NationStates Jolt Archive

30 years ago Saigon fell.

A column of North Vietnamese tanks came rolling across the streets of Saigon, no guns being fired. Half-way through they stopped and asked civilians for the way to the Presidential Palace. The day before panicking americans were flying out from the embassy with helicopters to a waiting fleet. The war that had torn Vietnam apart was finally over and Vietnam reunited.

Comments, what do you say about it? Was it the right outcome?

In my opinion. Hell and NO! The US government at the time should be ashamed of itself for letting the South Vietnamese fall. Due to the pandering to the drugged out hippies they cut funding to the SV Army. Cant fight a war without money now can you. It is a disgrace in my opinion. The invasions of Vietnam into Cambodia later is another affect of this failed policy. Tough time wish it would have come out different.

There are McDonald, KFCs, martini and cigar bars in Hanoi baby. It's not so much that the US lost that war as much as we disengaged from a losing strategy.

I think it was the only outcome that was really possible. No matter how long America stayed the Viets would have continued to attack them sneakily because (IMHO) they felt that they were fighting a nationalist war against foreigners rather than a battle for communism and more Americans would have died, more Viets would have died, and more Chinese would have snuck across the border. The only way America could have won in Vietnam would have been to ensure that nothing was left alive in that country. This was simply something America was not willing to do.

There are McDonald, KFCs, martini and cigar bars in Hanoi baby. It's not so much that the US lost that war as much as we disengaged from a losing strategy.
I'd agree with this.

I agree with Marrakech II, shame on America for letting it happen. Over 2 million people were murdered by the Communist after the conquest of South Vietnam. Not shame on the military, but shame on Johnson for castrating the actions of the Armed Forces and double damnation on the generation of anti war zealots who saw their own nation and troops as the greater enemy.

If you can't stand behind a soldier, stand in front of him.
Rot in hell Jane Fonda!

I agree with Marrakech II, shame on America for letting it happen. Over 2 million people were murdered by the Communist after the conquest of South Vietnam. Not shame on the military, but shame on Johnson for castrating the actions of the Armed Forces and double damnation on the generation of anti war zealots who saw their own nation and troops as the greater enemy.

If you can't stand behind a soldier, stand in front of him.
Rot in hell Jane Fonda!

What's really stupid is that the war could have been won extremely quickly if the U.S. had done the following:

1)Activated the reserves;
2)Launched an all-out invasion of the North;
3)Launched an unrestricted bombing campaign as great as if not greater than the Linebacker campaigns;
4)Mined Haiphong harbor;
5)Bombed the transportation links to China;
6)Allowed our troops to bomb SAM launchers while they were still under construction, instead of waiting until they were operational;
7)Allowing our troops to bomb enemy MiGs while they were still grounded, instead of having to wait until they were in the air and showed 'hostile intent';
8);Bombed factories, dams, power plants, military bases, and other strategic areas;
9)Permitted the bombing of Hanoi;
10)Allowed pilots to bomb truck depots located more than 204 yards off the road;
11)Allowed pilots to bomb trucks that wandered more than 200 feet away from the Ho Chi Minh Trail;
12)Placed Le Van Vien in control of ARVN; if he had been in charge, the South Vietnamese could have won in three months or less, without the aid of a single U.S. soldier (except for delivering weapons and ammo, et. al.);
13)Equipped ARVN (and our troops) with the most up-to-date weapons and vehicles, instead of obsolete crap;
14)Allowed Taiwan to send troops (as many as they wanted);
15)Allowed Rhodesia to send troops (their troops were among the best in the world);
16)Completely ended all trade with the U.S.S.R., upon whom the North Vietnamese were entirely dependent to maintain their war effort;
17)Re-installed Bao Dai as Emperor, thereby restoring unity among all non-communist Vietnamese;
18)Installed Nguyen ton Hoan as Prime Minister- he was the only politician the communists genuinely feared

What's really stupid is that the war could have been won extremely quickly if the U.S. had done the following:

*Followed a cunning, sophisticated plan of war*


I had never really considered it before, but I have to agree wholeheartedly with almost everything you say. If the US had gone ahead and fought an absolute, knock-down drag-out war, North Vietnam almost certainly could not have won. As is the presence of a single battleship near Hanoi sent them into such convulsions that its removal was mandated specifically in the treaty. Unfortunately instead we just got chewed up piecemeal.

In my opinion. Hell and NO! The US government at the time should be ashamed of itself for letting the South Vietnamese fall. Due to the pandering to the drugged out hippies they cut funding to the SV Army. Cant fight a war without money now can you. It is a disgrace in my opinion. The invasions of Vietnam into Cambodia later is another affect of this failed policy. Tough time wish it would have come out different.

Damn right! Then again, backstabbing anticommunists has always been U.S. policy.

Damn right! Then again, backstabbing anticommunists has always been U.S. policy.
It's not U.S. policy, RB. It's the policy of hippy communist subversives, slanted media, and cowardly politicians.

It's not U.S. policy, RB. It's the policy of hippy communist subversives, slanted media, and cowardly politicians.

Yes, it is U.S. policy.

Truman dumped Chiang Kai-shek, Draza Mihailovich, and Stanislaw Mikolajczyk; Eisenhower dumped Fulgencio Batista, Syngman Rhee, and the Hungarian Freedom Fighters; JFK dumped Moise Tshombe, Rafael Trujillo, the Bay of Bigs fighters, and Prince Boun Oum; Lyndon Johnson (and his successors) dumped Ian Smith; Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford dumped Nguyen Van Thieu, Lon Nol, Vang Pao, and the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique; Jimmy Carter dumped the Shah of Iran, Chiang Ching-Kuo, Park Chung Hee, and Anastasio Somoza Debayle; Ronald Reagan dumped Alfredo Stroessner, Ferdinard Marcos, P.W. Botha, and Augusto Pinochet; George H.W. Bush dumped Jonas Savimbi.

Jimmy carter did not dump the shah; What exactly could he have done? Sent troops in, to involve the US in another war against a nationalistic, freedom-wanting people?

They didn't want freedom... they wanted authoritarian Islamic dictatorship. Iranians were idiots.

Jimmy carter did not dump the shah; What exactly could he have done? Sent troops in, to involve the US in another war against a nationalistic, freedom-wanting people?

Yes, he did dump the Shah. He pressured the Shah to release known subversives from prison and abroad; these subversives led the revolution which toppled the Shah.

Jimmy carter did not dump the shah; What exactly could he have done? Sent troops in, to involve the US in another war against a nationalistic, freedom-wanting people?

I doubt most Iranians supported the Assholah Khomeini. Just like most Vietnamese didn't support the Vietcong, most Nicaraguans, didn't support the Sandinistas, etc.

Yes, it is U.S. policy.

Truman dumped Chiang Kai-shek, Draza Mihailovich, and Stanislaw Mikolajczyk; Eisenhower dumped Fulgencio Batista, Syngman Rhee, and the Hungarian Freedom Fighters; JFK dumped Moise Tshombe, Rafael Trujillo, the Bay of Bigs fighters, and Prince Boun Oum; Lyndon Johnson (and his successors) dumped Ian Smith; Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford dumped Nguyen Van Thieu, Lon Nol, Vang Pao, and the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique; Jimmy Carter dumped the Shah of Iran, Chiang Ching-Kuo, Park Chung Hee, and Anastasio Somoza Debayle; Ronald Reagan dumped Alfredo Stroessner, Ferdinard Marcos, P.W. Botha, and Augusto Pinochet; George H.W. Bush dumped Jonas Savimbi.

Oh my God! Don't tell it was the fault of Republican Presidents like Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Ford and Eisenhower!

Yep it's a pity we lost to the commies and now all our manufactureing plants are being packed up and shipped to Communist China. Yep all those American jobs off shored to our communist masters.

Y'all just had to vote Republican!

They didn't want freedom... they wanted authoritarian Islamic dictatorship. Iranians were idiots.

Uhm, no. The Iranians were revolting against the oppresive government of Mohammed Pahlavi Reza. He did good for the economy, but was your classic rights abusing, saddam clone(I realize he was in before saddam, but that might make it more clear to some). The people revolted against him. The rulers of the revolution set up a theocracy, which hasn't turned out very well. However, the popular revolution defidentally was for freedom, and Iranians arent idiots. You are for saying so with such a blanket statement, however.

Uhm, no. The Iranians were revolting against the oppresive government of Mohammed Pahlavi Reza. He did good for the economy, but was your classic rights abusing, saddam clone(I realize he was in before saddam, but that might make it more clear to some). The people revolted against him. The rulers of the revolution set up a theocracy, which hasn't turned out very well. However, the popular revolution defidentally was for freedom, and Iranians arent idiots. You are for saying so with such a blanket statement, however.
The popular revolution was for more Islamic influence in society and everyday life. The Shah offended many ordinary Iranians because he was extremely secular and downplayed Iran's islamic past. The Shah outlawed the wearing of Islamic headdress and other things he perceived as outdated and fundamentalist. All those popular uprisings against the Shah demanded a greater role for Islam in Iranian society. It's not like Khomeini talked about freedom to trick the crowds into supporting him and then surprised everyone by setting up a religious dictatorship once the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah was in power. In exile in Paris, Ayatollah Khomeini, clearly stated that he wanted to make Iran into an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, and the Iranian people knew that they were going to get one by supporting him against the Shah. I was just kidding about the Iranians are idiots part, i do understand they were driven to extremes because of the Shah's abuses.

I doubt most Iranians supported the Assholah Khomeini. Just like most Vietnamese didn't support the Vietcong, most Nicaraguans, didn't support the Sandinistas, etc.
I disagree... I think most of the masses in each of these countries did indeed support these radical regimes because existing conditions were pretty awful and the people had little choice other than to grasp on to an alternative, even if this alternative is shit like Khomeini or the Viet Cong. The people did not have the luxury of hindsight and most would probably regret the support they gave when they traded a right-wing dictator with a left-wing dictator who were often worse than the old days.

I doubt most Iranians supported the Assholah Khomeini. Just like most Vietnamese didn't support the Vietcong, most Nicaraguans, didn't support the Sandinistas, etc.

You need a popular revolution, not a majority of the people. The majority are almost always apathetic enough not to take sides. You need a large number of people to lead a revolution against an oppresive government, however.