Tango01 | 12 Nov 2014 11:12 p.m. PST |
"Over the decades that have passed since the Vietnam War, there has been a growing movement to turn that history into a more comforting narrative. The revisionist histories come in different versions, but broadly speaking they present the American war in Vietnam as honorable and well fought, rather than a great national mistake. In this view, blame for the South Vietnam's ultimate defeat falls on faint-hearted politicians, or the antiwar movement, or Congress, or journalists, or all of the above — just about anywhere, in fact, except on U.S. policy, the military leadership that carried it out, or the ally we sought to support. The proponents of that narrative — and those who believe it — should read this book. Frank Scotton, the author of Uphill Battle, is unusually qualified to explain the Vietnam failure. Fluent in Vietnamese, for many years he was closer than nearly all other Americans to Vietnamese life in the countryside where the war was fought. At the same time, over those years he came to know a remarkable range of South Vietnamese military commanders and other significant figures. Uphill Battle is a personal account, not a history, but the breadth of the author's first-hand observations and experience makes a completely convincing case for his central thesis: that the war was lost because of the incompetence and political weakness of the South Vietnamese leadership. Scotton shows that the military-dominated Saigon government was never able to mobilize enough popular support or use its superior manpower and weapons effectively enough to meet the challenge of a far less well-armed but more disciplined, tenacious and politically skilled enemy. Just as convincingly, he shows that the United States, for all its military power, never grasped the true nature of the war, consistently deluded itself about what it was accomplishing, and never found a way to remedy its ally's fatal flaws…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
doug redshirt | 13 Nov 2014 6:16 a.m. PST |
Its not South of China anymore? |
Gaz0045 | 13 Nov 2014 7:16 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 13 Nov 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Yep … like the Iraqis with ISIS … the US/[SEATO in the RVN] furnished weapons, training, etc. … However, even the ARVN had some units that fought … Also almost like the Kurds in Iraq. Some of the Best fighters were 'yards … not the ARVN regulars … |
HistoryPhD | 13 Nov 2014 7:40 a.m. PST |
The South Vietnamese government and military leadership was so breathtakingly corrupt that had we successfully held off North Vietnam, The Saigon government could not have long endured in any case |
Landorl | 13 Nov 2014 7:58 a.m. PST |
A lot of times we forget that it wasn't an American war, but rather a war fought to help a nation. Unfortunately, that nation was a horribly inept nation. |
Pizzagrenadier | 13 Nov 2014 8:20 a.m. PST |
Who lost in Vietnam? Everyone. |
ScottS | 13 Nov 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
|
GarrisonMiniatures | 13 Nov 2014 8:51 a.m. PST |
'A lot of times we forget that it wasn't an American war, but rather a war fought to help a nation' No, it was a war America took on because it wanted to stop the spread of Communism. |
John the OFM | 13 Nov 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
I always like to remember what Pickett said when he was asked the same type of question about Gettysburg. "I always think the Yankees had a lot to do with it." This topic begs the question that it was ours to lose. |
Winston Smith | 13 Nov 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
Please not the OFM's proper use of "begging the question". |
emckinney | 13 Nov 2014 10:14 a.m. PST |
Must-reads: War Comes to Long An link (Researched on the ground during the war) Setup: What the Air Force Did in Vietnam and Why link (The story about what "dropped bombs on suspected truck parks" really meant is hilarious and produces a little faith in humanity.) The Eleven Days of Christmas: America's Last Vietnam Battle link The stupidity of SAC is laid bare in all of its glory--seriously, how do you push Air Force officers to the brink of mutiny? |
javelin98 | 13 Nov 2014 10:42 a.m. PST |
Sorry, I'm the one who lost it. It's weird, because I thought I left it on the kitchen table, but it just isn't there now. I may have to check under the couch; the cat likes to drag various odds and ends under there for reasons which completely escape me. |
Pizzagrenadier | 13 Nov 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
You lost Vietnam? I have a free Tibet you can have. |
vtsaogames | 13 Nov 2014 11:36 a.m. PST |
Wait, it was under my bed last I looked, where I kept China… |
Weasel | 13 Nov 2014 11:47 a.m. PST |
It's down the I5, then take a right turn after the Starbucks. You can't miss it. |
ScottS | 13 Nov 2014 12:14 p.m. PST |
No, it was a war America took on because it wanted to stop the spread of Communism. I think that was the problem – it was all of those things, and more. A civil war, a war for independence, a war to stop communism. With all of those things going on at once no wonder there was no easy solution. |
The Gray Ghost | 13 Nov 2014 12:31 p.m. PST |
we should simply stop getting involved with situations that don't have easy solutions |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Nov 2014 1:25 p.m. PST |
we should simply stop getting involved with situations that don't have easy solutions Problem is that there's NOT ONE SINGLE SITUATION that has an easy solution. The closest the US got to an "easy solution" was when we told Mao to go ahead and finish his civil war in 1949. Problem was, by the time Mao had pulled together enough troops and ships, some Stalin-backed idiot by the name of Kim had invaded South Korea and ZOMG!! Commies are invading everywhere!!! |
Legion 4 | 13 Nov 2014 1:44 p.m. PST |
Yes, it appeared with Mao being successful in China and then the Korean War. Add things like the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis, etc. It appeared to the West, that, "them sneaky Russkies is everywhere !" Hence the US did not want the RVN to go the way of China or what we saw in the division of Korea. And even Germany, etc. … It made some sense at the time, with the Domino Theory, etc. … but with hindsight being 20/20 … well you know how that works. |
Dal Gavan | 13 Nov 2014 3:41 p.m. PST |
No, it was a war America took on because it wanted to stop the spread of Communism. Except that the spread of communism had already been effectively stopped in SE Asia, despite NVN, PRC and USSR best efforts. The communist insurgents in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Cambodia had been all reduced to near impotence. In Laos the Pathet Lao were more active, but not getting the popular support they needed to overthrow the government. Even Indonesia's incursions into Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore had been contained (though Indonesia was acting from a nationalist agenda, rather than a communist one- with very loose ties with the USSR, Indonesia was never a communist puppet state). In Thailand the CPT was an irrelevance, consisting mainly of academics. Then the US/SEATO military intervention ramped up in 1965….. The war in Viet Nam and the later incursions in Cambodia gave new life to the Pathet Lao and the CPK (leading to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge), allowing them to eventually take power in those countries. It also sparked up the CPM and MCP in Malaysia again (Chin Peng finally surrendered in 1989) and boosted membership, and hence military activity, of the TPF (later PLAT). Communist activity in the Philippines also increased, even though the NPA really only had nuisance value. If stopping communist aggression was the US' war aim (rather than the support of a puppet government, which occupied a strategically vital geographic location) then the US/SEATO was soundly (and strategically) defeated. The Vietnam War facilitated the expansion of communism in SE Asia by re-awakening dormant communist cells in a number of countries, which led to the fall of three countries to communist dictatorships- Laos, Cambodia and RVN. Cheers. Dal. |
Pizzagrenadier | 13 Nov 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
Three communist regimes who went to war with each other and China almost as soon as the west pulled out. Which is why I say everyone lost. Even after they got what they wanted, they turned the region into a violent backwater for decades. |
cavcrazy | 13 Nov 2014 4:59 p.m. PST |
My Father was a Viet Nam veteran, I only heard him talk about it twice. I asked him if we (America) lost Viet Nam, his face got very hard and he stated, "Well I didn't lose Viet Nam!" |
Only Warlock | 13 Nov 2014 8:27 p.m. PST |
North Vietnamese General Giap said in a postwar interview that they were ready to sue for peace after the Tet offensive due to their murderous losses (it was their last throw of the dice). He said Cronkite's announcement that the war was lost convinced them to wait it out. |
Dal Gavan | 13 Nov 2014 8:55 p.m. PST |
PG, agreed. cavcrazy, My Father was a Viet Nam veteran, I only heard him talk about it twice. I asked him if we (America) lost Viet Nam, his face got very hard and he stated, "Well I didn't lose Viet Nam!" Your dad was right, too. It wasn't a lack of courage from those doing the fighting, it was a lack of will among the political leaders of all the SEATO nations involved. Limited wars, such as Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan from 1979, etc, aren't so much won or lost by the soldiers, they're won or lost by politicians. In the end it's the will to continue the fight that decides who wins, so whoever has the strongest will- which usually means the greatest motivations- lasts last the distance, while the other side finds an excuse to quit the field. That doesn't mean to say that an army, particularly an army fighting in a foreign land, just needs the will to win a limited war. But without the will to keep fighting, they will definitely lose. OW, I don't think it was Cronkite (who isn't/wasn't all that well known outside the US, so I doubt Giap was watching him or reading his statements), more likely it was the negotiations at the Paris Conference, from '69, and the knowledge of the anti-war movements around the world. By then Hanoi was well aware of the strong opposition to continuing the war and the political ramifications of the various peace marches. The need for the US and RVN to try to build a peace agreement quickly would also have been noted. All NVN had to do was wait- domestic political necessities would see the SEATO nations abandon RVN. Just as they did. Cheers. Dal. |
Legion 4 | 14 Nov 2014 9:40 a.m. PST |
Warlock … I read the same but was told here, that Giap never said. I'm not sure either way. However, I wonder if the US increased bombing of the North after and at the same pace as it was during Operation Linebacker & Linebacker II … link link |
Gennorm | 14 Nov 2014 12:44 p.m. PST |
The VC – no threat to the North Vietnamese after Tet. Also I visited Saigon in 1999 (few called it HCMC) it was not a Communist city. They ended up with an authoritarian capitalist regime, so not much different to what they'd have had if the South had won. |
dsfrank | 14 Nov 2014 1:04 p.m. PST |
We lost Viet Nam?!?!?! – I didn't even know it was missing! |
Dynaman8789 | 14 Nov 2014 5:33 p.m. PST |
Even if they did Sue for peace it would not have ended the war – peace for the north (or south really) was a tactical decision to allow for regrouping. |
Legion 4 | 15 Nov 2014 8:19 a.m. PST |
The VC – no threat to the North Vietnamese after Tet. Yes, the NVA pushed the VC forward during Tet. Many don't realize that most likely for every HC Communists in the VC/NLF there were some Nationalists. Who didn't care about communism, but didn't like all the "round-eye" foreign invaders on their land … again … And the NVA didn't want to have to deal with nationalist after the South would be defeated … |
tuscaloosa | 19 Nov 2014 8:44 p.m. PST |
Well, at least the American loss in Vietnam wasn't in vain. We learned never again to seek out meaningless wars halfway around the world in countries whose citizens are hostile to our presence and don't appreciate what we're trying to do for them. Didn't we? |
huevans011 | 22 Nov 2014 8:16 p.m. PST |
link If you read the book I linked about, the war was not winnable short of destroying the entire country and leaving it a charred, chemically blasted wreck. Few Vietnamese supported the government in the South. Many, many, many supported the Commies. End of story. The US and allied servicemen fought hard and honorably, but the war was never theirs to win. What some above posted about the States trying to fight other countries' wars for them. Doesn't work. Never has. Never will. |
Weasel | 24 Nov 2014 11:09 a.m. PST |
A lot of the "The military would have won if it wasn't for those politicians" talk seems to miss the fact that we live in a democratic society. |
TNE2300 | 30 Nov 2014 12:26 p.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 01 Dec 2014 11:00 a.m. PST |
That is true Weasel … a paradigm very much still alive and well today. Not that I don't totally agree. In a democracy I believe in that concept. I've taken and given the oath many times in my past. Part of it goes something like I will follow the orders of the President of the United States … etc. And of course we were taught to follow "lawful" orders … and know the difference. |
Legion 4 | 01 Dec 2014 11:13 a.m. PST |
Few Vietnamese supported the government in the South. Many, many, many supported the Commies. End of story. Not completely End of story … As I have said, for every Communist in the VC/NLF there was probably a Nationalist. Who really didn't like the government of the South, but may not really care about Communist dogma, either. However he did know there were these "round-eyes" who were dropping bombs and killing my people, etc. … And I believe the NVA knew this. And it was one reason they[Giap] mobilized and push the VC/NLF forward during Tet. They didn't want to have to deal with any Nationalists after the war was over … But, in true Communist fashion. Put them to good use for the "greater good" … After Tet the VC/NLF were pretty much heavily attrited. And by the '72 Year of the Rat Offensive, only about 3 Regiments of VC were capable of being fielded. Mostly in the Cham Coast region. And those units were fleshed out by some NVA … |
Reactionary | 11 Dec 2014 2:27 p.m. PST |
Thank God for Harold Wilson… |