NationStates Jolt Archive


why do you think america lost the vietnam war?

Karmamaland
20-03-2008, 05:38
im interested in hearing everyones opinion
Marrakech II
20-03-2008, 05:40
The US pulled out and not very long after the South fell without the support of the US. Politics plain and simple. The US didn't loose on the battlefield but at home with politics. I remember watching the fall of Saigon on TV. Sad to watch.
Dontgonearthere
20-03-2008, 05:46
We failed to achieve our goal of defending the South/'converting' the North.
It was a rather phyrric victory for North Vietnam, but they still won, in the end.
1010102
20-03-2008, 05:46
We won Vietnam Millitarily. US, UK, SV, and Assuie Losses were about a tenth of the NV Millitary dead. We also destroyed vast amounts of NV infastructure. If we hadn't pulled out, we could have won.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 05:50
The US pulled out and not very long after the South fell without the support of the US. Politics plain and simple. The US didn't loose on the battlefield but at home with politics. I remember watching the fall of Saigon on TV. Sad to watch.
How so? The overwhelming support of the NLF by the Vietnamese people (both north and south) proved that they wanted unification under a socialist state, the fact that the south collapsed so quickly after a US pull out proves just how little popular support it had and how much it was just propped up with US troops.
Non Aligned States
20-03-2008, 05:57
We won Vietnam Millitarily. US, UK, SV, and Assuie Losses were about a tenth of the NV Millitary dead. We also destroyed vast amounts of NV infastructure. If we hadn't pulled out, we could have won.

Clearly the Soviets lost WWII then, if victory was determined by body count comparison.

Half the reason why the US lost the Vietnam war was simply because they treated the whole mess the same way they did Iraq in that it could be "won" with conventional fighting, and lots of bombs. They sucked insofar as guerrilla warfare was fought, and should have taken British experience in the Malayan peninsula as a starting point.
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 06:00
The US lost because it invaded another people's homes against their will, and propped up a brutal dictatorship. Apparently, general platitudes about self-determination mean absolutely dick whenever people actually get to chose that they don't want to be fucked over by American imperialism.

Even the murder of over four million Vietnamese was not enough to get those peasants to knuckle under to Saigon and the American foreign policy apparatchiks. People in general do not like it when you murder their neighbors and families by millions.
Tongass
20-03-2008, 06:01
We lost because we were unable to establish sufficient popular support, and alternatively unwilling to sufficiently destroy the morale of the enemy.
Dostanuot Loj
20-03-2008, 06:09
The US lost the war because they pulled out. Plain and simple. You give up, you lose.

Now the irony is if they had backed the NV, and beat the USSR to doing it, they'd have a +1 in the international world as they'd have at least looked non-discriminatory, but helpful. And they'd have pissed off the USSR something fierce with a "Even your own guys like us more" stance that could only have led to much more fun.
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:15
We didn't fight to win. We turned our soldiers into policemen and it was a disaster. We didn't learn anything from the Japanese who easily beat down the Vietnamese because they went straight for the throat and didn't have a defensive mentality. The war would have ended in 1965 if they had let the Marines to invade the North.

The media really undermined the war and lied to achieve it's political goals. The Tet Offensive was a massive disaster for the North Vietnamese, yet it's still portrayed as some kind of huge victory, which it was in the end because of the press.

The real losers of the Vietnam War was Southeast Asia itself. After the war, about a million South Vietnamese went into death camps and we won't even get into the millions of deaths in Cambodia that came from the communist victory. I always wonder if the war protesters and journalists ever think about their part in bringing that about. I doubt most of them even know or realize that. The difference between South Korea and North Korea is what the difference would be between North and South Vietnam now. However, you reap what you sow.
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 06:28
We didn't fight to win. We turned our soldiers into policemen and it was a disaster. We didn't learn anything from the Japanese who easily beat down the Vietnamese because they went straight for the throat and didn't have a defensive mentality. The war would have ended in 1965 if they had let the Marines to invade the North.

No, it wouldn't have. The Vietnamese people wanted the US out. The war would have still been a bloody guerilla war against a population determined to throw off the yoke of foreign domination. The end would have been no different.

The media really undermined the war and lied to achieve it's political goals. The Tet Offensive was a massive disaster for the North Vietnamese, yet it's still portrayed as some kind of huge victory, which it was in the end because of the press.

What, pray tell, was so sinister about not wanting the sons and daughters of America to become war criminals, murderers and conquerors? The Tet offensive primarily involved the NLF insurgent forces, not the NVA. It demonstrated the resolve that the Vietnamese people had in their quest to end foreign domination.

The real losers of the Vietnam War was Southeast Asia itself. After the war, about a million South Vietnamese went into death camps and we won't even get into the millions of deaths in Cambodia that came from the communist victory. I always wonder if the war protesters and journalists ever think about their part in bringing that about. I doubt most of them even know or realize that. The difference between South Korea and North Korea is what the difference would be between North and South Vietnam now. However, you reap what you sow.

Even if what you say is true about one million south Vietnamese being sent to death camps after the war, let's balance that against the four million people killed by the US bombing and ground campaigns. Who has more blood on their hands? Or the simple fact that the US had no right to be there in the first place. Aggression is a war crime. Pure and simple. Murdering millions of civilians through the use of indiscriminate carpet bombing and chemical warfare is a war crime.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 06:28
We didn't fight to win. We turned our soldiers into policemen and it was a disaster. We didn't learn anything from the Japanese who easily beat down the Vietnamese because they went straight for the throat and didn't have a defensive mentality. The war would have ended in 1965 if they had let the Marines to invade the North.

The media really undermined the war and lied to achieve it's political goals. The Tet Offensive was a massive disaster for the North Vietnamese, yet it's still portrayed as some kind of huge victory, which it was in the end because of the press.

The real losers of the Vietnam War was Southeast Asia itself. After the war, about a million South Vietnamese went into death camps and we won't even get into the millions of deaths in Cambodia that came from the communist victory. I always wonder if the war protesters and journalists ever think about their part in bringing that about. I doubt most of them even know or realize that. The difference between South Korea and North Korea is what the difference would be between North and South Vietnam now. However, you reap what you sow.
No, your full of crap because you fail to understand that the majority of Vietnamese wanted unification under a socialist state.
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:31
That's bullshit. First of all, that inflated number includes total casualties killed by both sides. Not unlike the propaganda numbers that count those murdered by terrorists in Iraq as U.S. victims.

Granted the country was full of plenty of ignorant peasants, just like every communist/socialist country. Only slanted polls and assumptions ever had most South Vietnamese supporting a communist state.

And you don't know about the aftermath in South Vietnam? Are you kidding me?
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:34
No, it wouldn't have. The Vietnamese people wanted the US out. The war would have still been a bloody guerilla war against a population determined to throw off the yoke of foreign domination. The end would have been no different..

Really? And how did Japan who we beat in a total war do it so easily by that method then?
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 06:35
And you don't know about the aftermath in South Vietnam? Are you kidding me?

Source or GTFO.

And for the record, just look here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Vietnam) for a listing of Vietnam war casualty estimates. At the very least 2 million killed, to an upward of 4 million, which is covered by credible citations.
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 06:35
Really? And how did Japan who we beat in a total war do it so easily by that method then?

Something about the threat of complete nuclear annihilation might have had something to do with it.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 06:36
That's bullshit. First of all, that inflated number includes total casualties killed by both sides. Not unlike the propaganda numbers that count those murdered by terrorists in Iraq as U.S. victims.

Granted the country was full of plenty of ignorant peasants, just like every communist/socialist country. Only slanted polls and assumptions ever had most South Vietnamese supporting a communist state.

And you don't know about the aftermath in South Vietnam? Are you kidding me?

So what? America had been stuffing capitalist reactionary ideology down their throats for decades, the socialist rightfully had to reeducate potential rebels to correct thought.
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:37
Are you kidding me? If you don't even that much basic knowledge, which doesn't shock me really, then you can forget about me wasting any time.

It's people like you like that really turned me off to democracy.
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:39
So what? America had been stuffing capitalist reactionary ideology down their throats for decades, the socialist rightfully had to reeducate potential rebels to correct thought.

Thanks. Socialist reeducation camps if you wish.
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 06:42
I'm still demanding that source
Andaras
20-03-2008, 06:46
Thanks. Socialist reeducation camps if you wish.

Either side does it, it's simply a question of projecting power, playing the morality game while arguing the US case in Vietnam is going to fail you Prince. The US showed little mercy and neither did the communists, it's war.
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:48
Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982 is one book I am looking at on my shelf right now. How about Lost Years: My 1632 Days in Vietnamese Reeducation Camps? Prisoner of the Word: A Memoir of the Vietnamese Reeducation Camps?

It's a few of I don't know, maybe 1000 books written on the subject? It astounds me that you would be that ignorant about something you would respond to.

Are there really people that don't know about the "Reeducation camps" in South Vietnam? What's next, are there people here who don't know anything about Cambodia's proud socialist history? Pfft.
NERVUN
20-03-2008, 06:48
Really? And how did Japan who we beat in a total war do it so easily by that method then?
Gee... couldn't have had anything to do with Vietnam being French Indochina at the time could it? Naw...
HSH Prince Eric
20-03-2008, 06:51
Yeah, because the Japanese policy of total war had nothing to do with subjugating the same guerrilla fighters that the French and Americans fought.

You are a real intellectual NERVUN. Wait....
Andaras
20-03-2008, 06:52
Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982 is one book I am looking at on my shelf right now. How about Lost Years: My 1632 Days in Vietnamese Reeducation Camps? Prisoner of the Word: A Memoir of the Vietnamese Reeducation Camps?

It's a few of I don't know, maybe 1000 books written on the subject? It astounds me that you would be that ignorant about something you would respond to.

Are there really people that don't know about the "Reeducation camps" in South Vietnam? What's next, are there people here who don't know anything about Cambodia's proud socialist history? Pfft.
So what? Reeducation camps are meant to bring maladjusted citizens back into the norm of society, in the Vietnamese case socialist society.
Skalvia
20-03-2008, 06:59
America couldnt lose because we never declared it a war, lol :upyours::p...

But, really its because we did the same stupid shit we usually do for some unknown reason, we go in thinking we can force democratic government on someone, and you just cant do that, you can force totalitarian government, but not democracy, for it requires the support of the people, and a willingness to get along, neither of which Vietnam had...

Furthermore, It takes a long time for a working democracy to emerge, it took a good Hundred years for ours to stabilize, and a full Two Hundred to be totally free...we go in to these struggling countries and expect them to do it in 6-8 Months or we protest and start to get the fuck out...of course it took a little longer in Vietnam, but the principle remains the same...

You just cant Force Democracy on people...
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 06:59
I have a few Vietnam veterans in the family, and I've probably heard a dozen specific things we 'shoulda done' that would've won it. However, it still seems like the will to win was simply sapped by the popular culture and the media. Meh. The Vietnamese are only nominally communist nowadays anyway.
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 07:00
Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982 is one book I am looking at on my shelf right now. How about Lost Years: My 1632 Days in Vietnamese Reeducation Camps? Prisoner of the Word: A Memoir of the Vietnamese Reeducation Camps?

Funny, I've read all the reviews on those books, and none of them mention anything about "death camps". Perhaps an embellishment on your part. Regardless, what the Vietnamese Communists did after the war is of no consequence. The US still had no right to be there, and arguably the creation of the post-war Stalinist state can be blamed on the US's intervention all the way back in the 1950s, when we prevented the creation of a unified Vietnam because Ho Chi Minh would have won the election. Nothing worse than elected communists...

It's a few of I don't know, maybe 1000 books written on the subject? It astounds me that you would be that ignorant about something you would respond to.

I am not your hound. You make a claim about millions of people being sent to death camps (implying that they were murdered en masse), you damn well better back it up. I don't see any body count, and it's your burden to provide one if you're going to make a ridiculous claim about death camps.

Are there really people that don't know about the "Reeducation camps" in South Vietnam? What's next, are there people here who don't know anything about Cambodia's proud socialist history? Pfft.

But you didn't say "reeducation camps". You said death camps. And once again, you're deflecting. How does the post-war history, which the arguably the US played a role in forging, have anything to do with the legitimacy of America's atrocities in Vietnam?
Dontgonearthere
20-03-2008, 07:00
So what? Reeducation camps are meant to bring maladjusted citizens back into the norm of society, in the Vietnamese case socialist society.

Yeah, stuffing people into concentration camps and starving them to death is fully justified as long as youre correcting their thinking while you do it.
And, while youre at it, we can take a page from North Korea and stuff their families into seperate camps to starve to death.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 07:01
You just cant Force Democracy on people...

We were protecting the South from being ransacked by the North, remember? No one who didn't want democracy had to stay, and the commies killed plenty of North Vietnamese who tried to run to freedom in the south, so they certainly weren't blameless in things. It's just a shame we had to backstab an ally in all of it. That's no fun.
Skalvia
20-03-2008, 07:04
We were protecting the South from being ransacked by the North, remember? No one who didn't want democracy had to stay, and the commies killed plenty of North Vietnamese who tried to run to freedom in the south, so they certainly weren't blameless in things. It's just a shame we had to backstab an ally in all of it. That's no fun.

Yes because the South Vietnamese didnt help the Commies at all, and were totally on our side, and we made sure that we hit nothing but North Vietnamese the whole time we were there...

We were there to prevent the Soviets from getting another ally, and we hoped to install democracy in Vietnam to accomplish that....
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 07:08
Yes because the South Vietnamese didnt help the Commies at all, and were totally on our side, and we made sure that we hit nothing but North Vietnamese the whole time we were there...

We were there to prevent the Soviets from getting another ally, and we hoped to install democracy in Vietnam to accomplish that....

There were collaborators on both sides, sure. We weren't 'forcing democracy' on the South, because the South had seceded long before we got there. We joined it late in the game, and the North/South division goes back thousands of years.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 07:13
It's disgusting and quite telling how the right-wingers belittle the Vietnamese struggle for independence, an epic war of liberation was expelled three colonialist superpowers and granted socialist independence, an independence that cost the Vietnamese people over two million dead and a bountiful country devastated. It's telling how people pity the invaders and downplay the most heroic war of national liberation in the 20th century. Shame!
Trotskylvania
20-03-2008, 07:13
Yes because the South Vietnamese didnt help the Commies at all, and were totally on our side, and we made sure that we hit nothing but North Vietnamese the whole time we were there...

We were there to prevent the Soviets from getting another ally, and we hoped to install democracy in Vietnam to accomplish that....

There were collaborators on both sides, sure. We weren't 'forcing democracy' on the South, because the South had seceded long before we got there. We joined it late in the game, and the North/South division goes back thousands of years.

You're both wrong on several counts.

Skalvia, you are correct that the motivation for entrance in the war was Cold War related. However, the US did not enter to promote democracy. It entered by subverting, propping up an illegitimate dictator in the South who ruled through oppression and election fraud.

TPB, the South seceded against the will of its people with the support of the United States, allowing Diem to create a corrupt autocracy in the South. The US was behind the scenes the entire time, selling arms to the South Vietnamese government.
Skalvia
20-03-2008, 07:14
There were collaborators on both sides, sure. We weren't 'forcing democracy' on the South, because the South had seceded long before we got there. We joined it late in the game, and the North/South division goes back thousands of years.

Thats exactly my point, You cant just intervene in a Civil War and hope that everyone welcomes you as liberators, it just doesnt happen....

What if say, in The Revolutionary War, France decided to install a French Puppet Government in America, sure we'd seceded from Britain, but, the minute France started trying to take the territory we'dve turned our guns on them, and probably asked Britain for help...Thats what we faced in Vietnam, we tried to turn them into an American Puppet, and expected them to see it as Liberation...
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 07:18
TPB, the South seceded against the will of its people with the support of the United States, allowing Diem to create a corrupt autocracy in the South. The US was behind the scenes the entire time, selling arms to the South Vietnamese government.

Both sides brutalized each other, and the South got the worst of it, but we didn't enter the ground war until a decade or so after the assassinations started. Preventing an ally from being overrun is a bit different from forcing a type of government on people. I never claimed that everyone was on board with either government. And we were only involved after WWII in any case. The conflict goes back thousands of years, again.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 07:21
'South Vietnam' was a non-entity, simply a clique of right-wing gangsters who maintained power through American troops, without American force of arms it would be have been toppled easily by the people who overwhelmingly wanted a socialist unified country. The Americans and South Vietnamese rejected the democratically planned elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 07:21
Thats exactly my point, You cant just intervene in a Civil War and hope that everyone welcomes you as liberators, it just doesnt happen....

Of course not. But the South was on the edge when we came in. Us, New Zealand, Australia, S. Korea, the Philippines, etc. etc. intervened because the alternative was communist dictatorship. I don't see that as forcing a government on people, as much as stopping an ally from being obliterated.
Andaras
20-03-2008, 07:25
Of course not. But the South was on the edge when we came in. Us, New Zealand, Australia, S. Korea, the Philippines, etc. etc. intervened because the alternative was communist dictatorship. I don't see that as forcing a government on people, as much as stopping an ally from being obliterated.

How was it a 'communist dictatorship', the people wanted a socialist government under Ho Chi Minh, which is why the US/SV canceled the planned elections. Your historical revisionism belies the fact that socialism was nothing but the self-determination of the Vietnamese working masses, and the US was forcing a corrupt crony capitalist dictatorship against the will of the Vietnamese people.
Skalvia
20-03-2008, 07:27
Of course not. But the South was on the edge when we came in. Us, New Zealand, Australia, S. Korea, the Philippines, etc. etc. intervened because the alternative was communist dictatorship. I don't see that as forcing a government on people, as much as stopping an ally from being obliterated.

yes, but, the problem is, that even though not everyone supported Communism, the Majority did, and the ones who didnt, generally hated being occupied, who wouldnt? after France and Japan...and, like you said, it goes back thousands of years, and needed to be solved by the people themselves, and if Communist government is what they want, thats what they get, Intervention isnt going to change that, itll just cause resentment, and violence...

We run into examples of that today, in Iraq, and Afghanistan for example...Serbia's seein it in Kosovo, and Russian in Chechnya...Intervention isnt going to stop these people, if they feel like theyre bein oppressed...
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 07:32
'South Vietnam' was a non-entity, simply a clique of right-wing gangsters who maintained power through American troops, without American force of arms it would be have been toppled easily by the people who overwhelmingly wanted a socialist unified country. The Americans and South Vietnamese rejected the democratically planned elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win.

There's no proof of the bolded portion - that's speculation, and either way, that was long before we were involved in the fighting. The fact that Ho was a Stalinist who would've wiped out whole minority populations is a tad relevant to the discussion, I think - we couldn't have continued to support him under any circumstance after his little get-together with Stalin. In any case, I think the quarter million S. Vietnamese who died for us there were more than a clique.
Skalvia
20-03-2008, 07:38
Im not saying Ho was a hero by any means, im saying the majority Supported him, and the ones who didnt, although they were willing to fight communism, were not friends of the US, and werent friends of each other, which was the problem even if, hypothetically, we'd beaten North Vietnam, wedve dealt with Guerrilla war and Resentment indefinitely, it was a lost cause, plain and simple...
NERVUN
20-03-2008, 08:41
Yeah, because the Japanese policy of total war had nothing to do with subjugating the same guerrilla fighters that the French and Americans fought.

You are a real intellectual NERVUN. Wait....
Oh look, someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

Let's see here, during the occupation of French Indochina, there were skirmishes but no total war. Could have something to do with the puppet Vichy France that allowed Japan to waltz in? Why, I think it could. Or do you have proof of this total war going on in Vietnam at the time?

Let me guess though, you're going to claim that everyone knows about it and stomp off in a huff when people start pointing out that your little world view does not constitute proof.
Earth University
20-03-2008, 10:34
Ahem.
The US where in Vietnam to install a democratic government ???

What the Hell ?

You guys surely knows that South Vietnam was a bloody dictatorship ?
Dien and Thien weren't specially good guys, one murdering the second with US backup and then was helped by you to kill all "dissidents", claiming they were all communist fighters ( wich was absolutly the same mistake when nowadays CIA help Pakistan to kill democratic opposants, claiming they are islamists...I'm not saying they are all non-terrorists, just that you really don't look what you kill, as ever. )

For most of Vietnamese, North Vietnam was less bloody than South.
And, most important, all the heroes of the War of Independance against France choose the North, who was seen as the true independant state of Vietnam, contrary to the South, who was clearly a temporary puppet state.

North Vietnamese aren't communists and weren't at this time: it's just that being called a "communist" was the way to get money, training and weapons from China and USSR.

Japan and Vietnam aren't exactly the same country...Sout-East Asia is the perfect land for guerilla warfare, the geography, the climate, the population...everything.

USA couldn't invade Nort Vietnam because of USSR protection.
Bombing, yes, invading, no.

So, why do you lost ?
For the same reason that we French lost.
We stayed there much longer than you and fought in all South-East Asia, suffering even higher casualties ( 90 000 KIA overall, but it includes Nort-African and Vietnamese troops as well as French troops, doesn't know the exact number of each ).

Dien-Bien-Phû was the only one true military victory of the Vietnameses...and it was a Pyrrhic one.

The Japanese invaded the country very briefly, at the end of world war II ( before it was an " ally " thanks to the Vichysts bastards ), and as every occupation force, they just take the towns...futhermore, they only have done this after the Thaï attempt of war against a weakened Indochina and sustained by Japanese advisors and material was patheticly crushed.

During French-Indochina War and Vietnam War, the French and the Americans do exactly the same thing: the only space they could control was towns, every surrounding lands were paying tribut to the "Liberation Army ", and the Viet-Min for you.

It's just that a military victory is not enough.
Not when the population is against you, and when does who are willing to support you are more scared by the "communists" than by yourself.

Plus, about the consequences: it's the army of the new People Republic of Vietnam who ended the regim of the Red Khmers in Cambodgia, who was commiting a genocide against it's own people.
So I don't think they could be compared...
Ashmoria
20-03-2008, 16:14
there are so many reasons that we lost the vietnam war.

we had no business starting a war with people who were not our enemies. its hard to hold out for the long term (as if we werent there for far too long) when we have no reason to be fighting at all.

we didnt understand our "enemy", we didnt know his motivations, his resolve, his history and we didnt care. we were fighting the soviets by proxy. we were killing vietnamese because we didnt dare kill russians.

we went in and bult up for our own domestic political reasons, not for the goals of .....well ok we had no good goals in vietnam. johnson didnt want to be the first president to lose a war so he sent far more men and materials into vietnam than was warranted by the risk they posed. we should have left before kennedy was assassinated.

and yes, the american public was sick of paying for a stupid useless war. we were sick of having so many soldiers die for nothing. the government wasnt going to end it so the public forced them into it. it was the only way to get the fuck out.
Rhursbourg
20-03-2008, 16:38
a relative inexperience at conducting anti-guerrilla campaign also not getting the general support of the local inhabitants not having a general with the certain abilities of Gerald Templer
The Parkus Empire
20-03-2008, 16:39
Partially because the media lied about the "Tet Offensive" among other things. Mostly because the guerrilla tactics were unbearable, and we felt that winning was not worth the cost. Why did Britain lose the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? They could have won both; it was simply to much trouble.
The State of New York
20-03-2008, 16:39
The US pulled out and not very long after the South fell without the support of the US. Politics plain and simple. The US didn't loose on the battlefield but at home with politics. I remember watching the fall of Saigon on TV. Sad to watch.I have to agree with you. I hope the Democrats don't win in November because it will happen again. But yes we lost because we withdrew before we achieved victory.
Ashmoria
20-03-2008, 16:44
I have to agree with you. I hope the Democrats don't win in November because it will happen again. But yes we lost because we withdrew before we achieved victory.

there was no victory to be had. the vietnamese never wanted to be 2 seperate countries.
Pelagoria
20-03-2008, 18:12
How so? The overwhelming support of the NLF by the Vietnamese people (both north and south) proved that they wanted unification under a socialist state, the fact that the south collapsed so quickly after a US pull out proves just how little popular support it had and how much it was just propped up with US troops.


or perhaps because the South was completely relying on the US for military equiptment. The US stopped giving or selling equipment to the South after they pulled out, while the USSR and China still supported the North with massive military aid. The South simply collapsed because their army had no chance fighthing the USSR/China backed North without the US military equipment aid. ´
Also I doubt that the Vietnamese were so happy about the socialist (communist north). Many people fled the South at the end of the war.
mynationsallgetdeleted
20-03-2008, 18:18
im interested in hearing everyones opinion

It's been said before, in different forms and variations, but essentially:

We lost in Vietnam because our political objectives were not fulfilled. Public opinion in the US (actually, only a very vocal minority) pressured enough political leaders so that we could not adequately pursue our goals.

Additionally, the White House too late relinquished micromanagement and let the military handle itself only toward the end. Read: Operations Linebacker I and II were much more successful than Rolling Thunder, and such successes earlier in the war could have prevented the development and entrenchment of NV and VC forces.
Risottia
20-03-2008, 18:30
We won Vietnam Millitarily. US, UK, SV, and Assuie Losses were about a tenth of the NV Millitary dead. We also destroyed vast amounts of NV infastructure. If we hadn't pulled out, we could have won.

Fail...
counterexample:
Germany won USSR Militarily. German, Italian and Rumenian losses were lesser than the Soviet Military dead. Germany also destroyed vast amounts of Soviet infrastructure. If Germany hadn't pulled out, it could have won... too bad the Soviets kicked them Nazis out.

Such "military" victories aren't real victories. A real victory is when you achieve all of your objectives. Since war is just a part of foreign politics, which in turn is a part of politics, you cannot lose "politically" but win "militarily". You can do the reverse (lose militarily and win politically), but a general loss is a military loss, too.
CthulhuFhtagn
20-03-2008, 18:42
Partially because the media lied about the "Tet Offensive" among other things. Mostly because the guerrilla tactics were unbearable, and we felt that winning was not worth the cost. Why did Britain lose the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? They could have won both; it was simply to much trouble.

Britain didn't lose the War of 1812. It was a draw.
The Parkus Empire
20-03-2008, 19:04
Britain didn't lose the War of 1812. It was a draw.

The British were kidnapping United States sailors. As a result, war was declared. Britain launched an invasion, which failed. Peace was made.

American Objective: Curtail British repossession of American sailors. Status: Fulfilled.

British Objective: Bring America to her knees through an invasion. Status: Unfulfilled.

America won, but mainly because Britain had bigger fish to fry (Bonaparte).
Tmutarakhan
20-03-2008, 19:49
And of course there was the Politicians' Objective on both sides, to appear triumphant to the populace. Thanks to Andy Jackson's last-minute (actually past the last minute) victory at New Orleans, the American politicians came off looking great, while to the British public the American front was just a petty sideshow and an unpleasant reminder of a painful failure from a generation earlier.
Llewdor
20-03-2008, 21:01
im interested in hearing everyones opinion
They lost because they didn't try to win. They fought a primarily defensive war throughout, and that can't succeed without an eventual counter-attack. Even the Russians, when they trade space for time, eventually fight back.
Llewdor
20-03-2008, 21:03
The British were kidnapping United States sailors. As a result, war was declared. Britain launched an invasion, which failed. Peace was made.

American Objective: Curtail British repossession of American sailors. Status: Fulfilled.

British Objective: Bring America to her knees through an invasion. Status: Unfulfilled.

America won, but mainly because Britain had bigger fish to fry (Bonaparte).
That's a fair description.

The US wanted to stop the forced conscription of US sailors into the Royal Navy. Even though virtually all of the land battles took place in the United States (the invasion from Canada), and the Presidential Mansion was burned down, the US acheived their primary objective and lost no territory. I call that a win for the US.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 21:26
That's a fair description.

The US wanted to stop the forced conscription of US sailors into the Royal Navy. Even though virtually all of the land battles took place in the United States (the invasion from Canada), and the Presidential Mansion was burned down, the US acheived their primary objective and lost no territory. I call that a win for the US.

We gained territory, if you count Lake Superior. Yeah, it's water, but it's the biggest freshwater lake in the world, or something like that. :p
Knights of Liberty
20-03-2008, 21:29
The British were kidnapping United States sailors. As a result, war was declared. Britain launched an invasion, which failed. Peace was made.

American Objective: Curtail British repossession of American sailors. Status: Fulfilled.

British Objective: Bring America to her knees through an invasion. Status: Unfulfilled.

America won, but mainly because Britain had bigger fish to fry (Bonaparte).

You call burning down our capital a failed invasion?
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 21:30
Because the US armed forces never gained the love of the Vietnamese (unsurprisingly) and totally lost the respect of the US and, indeed, world's population, basically.

No point in killing millions of Vietnamese with nothing to actually gain from doing so.
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 21:34
The British were kidnapping United States sailors. As a result, war was declared. Britain launched an invasion, which failed. Peace was made.

American Objective: Curtail British repossession of American sailors. Status: Fulfilled.

British Objective: Bring America to her knees through an invasion. Status: Unfulfilled.

America won, but mainly because Britain had bigger fish to fry (Bonaparte).
Was a bit of a draw all 'round.

American Objectives : Stop our Shanghai-ing of your sailors : accomplished. Invade Canada to be the bigger men : failed.

British Objective : Beat the shit out of the US : failed. Teach the US that messing with our empire does not stand : accomplished through the burning down of the White House and plenty more of the capital.

Canadian Objects : Push out the Americans : accomplished. Don't take too great losses : York was burnt down, IIRC.

Losses and gains for all, really.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 21:36
You call burning down our capital a failed invasion?

Well, burning down most of Hanoi didn't win the Vietnam war - is it hard to think that the burning of an unoccupied government building in an undefensable swamp might not win a war? :p

Also, let's not forget that the British division that burnt the Whitehouse was hit by a tornado afterward. I think we can guess whose side God was on in all that, yes? ;)
Knights of Liberty
20-03-2008, 21:37
Well, burning down most of Hanoi didn't win the Vietnam war - is it hard to think that the burning of an unoccupied government building in an undefensable swamp might not win a war? :p



Different. We burnt down Hanoi by dropping bombs. Flying overhead is not an invasion.


Marching troops into Washington and burning it the fuck down is;)
Tmutarakhan
20-03-2008, 21:38
We gained territory, if you count Lake Superior. Yeah, it's water, but it's the biggest freshwater lake in the world, or something like that. :p
No, the line through Lake Superior stayed exactly where it had been from 1783.
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 21:38
Also, let's not forget that the British division that burnt the Whitehouse was hit by a tornado afterward. I think we can guess whose side God was on in all that, yes? ;)
...

Ah well, we totally beat the crap out of Napoléon, so there we go. No God-bothering required for that one, too.
The Parkus Empire
20-03-2008, 21:45
Was a bit of a draw all 'round.

American Objectives : Stop our Shanghai-ing of your sailors : accomplished. Invade Canada to be the bigger men : failed.

British Objective : Beat the shit out of the US : failed. Teach the US that messing with our empire does not stand : accomplished through the burning down of the White House and plenty more of the capital.

Canadian Objects : Push out the Americans : accomplished. Don't take too great losses : York was burnt down, IIRC.

Losses and gains for all, really.

If burning down the White House accomplished that goal, then America would have surrendered. Anyway, where did this "messing with our empire" come from? You were messing with us. Under your rules, Americans raping Vietnamese (they now know not to mess with America!) made Vietnam a victory. Britain accomplished none of its goals. It was pestering America like hell, it was told to beat it. The war forced it to.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 21:49
No, the line through Lake Superior stayed exactly where it had been from 1783.

I'll take your word for it, since you're a thousand or so miles close to it. :p I'll never figure out who told me that bit of misinformation, though - that's the annoying part.
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 22:06
If burning down the White House accomplished that goal, then America would have surrendered.
Err not really, no.

There's "making your opponents suffer" and "making them surrender". Two different things, and I think you'll note that the US has generally not tried it on with Canada since.
Anyway, where did this "messing with our empire" come from? You were messing with us.
Oh please. The various donations to Napoleon were seriously cheesing the British Empire off, and the people we were impressing were British citizens first and foremost.
Under your rules, Americans raping Vietnamese (they now know not to mess with America!) made Vietnam a victory.
Not really. The Vietnamese weren't really... well... doing anything which merited bludgeoning, and didn't declare war on the US, it was quite the other way around.

The US was, on the other hand, going against the British trade restrictions, and was generally helping out those we had a war on with. Also, the US started the war, not us. The people we impressed were not Americans, they were British citizens who buggered off to the US, so I hardly see how this was a great cause for a war, let's be honest.

ANYWAY, back to the original point - you started a war and we burnt down Washington, as well as generally shooting up American gunboats and soldiers. We weren't particularly interested in retaking the US, as this was a completely unrealistic goal from 1812-1813, and it was completely unnecessary in 1814 to conscript sailors. So bloodying your noses did the trick, basically.
Tmutarakhan
20-03-2008, 22:08
Different. We burnt down Hanoi by dropping bombs. Flying overhead is not an invasion.


Marching troops into Washington and burning it the fuck down is;)
I'm sure the British would have preferred to bomb Washington from the air, if only they had been able to ;)
Fall of Empire
20-03-2008, 22:13
If burning down the White House accomplished that goal, then America would have surrendered. Anyway, where did this "messing with our empire" come from? You were messing with us. Under your rules, Americans raping Vietnamese (they now know not to mess with America!) made Vietnam a victory. Britain accomplished none of its goals. It was pestering America like hell, it was told to beat it. The war forced it to.

A huge American objective during the war was to retake Canada. That failed, last time I checked. Even though we did manage to stop British conscription, that's only a 50% completion of our aims, an "F" on the grading scale, meriting summer school.
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 22:15
I'm sure the British would have preferred to bomb Washington from the air, if only they had been able to ;)
Yeah, probably.
Llewdor
20-03-2008, 22:17
We gained territory, if you count Lake Superior. Yeah, it's water, but it's the biggest freshwater lake in the world, or something like that. :p
The Treaty of Ghent established status quo ante bellum. That means no change.
The Parkus Empire
20-03-2008, 22:25
Err not really, no.

There's "making your opponents suffer" and "making them surrender".

Both sides suffered throughout the war. The White house hardly can be compared with the many lives and ships lost.

Two different things, and I think you'll note that the US has generally not tried it on with Canada since.

The U.S. has not been at war with Britain since.

Oh please. The various donations to Napoleon were seriously cheesing the British Empire off,

Too bad.

and the people we were impressing were British citizens first and foremost.

Not always. Not always at all.

Not really. The Vietnamese weren't really... well... doing anything which merited bludgeoning, and didn't declare war on the US, it was quite the other way around.

But it meant we won the war, did it not?

The US was, on the other hand, going against the British trade restrictions, and was generally helping out those we had a war on with. Also, the US started the war, not us. The people we impressed were not Americans, they were British citizens who buggered off to the US, so I hardly see how this was a great cause for a war, let's be honest.

They were not all deserters. Many were just Brits who had immigrated to America, yet the British would not recognize that.

ANYWAY, back to the original point - you started a war and we burnt down Washington, as well as generally shooting up American gunboats and soldiers. We weren't particularly interested in retaking the US, as this was a completely unrealistic goal from 1812-1813, and it was completely unnecessary in 1814 to conscript sailors. So bloodying your noses did the trick, basically.

Just like bloodying Vietnam's nose did the trick?
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
20-03-2008, 22:29
The Treaty of Ghent established status quo ante bellum. That means no change.

You don't need to translate something that simple, thanks just the same. :p Well, maybe for the younger generation you would. I'm not sure where I got the idea that we took the lake, again, unless we just had a free pass on crossing the line after the war - maybe I confused the story at some point.
mynationsallgetdeleted
20-03-2008, 22:29
I'm sure the British would have preferred to bomb Washington from the air, if only they had been able to ;)

They did a good job of shelling the crap out of it, which is close enough for then :)
Yootopia
20-03-2008, 22:58
Both sides suffered throughout the war. The White house hardly can be compared with the many lives and ships lost.
The burning down of the White House and Capitol was more symbolic than anything else, really. Vagely important to morale on both sides, but largely a bit of a waste of time.
The U.S. has not been at war with Britain since.
Quite.
Too bad.
Aye, well too bad we shot up the US Merchant Marine who went against the embargo tbqh.
Not always. Not always at all.
Damn right, not always, but we impressed about 5,000 sailors - there were 10,000 recently British citizens in the US Merchant Marine, the majority of impressed sailors could be, and mostly were taken from these men.

Fine, it was often a blow to US sovereignty, but the US was hardly the only country we did it to. (Incidentally, there was, ironically enough, a decree passed to stop impressment passed 3 weeks before the start of the 1812 war, but nobody on that side of the pond had heard about it by the time it all kicked off).
But it meant we won the war, did it not?
No, seeing as that was not the objective at any time in the US' war in Vietnam. The aim was to protect the South and stop the rest of south-east Asia from becoming communist, both of which were failed.
They were not all deserters. Many were just Brits who had immigrated to America, yet the British would not recognize that.
Aye, ah well.
Just like bloodying Vietnam's nose did the trick?
No, again, there was no real point in doing this as Vietnam was never a danger to the US at all, in any way, shape, or form.

The US was a threat between 1812 and 1814 because it was attacking Canada and backing up the French, which is why the British Empire gave it a bit of a kicking.
Boonytopia
20-03-2008, 23:55
As I see it, the USA lost the Vietnam war for two main reasons.

1) Much of the Vietnamese population didn't actually want the USA there, particularly as the war dragged on longer & longer.

2) The USA was constrained by its own rules of engagement & didn't wage a total war, as it had in WW2 for instance.
Sel Appa
21-03-2008, 00:46
Because they didn't win it.
The Parkus Empire
21-03-2008, 00:56
The burning down of the White House and Capitol was more symbolic than anything else, really. Vagely important to morale on both sides, but largely a bit of a waste of time.

Yet according to you, it taught "the US that messing with our empire does not stand".

Quite.

We have not been harassed since.


Aye, well too bad we shot up the US Merchant Marine who went against the embargo tbqh.

Just because Britain held a grudge against Napoléon, does not justify cutting-off part of the U.S. economy.

Damn right, not always, but we impressed about 5,000 sailors - there were 10,000 recently British citizens in the US Merchant Marine, the majority of impressed sailors could be, and mostly were taken from these men.

American citizens. Some were deserters, true; but many had become Americans before partaking of service to your navy.

Fine, it was often a blow to US sovereignty, but the US was hardly the only country we did it to.

Therefor?

(Incidentally, there was, ironically enough, a decree passed to stop impressment passed 3 weeks before the start of the 1812 war, but nobody on that side of the pond had heard about it by the time it all kicked off).

Britain could have informed us and saved a lot of trouble.

No, seeing as that was not the objective at any time in the US' war in Vietnam. The aim was to protect the South and stop the rest of south-east Asia from becoming communist, both of which were failed.

So Britain's objective was to prevent America from being friendly with Bonaparte. Bonaparte fell from power during the war, so you can hardly say that the fighting fulfilled its purpose.

Aye, ah well.

Simply to point-out who was messing with whom.

No, again, there was no real point in doing this as Vietnam was never a danger to the US at all, in any way, shape, or form.


We were not arguing about the justification of the wars; we were debating upon what is considered victory.

The US was a threat between 1812 and 1814 because it was attacking Canada and backing up the French,

After the British provoked us.

which is why the British Empire gave it a bit of a kicking.

Kicking? How, exactly? They made it inland, then withdrew.
Tmutarakhan
21-03-2008, 00:58
Britain could have informed us and saved a lot of trouble.
Telephone connections were so unreliable in those days.
The Parkus Empire
21-03-2008, 01:15
Telephone connections were so unreliable in those days.

Hmm. Then how was war ever declared?
Non Aligned States
21-03-2008, 01:22
I'm sure the British would have preferred to bomb Washington from the air, if only they had been able to ;)

As I understand it, the British were very, for an act of arson, quite well, civilized about it. They got the populace out, allowed some important stuff to be taken out, then only burned it down.

You can't do that with air dropped bombs, and if total destruction was their goal, they would have set fires the moment their pockets were full of loot, not bothering to evacuate anyone.
Yootopia
21-03-2008, 01:22
Yet according to you, it taught "the US that messing with our empire does not stand".
Aye, sorta did, really.
We have not been harassed since.
And nor have we. It's quite nice, really.
Just because Britain held a grudge against Napoléon, does not justify cutting-off part of the U.S. economy.
Wasn't just a grudge, we actually had a war going on. Which is why we did what we did.
American citizens. Some were deserters, true; but many had become Americans before partaking of service to your navy.
Aww :(
Therefor?
Therefore they should have sucked it up and somewhat understood the context of the situation, perhaps?
Britain could have informed us and saved a lot of trouble.
... you realise that we couldn't just send your congress a fax, right?

And that sailing across the Atlantic takes quite a while, aye?

That's why the news didn't get there in time to stop the war from going on.
So Britain's objective was to prevent America from being friendly with Bonaparte. Bonaparte fell from power during the war, so you can hardly say that the fighting fulfilled its purpose.
No, it wasn't.

Britain's objective was basically to defend their territories in Canada and then do a bit of damage to the US after the US declared war on us...
Simply to point-out who was messing with whom.
Aye, seriously, it didn't merit a war, especially since some of the pressganged sailors were released on appeal.
We were not arguing about the justification of the wars; we were debating upon what is considered victory.
The two are hardly seperate entities, now, are they?
After the British provoked us.
Macht nichts, I thought you said we're not arguing about justification, no?
Kicking? How, exactly? They made it inland, then withdrew.
After burning down the public buildings of Washington, which is quite an effort, and basically cutting external trade off for 3 straight years.
Yootopia
21-03-2008, 01:25
As I understand it, the British were very, for an act of arson, quite well, civilized about it. They got the populace out, allowed some important stuff to be taken out, then only burned it down.
Quite. We also didn't burn down the offices of the National Intelligencer paper, because it might have set fire to the nearby houses. So we removed it brick by brick, and took every copy of their letter "C" so they couldn't insult Admiral Cockburn any more :)
Llewdor
21-03-2008, 02:02
As I understand it, the British were very, for an act of arson, quite well, civilized about it. They got the populace out, allowed some important stuff to be taken out, then only burned it down.

You can't do that with air dropped bombs, and if total destruction was their goal, they would have set fires the moment their pockets were full of loot, not bothering to evacuate anyone.
In fact, the British were persuaded by a patent clerk not to burn down the patent office because the documents it contained were too important.
Llewdor
21-03-2008, 02:02
You don't need to translate something that simple, thanks just the same. :p
You could be 14. I don't know.
Shlarg
21-03-2008, 02:27
why do you think america lost the vietnam war?

You can't win a war when you can't tell who is your enemy or your friend.
The Phoenix Milita
21-03-2008, 02:45
Because of France. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
21-03-2008, 02:47
Because they got tangled up in something that didn´t concern them and got they´re butts burned in the process...:rolleyes:
Wait, sorry... but they did it again.
Iraq!!:eek:
Yootopia
21-03-2008, 03:05
Because of France. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Bullshit. The first Indochina war in no way led to the defeat of the US in the second one.
Mad hatters in jeans
21-03-2008, 03:30
Because they didn't win it.

:p
I'm not sure that's the answer the OP is asking for, but it nonetheless saves a fair bit of time looking it up.
Al-Karhid
21-03-2008, 19:35
i know ive missed all the stuff thats been sed since the first page...but ill state my point on the subject

The u.s never lost the vietnam war
tho its true our goal wasnt accomplished, during the fighting it was the north vietnamese that came to us and wanted the treaty for peace, we signed it, and pulled out most of our forces.
It was only after the bulk of our troops left that the nva broke the treaty and attacked the south again and, with our forces basicly gone, were able to take it.
back to our goal--yes, it was nevr realised, but still they admited defeat in the treaty, but we didnt press in it for the dissolution of north vietnam, alowing them to attack after we were gone......

so basicly we won
Yootopia
21-03-2008, 19:43
back to our goal--yes, it was nevr realised, but still they admited defeat in the treaty, but we didnt press in it for the dissolution of north vietnam, alowing them to attack after we were gone......

so basicly we won
...

"We totally failed in our objectives but won"

What the hell is that? The state that the US was protecting completely collapsed and turned communist. Aye, way to win right there...
Earth University
21-03-2008, 19:55
Do you really think the US administration was so naïve that they don't know that North Vietnam was going to invade South as soon as they leave ?

Saying something is not the same thing than thinking it, and absolutly not meaning it's true...

USA needed to save the appearances, North Vietnam gave that to them and in return get the reunification...

In France also we have lots of people saying that " the military won but the politics gave up ", about Algeria and Indochina...I never trusted them.

The Germans were saying the same thing at the end of World War One, even if in reality, at the end of 1918, they were absolutly crushed.

Don't let your pride speaking before you're brain.
Holendel
21-03-2008, 20:09
We were fighting a war half way across the world which is alot harder and expensive than doing it just next door. We were also facing insurgents from other countries in south-east asia and unofficially were fighting against soldiers from China and the enemy (rumor with this next one) was being supplied with arms and equiptment from Russia. We also were backed into a corner, had our backs to the sea, had too much borders to watch, were fighting in terrain we were unfamiliar with, and fighting against an enemy who was using guerilla warfare tactics which we had not encountered before and were unprepared to fight against. We also could not tell friend from foe unless they were lined up in a row and sporting their military insignia. And to top it off, Americans have a bad habit of wanting to tuck tail and run from a war when we start losing men. We live for war but we've lost the true meaning of war. People die, that's what war is all about. All in all we didn't have a chance in hell.

We may have lost but we caused more than our fair share of damage and will be remembered for a long time to come.
greed and death
21-03-2008, 20:14
The reason south Vietnam fell and the US was unwillingness of the US to give support is the impeachment of Nixon. Before Nixon was impeached he made it clear he would level north Vietnamese cities and level the parts of Cambodia and Laos that the VC used to resupply(Ho Chi Min trail). Also the other factor was funding the soviets and china still gave over 1 billion dollars of funding to the north (revolutionaries in the south) where as domestic issues made the US un willing to supply continue funding the south.

If the funding had never dried up in the South, and the presidential office had not been weakened I do not think the North Vietnamese would have violated the Paris peace accords to the extent they did.
1010102
21-03-2008, 20:19
The Germans were saying the same thing at the end of World War One, even if in reality, at the end of 1918, they were absolutly crushed.

Don't let your pride speaking before you're brain.

They were crushed on the western front yes, but on the eastern front, they were winning. The Russians gave up a crap load of land in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk). But all of this land was give back after the war in various other treaties with Germany by the Allies.
Celtlund II
21-03-2008, 20:37
im interested in hearing everyones opinion

The politicians would not let the military do their job. We were not allowed to go into North Vietnam. We were not allowed to destroy North Vietnam's production and importation of weapons. When Nixon finally allowed us to bomb the North it was to late. The bombing brought them back to the peace table so he stopped it, but if it had continued the bombing he could have pushed for surrender.

If you send the military into a war they must be allowed to fight the war. Politicians have no right telling the military they must fight with one hand tied behind their back.
1010102
21-03-2008, 20:42
The politicians would not let the military do their job. We were not allowed to go into North Vietnam. We were not allowed to destroy North Vietnam's production and importation of weapons. When Nixon finally allowed us to bomb the North it was to late. The bombing brought them back to the peace table so he stopped it, but if it had continued the bombing he could have pushed for surrender.

If you send the military into a war they must be allowed to fight the war. Politicians have no right telling the military they must fight with one hand tied behind their back.

Damn right.
Dyakovo
22-03-2008, 00:49
Simply put?

1) The rules of engagement eliminated any possibility of the military being able to harm NVA supplies/supply lines and resources.

2) The civilian population was opposed to our presence.
Trotskylvania
22-03-2008, 01:00
If you send the military into a war they must be allowed to fight the war. Politicians have no right telling the military they must fight with one hand tied behind their back.

They most certainly do have that right. The military must obey the civilian government. If it does not, than the military is the law. Plain and simple

I have a hard time buying the line that the military was "restricted" by politicians at home when the air force and navy had carte blanche to target civilian population centers in the South. The war was not fought against North Vietnam, it was fought against the peasantry of South Vietnam.
Pacific2
22-03-2008, 13:18
There are many reasons:

- World and domestic opinion turned against the war
- The Tet-charges were quite effective
- Guerrila is very hard to beat
- the US gvt. turned their head to the Middle East, with Israel at war with some Arab countries
- There was reason to believe countries like Thailand and Indonesia were not likely to become communist.
Earth University
22-03-2008, 16:15
I'm also certain the US gov. knew that the Vietnamese weren't communists in reality.

After all, just after the reunification, they first invaded Cambodgia and pushed out Pol-Pôt ( wich was a pretty good move for manking), then they fought a war with China.

One thing we have not to forget is that, yes, they were helped by USSR and China, but those guys were fighting against the US Army !
So, yes they have lots of ressources, but I don't think they had more than you.

How would you fight an army who is superior to you on every side ( including the total number of soldiers, with half a million GI's plus the SVA, I don't think the Viet-Nim were even superior on a numerical perspective )

And, at the end, we must not forget that the wars of the Cold War were "propagand war", the victory as to be mediatic, not simply military.

About the losses: USA is a very interesting country on this point of view, you have the only public opinion who could truly think that a war could be fought without losing men, and that losing more soldiers than the ennemy means defeat...but in World War II, on the European front, you lost more soldiers than the German have lost against US Army, even with logistical and air superiority, but did Germany won the war ?

PS: for the Brest-Litovsk treaty, yes Germany had already won on the East with the October Revolution in Russia, but when they were defeated in 1918 it was with full strenght, having moved the eastern armies to the Western front.
Psychotic Mongooses
22-03-2008, 16:43
The politicians would not let the military do their job. We were not allowed to go into North Vietnam. We were not allowed to destroy North Vietnam's production and importation of weapons. When Nixon finally allowed us to bomb the North it was to late. The bombing brought them back to the peace table so he stopped it, but if it had continued the bombing he could have pushed for surrender.

If you send the military into a war they must be allowed to fight the war. Politicians have no right telling the military they must fight with one hand tied behind their back.

And here I was thinking that Fascism was out of fashion.
Ferrous Oxide
22-03-2008, 17:15
How so? The overwhelming support of the NLF by the Vietnamese people (both north and south) proved that they wanted unification under a socialist state, the fact that the south collapsed so quickly after a US pull out proves just how little popular support it had and how much it was just propped up with US troops.

Really? So why does Australia have a MASSIVE Vietnamese population today?
Errinundera
22-03-2008, 18:27
We may have lost but we caused more than our fair share of damage and will be remembered for a long time to come.

Whoa! Nasteeee. Reminds me of Saddam Hussein after Kuwait and the Indonesians after the Timorese voted for independence.

Really? So why does Australia have a MASSIVE Vietnamese population today?

Good thing too. They've made a fantastic contribution to all our lives.

If you send the military into a war they must be allowed to fight the war. Politicians have no right telling the military they must fight with one hand tied behind their back.

In a democracy, where re-election is foremost in the mind of the political masters, military strategy will always be subordinated to political considerations. Unless, of course you'd have preferred a military coup at home.

They were crushed on the western front yes, but on the eastern front, they were winning.
Yes, they had won on the eastern front. That lead to a race for the Germans to get their divisions to the western front to overwhelm the French and English before the "doughboys" arrived from America. They lost the race, even though the Americans weren't significantly involved in fighting. Essentially, the German morale collapsed.
Ferrous Oxide
22-03-2008, 18:55
Good thing too. They've made a fantastic contribution to all our lives.

...

It's been so-so. Food's decent, but ethnic profiling be damned; they really can't drive that good.
Domici
22-03-2008, 19:34
im interested in hearing everyones opinion

Because politicians lied us into trying to conquer a country that we didn't want.

It would be like if a slick salesman convinced you to take out a mortgage to buy a house without checking it out.

Then you take your family there. There's a funny smell. The pipes leak. The heat keeps breaking down.

But you feel like a schmuck for being suckered, and you know that one one's going to buy this shit stack, so you tell your family that it just needs a little work.

So you hire contractors to get the dead animals out of the walls, but it turns out the support beams are rotted. You replace the oil burner, but it doesn't help because it turns out the pipes are corroded.

Eventually, you leave and get an apartment, but when you do the math, it works out better to let the bank foreclose than to try to salvage the house.

It doesn't mean that you weren't financially qualified to own a home. It means that the house you got was a horrible one that no one should have gone after.

We didn't "lose" the Vietnam war in the conventional sense. We just got off a sinking ship.
Xenophobialand
22-03-2008, 20:23
im interested in hearing everyones opinion

Domici's post above got 90% of the way there, but the remainder is simply that our objective was initially to support French colonial efforts against a perceived communist threat. Later on, it was to support a regime until it had time to consolidate a mandate from the people. Neither of these things turned out to be successful: the Vietnamese did not want the French in their territory, they wanted a unified Vietnam, in the end they preferred Ho Chi Minh's leadership, and they were far more nationalistic than communist in the final analysis, which is why the predicted domino collapse of Southeast Asia never panned out.

We didn't understand the facts on the ground, we didn't appreciate the will of the Vietnamese people, and we supported a brutal dictator who never consolidated any kind of legitemacy to his rule. The fact that we lost really ought not be so surprising.
Ashmoria
22-03-2008, 20:27
Domici's post above got 90% of the way there, but the remainder is simply that our objective was initially to support French colonial efforts against a perceived communist threat. Later on, it was to support a regime until it had time to consolidate a mandate from the people. Neither of these things turned out to be successful: the Vietnamese did not want the French in their territory, they wanted a unified Vietnam, in the end they preferred Ho Chi Minh's leadership, and they were far more nationalistic than communist in the final analysis, which is why the predicted domino collapse of Southeast Asia never panned out.

We didn't understand the facts on the ground, we didn't appreciate the will of the Vietnamese people, and we supported a brutal dictator who never consolidated any kind of legitemacy to his rule. The fact that we lost really ought not be so surprising.

the fact that we lost should be to our credit. after all if we had untied the military's hands as some have suggested we should have we could have obliterated a nation of people who were never our enemies.
Xenophobialand
22-03-2008, 20:39
the fact that we lost should be to our credit. after all if we had untied the military's hands as some have suggested we should have we could have obliterated a nation of people who were never our enemies.

Well, to be fair, converting people by the sword to complete acceptance of another nation's tenets has been done before. I mean, look at all the great work being done in Lebanon (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56637).
Kontor
22-03-2008, 20:41
Because the American population hated it and the politicians kept getting in the way.