by yet more useless boring insults. Why is it that some people have problems with being civil?

As for his comments:

How can he disagree with my statement that the Viet Cong were armed with basic weapons (e.g. rifles, machine guns, mortars, mines)? Is he trying to suggest that the Viet Cong had the variety of weapons that the Americans had? Napalm, heavy bombers, extensive air support, helicopters, naval support, etc.

He claims the Americans did not lose the battle for heart and mind of the Vietnamese. That's ridiculous. If the Viet Cong did not have extensive support from the people then they could not have operated as they did.

His argument is further damaged by his own statement that "most [Vietnamese] supported the war because they wanted foreigners out".

Yes, there are many Vietnamese who opposed the communists, but the majority sided with the Viet Cong during the war. The ones who fled were ex-ARVN, or people who became disillusioned after the war with the failure of the Communists to rebuild Vietnam.

I stand by my earlier statement:
"The Tet offensive proved that the Americans did not truely control major cities in the south. "

This is supported by Giap:
"The war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that's why we could claim the achievement of the objective."

Furthermore, Giap is saying that Tet was a victory for the Viet Cong.

"It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory."

Originally posted by Chris 62
"Look again at what Giap said. He wanted the USA to talk, not to control cities. You got this completely wrong."

First off, I never said Giap wanted to control the cities. I said the VC/NVA wanted to show that the Americans did not control the cities and to prove that they were capable of inflicting damage against the enemy that claimed they were a spent force.

The NVA/VC wanted a negotiated end to the war, but they also wanted a military victory. This is what Giap said: "It was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war."

Originally posted by Chris 62
"The US military was sucessful from day one foward, it was never given any real objective."

I completely agree that the US forces had no real objective, or at least nothing that was truly obtainable. And that is why they failed. What you're saying is the US military was successful in achieving an objective that did not exist.

Originally posted by Chris 62
"Ho wasn't popular"

I'm sorry, but

The gratest irony of your comments, and that of others who claim the US military won the war in Vietnam, is that the US military recognizes the mistakes and failures in Vietnam at the strategic and tactical level.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'll give credit where credit is due. The post by Chris62 is a worthy contribution to this discussion [Not that I agree with everything he says ] My intent is not to be patronizing. I just want to encourage these types of replies rather than the insults he often sends off.

You get insults because of your trolling.
I hate people that post something just to p1ss people off, and you were doing it here and else where.
I talk to you the way you talk to me.

However, his response was marred by yet more useless boring insults. Why is it that some people have problems with being civil?

See above,
You get what you give.

How can he disagree with my statement that the Viet Cong were armed with basic weapons (e.g. rifles, machine guns, mortars, mines)? Is he trying to suggest that the Viet Cong had the variety of weapons that the Americans had? Napalm, heavy bombers, extensive air support, helicopters, naval support, etc.

You have a fundement misunderstanding of this war.
According to the Ho/Giap plan, the final phase was to be fought conventionally, and this, not guerilla tactics is what won the war.
A careful examination of the NLF's final two campaigns shows they are conventional, massed armor and infantry attacks.
The first was smashed by US airpower in 72 (The US had withdrawn it's ground formations.), the second, suceeded, starting in late 74 and streching into 75.
Your continuous comment is that the US forces lost to small units armed with squad level weapons, simply incorrect.

He claims the Americans did not lose the battle for heart and mind of the Vietnamese.

I never said that, I said it wasn't as cut and dried as you believe.

That's ridiculous.

Hardly.
This is the kind of post by you that draws my ire.

If the Viet Cong did not have extensive support from the people then they could not have operated as they did.

First off, stop saying "Viet Cong", they are but one arm of the NLF, whivh is what they called themselves.
Second, their support is through fear, and if you think differently, then you must do A LOT more reading on this topic.
Not all were cowed by them, though many were.

His argument is further damaged by his own statement that "most [Vietnamese] supported the war because they wanted foreigners out".

Again, hardly.
This is the correct interpretation, reading interviews with numerous NLF rank and file after the war, the general concenous was that they would have followed anyone to get the foriegners out.

Yes, there are many Vietnamese who opposed the communists, but the majority sided with the Viet Cong during the war. The ones who fled were ex-ARVN, or people who became disillusioned after the war with the failure of the Communists to rebuild Vietnam.

Non-sense.
An extremly simplistic answer.
These people fled as the attck began in late 74 and continued as their military failed them.
It would also be interesting to point out that the USA left them high and dry, we taught them to fight with firepower, but denied this to them i the end.
I still sometimes watch the tape of the senate hearings that refused further aid to the South during that last offensive, where senators say "why should we throw good money after bad".
The South couldn't use lavish artillery and airstrikes, as we taught them, and their ground forces paniced without this, often abondoning equipment without fighting at all.

I stand by my earlier statement:
"The Tet offensive proved that the Americans did not truely control major cities in the south. "

Read some of the books I provided.
Your view will change.

This is supported by Giap:
"The war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that's why we could claim the achievement of the objective."

I forgot to mention something about my Giap quotes, if you really look, he ALWAYS claimed that whatever happened was according to his plan.
No matter what the situation, he ALWAYS says "it went just as I forsaw it"!
A true old school communist!

Furthermore, Giap is saying that Tet was a victory for the Viet Cong.

Militarily, it was a disaster of the first order.
Giap claims he did it to force the USA to the bargaining table, when the true fact is the NLF were the ones forced to talk, and had refused beforehand.

"It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory."

It should have been reported so, but the US press corp, led by Walter Cronkite reported it as a loss, in one of the most biased examples of reporting ever done.
You should view those reports, it's almost as if they were scripted in Hanoi.
The heavy losses of the NLF, coupled with the atrocities they carried out (such as mass murdering intelligensia) were glossed over or ignored.
In stead, we saw things like the famous "execution" of a man with his hands tied behind his back by a general, with a shot to the head.
The press never bothered to mention that the bound man had just machine-gunned the general's wife and children just minutes before.

First off, I never said Giap wanted to control the cities. I said the VC/NVA wanted to show that the Americans did not control the cities and to prove that they were capable of inflicting damage against the enemy that claimed they were a spent force.

The actual goal was to start a major uprising in the south, coupled with a drive with regular forces through the A-Shau valley in begin heavy operations in the USA I Corp.
This was thwarted by the Marine corp stand at Khe San (and in true irony, showing the confused state of the USA, Khe San was abandoned shortly thereafter!).

The NVA/VC wanted a negotiated end to the war, but they also wanted a military victory. This is what Giap said: "It was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war."

This was a bit of revisionist history on Giap's part, not uncommon in his memoirs (as already mentioned)

I completely agree that the US forces had no real objective, or at least nothing that was truly obtainable. And that is why they failed. What you're saying is the US military was successful in achieving an objective that did not exist.

No, what I was saying, as were several others, is that the US armed forces were not defeated in battle, but wars are not always lost on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but

This is where you often draw my ire.
Your agian giving a dime store interpretation against established fact.
Ho wasn't popular at all in large portions of Vietnam.
In others, he is viewed as their "George Washington.
Read, read, read!

The gratest irony of your comments, and that of others who claim the US military won the war in Vietnam, is that the US military recognizes the mistakes and failures in Vietnam at the strategic and tactical level.

I never claimed they won anything, I said (and rightly so) that they didn't lose the war, a very real difference.

You often draw out the worst in me, but it's not entirly your fault, there has been 30+ years of mis-interpretation of this war floating about.

The United States lost this war, I said that from the start.

That doesn't mean it's military was the reason, as you implied throughout the thread.

[Tingkai]

When I saw that Crhis62 had replied to this thread, I was thinking: here we go, another friggen useless flame. I was wrong. My hat's off to Chris62 for one of the better post for the "US won/didn't lose in Vietnam."

One point that I agree completely with is: "The South couldn't use lavish artillery and airstrikes, as we taught them, and their ground forces paniced without this, often abondoning equipment without fighting at all."

And thanks for the book list.