"Why Were Vietnam War Vets Treated Poorly When" Topic

…They Returned?

"Twenty-one-year-old Steven A. Wowwk arrived as an infantryman in the Army's First Cavalry Division in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam in early January 1969 to fight in an escalating and increasingly unwinnable war. By June, Wowwk had been wounded twice—the second time seriously—and was sent back to the United States for treatment at Boston's Chelsea Naval Hospital.

It was after returning to the U.S. and while en route to the hospital that Wowwk first encountered hostility as a veteran.

Strapped to a gurney in a retrofitted bus, Wowwk and other wounded servicemen felt excitement at being back on American soil. But looking out the window and seeing civilians stop to watch the small convoy of hospital-bound vehicles, his excitement turned to confusion. "I remember feeling like, what could I do to acknowledge them, and I just gave the peace signal," Wowwk says. "And instead of getting return peace fingers, I got the middle finger."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

A very short article on a massively important topic. I am relatively new to this Board, but followed the whole thing daily, via the safety of BBC TV.

This would have been better if it had directed one towards further reading. However it has prompted me to ask for recommendations on better coverage of the subject. Any suggestion?

Those who served there whether drafted or volunteered in almost all cases did the duty. In some situations in an exemplary manner.

IMO and many others the media played a big role in the vilification of our Vets. And as I have said before had there been no draft there probably would have been only a few involved with the anti-war movement. E.g. Fonda, Baez, etc., etc.. The media in their version and quest of "truth" and hopes of getting a name for themselves skewed the news as they do today.

Few Americans then even knew or could of cared less about what was going on in a 3d World Asian tropical country. On the other side of the world. The media and others who portrayed the NLF/VC, e.g. as poor paddy farmers missed or forgot the history of those in the black pajamas growing rice to survive.

The VC and later NVA were very experienced guerillas and jungle fighters. Just ask France who left the place in '54. After the loss of much blood & treasure. The were politically motivated not only by the Communist leadership and dogma worldwide. But were very nationalistic.

Now that being said, the execution of the war was handled generally very poorly at political and in some cases the upper levels of the military. And of course it was their backyard. They didn't have to winner they just didn't have to lose. They knew sooner of later the Americans would leave as the French before them. The VC/NVA were not going anywhere. Even with their losses estimated at over a 1 Million.

I was trained and served with many Vietnam Vets when I started ROTC in '75 and when I went on active duty. They were generally were overwhelmingly nothing like the media portrayed them. In the News, movies, TV and books. And that negative trend continued for many decades afterwards.

I have many friends that are Vietnam Vets today. And I always make it a point to treat them with as much respect, etc., as I can.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Invoking the "Ten year rule here".

Yep, the anti-American, communist symphathizing media had a lot to do with it, not to mention Russian agitators who stirred up anti-war rhetoric to suit their own ends, and traitors like Jane Fonda who sat on an enemy flak gun during the war for a photo op, and wasn't held accountable for her treason when she returned from Vietnam.

Our veterans of Vietnam were treated abominably by the media and many, upon their return. Hopefully, those dark days will never be repeated, since they deserve much better.

During the 1972 Veterans Day parade in Birmingham AL, I was proud to march with my ROTC Ranger unit. The sad thing was that during the March we had eggs thrown at us.
Later that year several times our Sherman tank in front of our building was spray painted pink. Several other conflicts with ATO and other fratunities.

Viet Nam was the first conflict that had real time live reporting. There was no censorship and the public got it live, like a punch in the face every night at dinner time. All the dirt and blood served along with dinner. The peace movement and the media helped vilify the soldiers and usually never reported the awful things the Viet Cong were doing to the people or the soldiers. Then you had movie stars, like Jane Fonda, who perpetuated the myth that soldiers were baby killers. It was an ugly time and the vets took the brunt of their anger. I grew up during that time and joined the service after college many years later. Many VN vets are still scarred by their return. I, too, go out of my way to thank VN era vets.

Being a Vietnam vet (Americal Division 68-70). I spit on in the airport in Seattle when I returned home. The army required me to travel in Uniform. For a while my friends who did not serve treated like I was different. Combat changes a person. It took me a couple of years to stop scanning my surrounding for ambush. My girlfriend now my my wife told me I was safe at home. Firecrackers and backfiring cars made me hit the deck. Than move for cover. I remember getting hired at TRW for a line worker position. This was about 1975 jobs where hard to fine. The HR guy for the company mocked with. "Hire the Vietnam Vet" you guys are losers. I wanted to rip his throat out. But I had a family to take care of. I have been quite about my service. Just recently I've been wearing my Vietnam Vet hat. To my surprise I have people of all ages come to me. "Thank you for your service and welcome home". This made me proud and caused to cry. Thanks for reading this,

Thank you sgt Dutch …

With Veterans of all eras, wearing the now popular baseball cap with their unit insignia embroidered on it are seen very frequently. And very much readily available online, etc.

When I go to the VA or many other places Vets will greet each other with handshakes, etc. And many times civilians do the same and thank the Vet, etc. as you pointed out.

I started Army ROTC in '75. Many times when in uniform we'd get the finger, Hitler salute, etc. They knew nothing about us only we were in uniform and believed deserved to be berated, etc.

A very sad time for our country and returning Vets. And many still serving.

The left desired to win, politically, at any cost. They painted the American led war as evil and therefore anyone who supported it was evil. Thus the troops, volunteers or draftees, were evil. And if your opponent is evil, anything you do to them is justified.

Remember, the antiwar movement, antinuke movement, Antifa, etc. were supported financially by the Soviet Union.

My father did three tours in Nam and I've always had deep respect for what those men did.

As we see the USSR and now "Neo" Russia were and are not our friends.

3 tours

But I have never understood why the American public, or at least a significant proportion of them turned on the poor devils who went and fought there and not on the politicians who were responsible.

I can think of a dozen reasons one might have been opposed to the war in Vietnam, but suspect the main one was, if not losing, at least no sign of victory or an end to the War. Add in media propaganda, morality, dubious allies, losses of one's sons and brothers, a far away war etc….I can see the most Nationalistic saying we surely do need to fight the Reds, but just not here.

But why did the population take it out on the returning soldiers? Because they were an easy target maybe? Never understood as it seems to me so atypical of how I see American sentiment.

Gary… I perfectly understand you… I personally suffered similar (or worse) abuse when I returned home after the war … one of the worst memories of that time was having to lie about my service to get a job …

Amicalement
Armand

deadhead it's always amazed and infuriated me when I heard how our returning Vets were treated. As I said I even experienced a little of that sort of vitriol, etc., even just as an ROTC Cadet, in '75. 2-3 years after the war.

I am a member of the Military Officers Assoc. of America, and there are many Vietnam Vets who are also members. I always enjoy learning about their service, etc.,. Recently they were given lapel pins for serving in duty the war. A very small token of appreciation. We can't stop trying to make amends for what others did to them when they returned.

Tango I'm sorry to hear you experienced similar treatment when you returned home. Very sad …

Tango is just a kid and his was a much later war…….well at least ten years later anyway and that conflict was far more senseless than Vietnam. If anything, fought in worse conditions, but at least you had a uniformed enemy fighting regular warfare.

Still pondering this.

In the UK we have had veterans who felt they were never officially acknowledged, even from WWII. Typical would be the survivors of the Arctic Convoys

Then came those who actually faced official active denial if not outright hostility, best known Bomber Command, but this has never translated to the public view.

Subsequent wars have, of course, led to the spectre of soldiers tried, decades after service, for murder, whether Northern Ireland in the 70s or Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years….and yet none of this has led to the public reaction in the US that has been described above and told to me by many in private conversation. Maybe it was the era of Peace and Love, that proved far from such.

I'm always surprised when those that never served in an capacity gets upset with what occurs in a battle zone. Or questioned those who were there. Now that does not mean the military should have a blank check to do anything. We do have laws and want good order & discipline.

And in general those laws, etc. are followed. But as we see in 3 cases in the US recently the POTUS had to get involved when those 5000 miles away tried to charge those with crimes who in front where the triggers are pulled.

From the individual soldier to up to Co Cdrs who are there and have seconds to react to be seconded guessed by those who are again thousands of miles away. Is not appropriate IMO.

All that being said, e.g. My Lai etc. was clearly a war crime. Whenever you directly purposely kill unarmed civilian is wrong.

However there may be gray areas especially in an insurgency.
Women and children carrying weapons of any type are no longer unarmed/innocent. They become a legitimate target. E.g. the situation we saw in the movie "American Sniper". With the Iraqi female[and later her son] about to attack a USMC M1 with an AT grenade. The SEAL Sniper made the correct decisions.

I'm always surprised when those that never served in an capacity gets upset with what occurs in a battle zone. Or questioned those who were there. Now that does not mean the military should have a blank check to do anything. We do have laws and want good order & discipline.

I have to take issue with this Ralph. You do qualify your answer but the basic premise, as expressed above, is flawed. In any society where the military is not subject to scrutiny or judgement by civil authorities, and indeed, to the will of the democratic masses, you have a militaristic society that could be described as fascist.

I'm sure you don't mean to go this far but the simple fact remains, in a democracy, a soldier must be subject to the rule of law, as administered by those outside his coterie.

The same hateful Socialist propaganda spread during the 60's and 70's is present again on college campuses in the US but has not yet hit the level it did during the VN war.

The US has the UCMJ that is taught in Boot Camp. Sometimes the Rules of Engagement can change and put our troops at a life and death disadvantage, especially when the enemy has no such restrictions. Sometimes it's the local culture we have to be sensitive to in order not to alienate them.

When my son was on a patrol through a town a woman came up to him acting friendly and gave him a flower. He stood out from the two dozen other Marines because he had a radio. He knew she had just marked him for a sniper or an ambush just up ahead. How should the patrol leader have responded to that?

Wolfhag

I'm sure you don't mean to go this far but the simple fact remains, in a democracy, a soldier must be subject to the rule of law, as administered by those outside his coterie.

Don't put words in my mouth … We took an oath. I didn't say the military does not ultimately answer to a civilian higher authority as in any real democracy.

But on ground in an area that is a combat zone. The trigger puller has a couple of seconds to make a life or death decision. Someone 100-1000+ miles away may have to understand the situation from the soldiers' POV.

Again I never said to shoot unarmed civilians, etc. Or not to follow the GCs, or even ROEs. But in some situations you as the Grunt on the ground and/or his leadership has to make a quick and effective decision.

It may not "fit" someone who is not a warfighters opinion. But killing the enemy is why you are there. In an insurgency the lines between who the bad guys or is not gets blurred. I'd think I give my troops the advice to shoot first.

A leader job is not only to kill the enemy but bring is troops back home. If the thought process and actions don't do that then the entire concept is flawed to believe otherwise … And from my POV those are the facts …

'nuff said …

Wolf +1 As always …

How should the patrol leader have responded to that?

In that incident, my son said he thanked the girl (he said she was the best-looking female he ever saw over there), put the flower in his plate carrier over his heart and told the patrol to be ready as they are going to be ambushed up ahead. Sure enough, they were ambushed but being ready they killed most of the bad guys and lost no one. In a way, the flower served as a warning for them.

I said to him, "Wasn't that pretty stupid putting the flower in your plate carrier when you knew you'd be targeted". He said not really. If they were going to shoot at him he wanted them to aim at his SAPI plate, not his face. His body armor had saved him a few times already.

He was over there when the ROE's were more relaxed in favor of the US troops and he saw a real difference and the new ROE's saved lives.

My personal feeling is that when you transform a mild-mannered 19-year-old civilian kid into a "killer" and then send him into a killing zone while telling him to exercise extreme caution of judgment making life and death decisions before he takes action and shoots is unfair. One small mistake or a split second of misjudgment or hesitation and your life can take a drastic change with something you'll regret for the rest of your life. Guilt, depression, drug abuse, and suicide often follow.

Wolfhag

Wolf +1

Don't put words in my mouth

What words did I put in your mouth? Just quoting what you wrote.
If you want to retract, fine. Do so.

I'd think I give my troops the advice to shoot first.

I don't believe you were ever in combat? If you had & given that advice, I can see many occasions were that advice would have had you in front of a court.

those that never served in an capacity gets upset with what occurs in a battle zone. Or questioned those who were there

Sorry, it's the opposite. In a democracy, the military answers to those who weren't there. "Blurring" is not an excuse.
You are responsible for the decisions you make. Any "blurring" of this principle allows gung-ho soldiers carte blanche. And, of course, this principle applies to all. We are all responsible for our actions. Only children aren't.

You may care to read this study on what is a complex issue.

link

"But I have never understood why the American public, or at least a significant proportion of them turned on the poor devils who went and fought there and not on the politicians who were responsible."

It never was the American public as a whole. It was a small, vocal, group of people who hated the US and its military, and would if we were in 'Nam or not. In the same way that we all know about Antifa because they make headlines, the filth that spit on our vets made the headlines at the time.

+1 Dn Jackson

+2 Dn Jackson

…a small, vocal, group of people…

Seemed like an entire generation at the time.

Seemed like an entire generation at the time.

The war was not popular. I'm not condoning the spitting thing (BTW did that ever really happen or is it an urban myth? I believe there's no real proof beyond hearsay) but I think many Americans were relieved when your government faced up to the inevitable truth of defeat & pulled out.

Americans should take comfort that Vietnam was a low point & a lot has improved for them from that.

Some who never served a day in uniform. Still displaying an intellectual, academic, philosophical, SJW, PC, attitude about the Military and what it does when deployed. No matter what it does. Is a non-starter, IMO.

An academic, intellectual, philosophical, SJW, PC POV from some who never served or volunteered to put themselves in harms way, at the pointy end of the spear. Demonstrates IMO a total lack of understanding anything about soldiering especially in combat arms branches.

Medevacing WIAs, standing along an enemy border, etc., has little to do with being academic, intellectual, a SJW or PC. It's a rather pompous, presumptuous, more highly evolved, scholarly attitude about the military that is almost insulting to those who served in any capacity.

Being philosophical, academic, intellectual, SJW, and PC from some who never served is a presumptuous and know it all manner about soldiers. Who are doing their jobs, accomplishing the mission, following GCs, ROE and the Cdr's Intent. Which includes killing and destroying enemy personal & equipment.

Is as annoying and disturbing to me and some other Vets I know. And is almost as bad as the way Vet's returning from Vietnam were treated. From those who stayed safe at home and have no credibility in making assumptions, etc., about a topic they Know little to nothing about. Besides from what they read or see in the media.

Again how pompous and presumptuous of those academic, intellectual, SJW, PC types. As if they know better or more about soldiering in any capacity. They should be embarrassed assuming they know and are better in some ways, etc., than e.g. an Infantryman or Tanker in any situation in harms way. It's shameful …

The contrast in public support for the military, post 911, is remarkable. Heck it was not even "the military"-industrial complex post 1970…it was the poor individuals who had served who took most of the insults and grief.

But once the US is so spectacularly attacked two subsequent wars have proved equally unsuccessful, if we are honest. Iraq and Afghanistan, the outcome one can debate, but I have never heard of any hostility against homecoming soldiers.

We in the UK still have some very longstanding and insane legal cases against veterans of both conflicts and indeed from Northern Ireland. Has the US pursued any returnees like this?

Like Vietnam the US [and it's Allies] in both A'stan & Iraq killed many more than was lost. But in situations like those, the "home team" did not have to win. But just not lose. They were not going anywhere. And the US and it's Allies could and did kill many of enemy in large numbers and often. Our firepower verses most places in the world is so very much superior, we have to have ROEs to stop turning many locations into a moonscape. And that is Not using WMDs.

In all 3 locations the actual gov'ts couldn't really come up with the ability to actually "govern" and have an effective military, etc. But in all 3 cases they were "unique" situations However, Iraq is probably not as bad off as it was. As is Vietnam.

But A'stan will most likely remain in the 15th Century outside of Kabul. And even that is questionable.

There were some cases of US Vets being charged with crimes in SE Asia, Iraq, and A'stan. But those were few an far between. And in most cases, many they were found not guilty. E.g. the 3 recent cases for 2 US Army troops and 1 SEAL. They were eventually cleared albeit served some time.

On the other hand LT Calley from the Vietnam War was found guilty but served only a small amount of time. That was decades ago in his case. And again most really did not know or care about Vietnam/SE Asia or their people. In reality the truth can be served cold … ice cold.

Americans should take comfort that Vietnam was a low point & a lot has improved for them from that.

Most in the USA during the war in Vietnam and after did not and could not care less about the country and people of who lived their. Most still don't care about them today or could not find the places on a map.

The only comfort was when we left and no more of our blood and treasure would be wasted there. The same will be said about A'stan and probably Iraq and let's not forget about Syria. Or even Somalia for that matter.

Their existences or conditions mean so very little to the wide majority of the US population. Most only know we lost our people there and spent money that probably could have been spent better elsewhere. That's the truth for the majority of Americans. For better or worse. Again the reality can be very cold … cold as ice.

Some who never served a day in uniform. Still displaying an intellectual, academic, philosophical, SJW, PC, attitude about the Military and what it does when deployed. No matter what it does. Is a non-starter, IMO.

Ralph: you are entitled to your opinion, of course but you're wrong. I certainly don't live in a society where the military are beyond reproach, beyond being judged for their actions and above the law. I don't think you do either. You mention Calley. Exactly.
Acta deos numquam mortalia fallunt.

You mention "pompous & presumptuous". I would mention inflating your own importance is a very real thing too. Coming from a military family & mixing with soldiers and sailors who actually did serve in wars, I know most don't seek constant recognition and are content to move on. My Uncle George, a WW2 commando,once made a pungent comment on a statue of a war hero we were walking past. Something to do with the visible judgement of pigeons on the statue.

Do you want to know about the only comment my older brother, who fought in Vietnam, ever made about the war? "Big mistake". And to this day, he has never spoken about his experiences, never indulged in false heroics, never demanded some sort of subservience from people (ie fellow citizens of equal worth) because he was drafted and "served". He refuses to live in the past, never wears his medals (his choice) but values his useful post-Vietnam life (helping disabled people), his family & his post-military life to the total exclusion of those four years spent in 'jungle green'. He would be ashamed and embarrassed to have his entire life defined by that one period.

Indeed, to do otherwise is at worst danger to our democracy at best an indulgence of old men, dreaming of halcyon days..

I was in the Falklands era Argentine military and, believe me, most of the people who "served" (with the exception of a small number of poor guys actually on the islands, flying planes, or on the Gel. Belgrano) didn't do a single heroic thing and do not deserve the worship of the other citizens. We were not fighting for freedom or (haha) anti-imperialism. I don't think we deserve to be looked down upon, either, but by and large, we weren't. I am surprised by the story of the man above who said he had a hard time finding a job coming back. Yes, but that was because the economy was wrecked, remember? I don't recall any mass prejudice against us at all. Just a feeling that we were poor bastards who'd been stuck on some stupid islands to die for dictators.

"I'm not condoning the spitting thing (BTW did that ever really happen or is it an urban myth?"

It happened to a friend of mine. I don't recall which airport he said he was in. Had just returned when he was approached by a hippie type, called a baby killer and was spat upon. He responded by knocking him out. Everyone who saw it walked by and said nothing. When a police officer showed up he told him what had happened. The officer called in a drunk/drugged person passed out and told my friend to be on his way.

This has happened too many times before when topics like this go waaaay Off Topic. Enough IMO, everybody is entitled to their opinion, experiences, beliefs, etc. This sort of he said, he did, he didn't do, I heard my neighbor, etc., etc. I tried to make it point to not get involved with commenting to some here. Because this is what happens.

Then we go line by line saying you said, this or that, and I said this or that, and he thinks this or that, etc., etc., etc. It's just all too tiring, boring, etc. And goes against what this TMP is all about. Talking about history, playing with toy soldiers, etc., etc.

Once again I violated my own SOP and responded to someone's posts I should not have and it went down hill from there, IMO.

Mea cupla …

'nuff said … moving on …

It happened to a friend of mine

Being spat on would be most unpleasant & your friend has my sympathies. I'm still not sure if I believe it was more than an isolated incident, though.
Take this as you will:
link

Apology accepted, Ralph. But "going down hill" etc? It's just an internet discussion. No real need to beat yourself up over it.

And I'm sure if it somehow violated what TMP is about, Bill would have deleted the offending posts. I hope you don't have problems with me quoting ex-soldiers, blood relations, who spoke directly to me? It seems to me that's what this thread was about: allowing the men who served in war time a voice?

However, as you wrote, this is but an ephemeral internet thread & I'm certainly happy to move on.

I have to say I think it has been a perfectly reasonable discussion and I have seen far nastier on the Napoleonic Forum, often about obscure things like the merits of two different French artillery systems.

We are allowed to differ and everything here has been sensibly restrained. I accept the argument this has nothing to do with wargaming Vietnam…but my own view is the opposite. Every war had its own character and, if you do choose to chuck dice to recreate it, that must be introduced. Otherwise you just have a bunch of guys in one colour fighting very similar chaps who, chances are, look very little different in 28mm, esp if you are colour blind (two of my three sons are and their LOTR figures could look odd occasionally).

You have to know the history of a conflict in depth if you are to recreate it and not just pick up the first rule book about units' characteristics….well I think so and thank all contributors. Hostility to the War I can understand, but not directed against "ordinary" citizens who served, usually drafted as well. One thing I will say for the Grateful Dead….unlike most West Coast bands