Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subdeacon Joe

Viet Nam - We Actually Won

Recommended Posts

An Interesting Perspective

 

Objectives:

 

Quote

 

In order to determine who won and who lost the war it asks three questions
(1) what was the goals of the involved parties.
(2) What price did they have to pay?
(3) The overall assessment of the war.

 
 

A- Goals of Involved Parties

1. According to the Pentagon Papers (Pentagon Papers is a nearly 4,000-page top-secret Pentagon study of US government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1967. The document was declassified on May 5, 2011, and has been on display at the Library of President Nixon in California. ), the US got involved in the Vietnam War to encompass Communist China, not to help defend South Viet Nam’s independence, which was the ruse for the US containment strategy at the time.

2. The North Vietnam’s goal was to “liberate” South Viet Nam by force and to use it as a springboard to spread International Communism throughout Southeast Asia, which was also Ho Chi Minh’s goal since 1932 when he was the leader of the Indochinese Communist Party. Le Duan, Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), who was believed to have said, “We fight the Americans for the USSR and China”, must have followed this goal to the letter. If so, the statement represented the true mission of the Communist leaders.

3. The goal of the South Vietnamese leaders was to defend the country’s independence and sovereignty. Since the North Vietnamese Communists enjoyed maximum supports from the USSR, China, the Eastern European Communist Block, and even Cuba, South Viet Nam had no other choice but accepted assistances from the United States and other capitalist countries to fight against the Communist invasion.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

Quote

1. Communist China did not spread communism beyond Vietnam [Laos and Cambodia]. Therefore the USA won.

(discussion of Domino Theory omitted)

2. North Vietnam was a loser, because they did not spread communism. They did win one goal of getting control of South Vietnam.
3. Republic of Vietnam was the loser because it surrendered unconditionally on April 30, 1975.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Yeah, sure. ;)

 

 

In the realm of what I thought you would say.  Actually, I was expecting more along the lines of "In a pig's arse we did."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running off with your Tail between your legs does not constitute winning in my book.  I did three tours.  FOR WHAT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all 3 statements above

I turn 16 2 weeks after we left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sat in the operations center of 2nd Field Force VietNam for over 11 months.  Could we have won easily? Yes.

Were we allow to? NO

An easy for instance was the nightly traffic on Highway one which ran on the Laos and Cambodian side of the border with South Vietnam.  It carried vast volumes of men and material every night, completely safe from our intervention because of the, in many cases, less than 100 yards of Cambodian and Laotian soil that protected them.

Very sore point with me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An American general (can't recall who) sat down with NVA General Giap.  American general said to Giap, "You never beat us in a single standup battle!"  Replied Gen. Giap,"Yes, but that was immaterial!"  It wasn't Giap and the VC/NVA that defeated the U.S.  It was Lyndon Johnson, Robert MacNamara and Walter Cronkite, and the U.S. generals who didn't resign in protest over the micro-managing, no-win directives coming from the White House! :angry::angry::angry:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Noz said:

I sat in the operations center of 2nd Field Force VietNam for over 11 months.  Could we have won easily? Yes.

Were we allow to? NO

An easy for instance was the nightly traffic on Highway one which ran on the Laos and Cambodian side of the border with South Vietnam.  It carried vast volumes of men and material every night, completely safe from our intervention because of the, in many cases, less than 100 yards of Cambodian and Laotian soil that protected them.

Very sore point with me!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

An American general (can't recall who) sat down with NVA General Giap.  American general said to Giap, "You never beat us in a single standup battle!"  Replied Gen. Giap,"Yes, but that was immaterial!"  It wasn't Giap and the VC/NVA that defeated the U.S.  It was Lyndon Johnson, Robert MacNamara and Walter Cronkite, and the U.S. generals who didn't resign in protest over the micro-managing, no-win directives coming from the White House! :angry::angry::angry:  

 

 

Mostly that one.  Once the press decided it didn't like that war and started shaping public opinion there was no way the politicians could allow a victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way.  If we had "won" that war, we would have had yet another orphan to feed over the last 40 years.   We were pretty much totally supporting the South Vietnamese government while we were there.  After we left, and the North took over, we saved a lot of money.   Ok, so I tried to find the silver lining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasting 50,000+ AMERICAN LIVES for political cheesecake is criminal in my book.

 

IMHO as long as we continue to engage in combat with adversaries and have no plan or desire to defeat and WIN, 

we will have these flare ups to deal with on a regular basis. 

 

But then again nobody asked me, and most don't care for my opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revisionist history. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not hearing much about what is going on over in the Sandbox.Hope it is a good sign.Maybe our boys are able to do the job they were trained to do.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                   Largo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid the Mid east is even more complicated than Vietnam. I fear any success will neither be easily accomplished nor permanent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Viet Nam - We Actually Won

 

Really... why don'cha ask the 58K men... who died... for nothing.  Or their families.  Or the survivors who suffer from a callous chemical.

 

Not bein' critical of you particularly... below-decon... just not happy with any kind of rational justification.

 

Them boys... should not have died.

 

ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tennessee Stud said:

 

Really... why don'cha ask the 58K men... who died... for nothing.  Or their families.  Or the survivors who suffer from a callous chemical.

 

Not bein' critical of you particularly... below-decon... just not happy with any kind of rational justification.

 

Them boys... should not have died.

 

ts

 

Stud,   I was gonna post the same thing.

Mine was more like........ 'Sure we won........tell that to all those who have passed and those who are still suffering from AO'.

 

Of course, dropping all that crap to kill some foliage was safe on our soldiers.

 

..........Widder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the T shirt says, "We were winning when I left".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Like the T shirt says, "We were winning when I left".

 

 

Well... Captain... you were... but we weren't.

 

ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did force them to sign a peace treaty that they did not like. 

That we did not enforce the terms of that treaty, and that we cut off the supply of arms and AMMUNITION to South Vietnam was a deplorable act by our government.

On a personal level:

I was sent to fight people I did not hate

by a government that did not want to win the war

for people who spit on me when I returned.

 

Duffield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... Duffield... at least yore an honest broker.  Ya know.. there was a lot more... that what we suffered.

 

Consider... Pol Pot.

 

think 'bout that a-hole... Plaster... makin' mucho bucks and TV appearences.  (I hate that guy.)

 

Rumor has it... over in Cambodia... Plaster would come upon villages with children... all dead... stacked-up like cordwood.  In neat lil' rows.  And Plaster would not even blink an eye.  No emotion... absolutely none.  His men would show emotion... severe sadness... but not him.  Cold as I have ever met... includin' Lil' Nicky.  (BTW... I was never in the military... nor claim to be.)

 

The effects are still felt today... we don't have any more resolve... to protect ourselves.

 

May the Almighty... save us all.

 

ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you have to mention that Bob??  The Middle East??  How many years we've been flushing our troops down the toilette??  Dragged into a religious conflict we can't win short of  Gennoacide.  The different religious factions been killing each other for several thousands of years.  Not going to change any time soon.  Now Rump wants to send in more machine-gun fodder.  FOR WHAT??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Did you have to mention that Bob??  The Middle East??  How many years we've been flushing our troops down the toilette??  Dragged into a religious conflict we can't win short of  Gennoacide.  The different religious factions been killing each other for several thousands of years.  Not going to change any time soon.  Now Rump wants to send in more machine-gun fodder.  FOR WHAT??

Largo Casy mentioned it. I just responded.

Not wanting to start a political discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tennessee Stud said:

 

 

Well... Captain... you were... but we weren't.

 

ts

When I say "we" of course, I mean the guys doing the fighting. WEdon't fight for politics, religion, mom's apple pie or freedom. We just fight for the guy next to us. And we kicked ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war did bring out the true colors of some celebrities...... like Hanoi Jane. 

 

..........Widder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, this series might be interesting if I can bear to watch it.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/home/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Utah Bob #35998 said:

When I say "we" of course, I mean the guys doing the fighting. WEdon't fight for politics, religion, mom's apple pie or freedom. We just fight for the guy next to us. And we kicked ass.

 

Nobody can dispute that.  We have been... are... and will be... the best the world has ever seen.  Nobody doubts it. 

 

And you... are one of the greatest patriots this forum has ever seen.

 

We ALL... applaud you... and love ya like the patriot you are.

 

ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

I'm afraid the Mid east is even more complicated than Vietnam. I fear any success will neither be easily accomplished nor permanent.

 

 

 

A 3500 year-old family feud with a 1400 year old theocratic conquest ideological war layered on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Tennessee Stud said:

 

Nobody can dispute that.  We have been... are... and will be... the best the world has ever seen.  Nobody doubts it. 

 

And you... are one of the greatest patriots this forum has ever seen.

 

We ALL... applaud you... and love ya like the patriot you are.

 

ts

Probably the most popular phrase used by the troops in Vietnam was simply, "It don't mean nothin". Heard it hundreds of times. Response was usually "Right on" (well, it Was the sixties). ;)

But I don't consider myself a patriot. I reserve the word for greater men than I.

Washington, Patrick Henry, Jefferson et al. They were the ones who risked everything for a grand idea.

It disturbs me when I see them vilified these days by those who are not worthy to breathe the same air. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Revisionist history. ;)

 

 

Revisionist?  Or sophistry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Revisionist?  Or sophistry?

Little of both I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the opinion from a friend I respect, a veteran from Sandbox 1, that sometimes it is just as important to be willing to fight as to win.  In his opinion, the fact that the US was willing to commit lives and resources in South Viet Nam was one of the reasons the Berlin Wall came down years later.

 

I thought it was an interesting perspective from a person who had put his life on the line in Iraq.  I am not a veteran nor a professional historian, but I wonder if his viewpoint has merit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Noz said:

I sat in the operations center of 2nd Field Force VietNam for over 11 months.  Could we have won easily? Yes.

Were we allow to? NO

An easy for instance was the nightly traffic on Highway one which ran on the Laos and Cambodian side of the border with South Vietnam.  It carried vast volumes of men and material every night, completely safe from our intervention because of the, in many cases, less than 100 yards of Cambodian and Laotian soil that protected them.

Very sore point with me!

Noz.  I was reassigned to 2nd Field Force artillery HQ when the 25th ID redeployed to Hawaii in Dec 1970.  Spent 13 hour nights in the artillery bunker.  Not much went on.  All the liasing with the ARVN went on in Tay Ninh; because, the ARVN were in Cambodia after we left.  Got tired of the boredom & the insanity of spit shining jungle boots & wearing starched fatigues.  After a month I moved to Tay Ninh to do the same thing.  In Tay Ninh I had daily contact with the ARVN.  What I remember was, like us their bunkers had AC; however, it was too cold for them so rather than raising the temp. setpoint they wore field jackets.  I was on duty when the helicopter carrying the POTRVN & several US journalist crashed on takeoff killing all on board.  They had flown to Tay Ninh on a USA UH1 & switched to ARVN UH1 to tour FSB's in Cambodia.  I left Vietnam within days of the 2nd Field Force was deactivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.