Who really won the 'Nam war?

We won by destroying any socialist ideas that Vietnam had. If they had experimented with socialism they may have made it work in a way that was attractive to other Asian nations. This could not be allowed.

As a result, we smashed their country and killed two million of their people. It wasn't a huge success in that we couldn't make Vietnam safe for American businesses but by at least wrecking them, they couldn't create any rivals for capitalism in Asia.

Oh, and the bankers and good ol' boys got rich, as they always do in such cases.



[edit on 31-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

"We won by destroying any socialist ideas that Vietnam had. If they had experimented with socialism they may have made it work in a way that was attractive to other Asian nations. This could not be allowed. As a result, we smashed their country and killed two million of their people. It wasn't a huge success in that we couldn't make Vietnam safe for American businesses but by at least wrecking them, they couldn't create any rivals for capitalism in Asia."

Right.

And I suppose it was the United States militarily smashing the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, we destroyed any chance they had of socialism there, n'est-ce pas?

ROFLMAO!!

North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. Period.

I don't see how there is any question about that.

Every battle fought in Viet Nam was one by America.

For every American KIA, there were 6 Vietnamese KIA.

Politics lost the war. It was very unpopular on the homefront, with returning soldiers getting spit on, and called 'Baby-killers".

The only one's who really lost the war, are the poor veterans who came home to no parades and fanfare; they were not regarded as heroes. They came back with shellshock, missing limbs, deteriorating muscle mass from Agent Orange, and nightmares of an invisible enemy. They knew they could win, if the heart of the public was in it. What they got instead was a shaft, a big, long shaft.

All respect owed to those who went to that hell-hole Viet Nam, and survived. May God bless them, and may they be remembered as America's heroes of a war they did not chose to fight.

And I suppose it was the United States militarily smashing the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, we destroyed any chance they had of socialism there

The PRC and the USSR were already communist by 1960. I don't understand your point. In any case, aside from the fear of socialism, the US was also concerned that Japan might be sympathetic toward any nationalism of any kind (socialistic or otherwise) arising out of Vietnam and any alliance of these two might create a Japanese "Super-Domino" which would effectively introduce an Asia that would be placed beyond America's control.

The destruction of Vietnam and its people was very profitable for some and this action maintained the US's economic/military control over the Pacific. I am an American, but truth is more palatable to me than some historical whitewashing of the Vietnam War. Did we help America by killing two million Vietnamese and 50,000 American troops? I would say the answer is clearly a resounding "No". Only the bankers and the good ol' boys profited. In fact, I believe this Vietnam conflict is the moment where our nation was hijacked. It was lifted off its rails and placed on the rails of the Military Industrial Complex. We are still rolling right along on these rails of planned, never-ending war.

It's obvious now that anybody who served in Vietnam with patriotic zeal was sadly mistaken. Every Vietnam vet was totally and completely sold out by his government. I feel worst for them in that regard. The objective was accomplished, however; America is still dominant in Asia and Vietnam is not a major concern of ours anymore.

Can anyone tell me exaclt who won the Vietnam war? Did America really lose like they say they lost?

Yep. Just look at the name..."Ho Chee Min City" (spellin'???)

Editted: cool, the quote thingy works

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Korzag]

When I was in Vietnam from August 68 to February 69, the US was winning the war. The Tet offensive of 68 was a disastrous defeat for the communists and the less publicized, but equally intense 69 offensive was an even greater defeat.

By the Fall of 1969, under pressure by the the left who had turned America's streets and campuses into riot zones, Nixon began a process known as Vietnamization and gradual troop withdrawals. By April of 1973, all American combat troops had been withdrawn and two years later in April of 1975, Saigon finally fell following a massive offensive by the North through the South.

It is true that North Vietnam won the war, but I think it is more than disingenuous for anyone to say that the US lost the war. Had the communists not had so much support from the likes of John Kerry both in the streets and in Congress and President Johnson, who insisted on micro-managing the war, the havens of Laos and Cambodia for the communists, and without the complete withdrawal of US combat troops the North would have been completely defeated by 1973.

Most of those who claim America lost the war are those who are ignorant or those who actually supported the communists. Most of us who fought the war, especially in the 60s, know better.


[edit on 05/3/31 by GradyPhilpott]

I think that was a war without a winner.

If we want to be truthful, America had the stronger military, but the Viet Cong had superior tactics. The brilliant idea to use air power to crush an enemy with little to no infrastructure was a tactic no doubt masterminded by the same people building and selling the bombs that were to be used.

Giap was, and always will be regarded, by those in the know, as one of the finest strategists to ever live. He isn't given nearly the credit he should be given.

The fact is, the two countries were figting two different wars. America was largely fighting a war for position, hill by hill, whereas the Viet Cong were fighting simply to survive. They just needed to outlast us, and they did.

American soldiers in 'nam had a lot of respect overall, for their opponents. They were a dedicated, creative, and tireless enemy. They performed quasi-miracles with their supply line, and with covert artillery movements. They lost a lot more men, granted, but they devoted many more men to the fight than we ever did, they simply wanted it more.

Home field advantage played a big part as well.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
If we want to be truthful, America had the stronger military, but the Viet Cong had superior tactics.

The Viet Cong were effectively crippled in the Tet 68 offensive.

Giap's gamble had another side effect When the Tet Offensive began, many US officials believed that the N LF had offered the Americans a golden opportunity by fighting a pitched battle where it could be defeated in open combat. In effect, the NLF was "leading with its chin" and the massive losses it suffered bear this out The VC was not broken by the Tet Offensive but it was severely crippled by it and, from then on, the North took on the main burden of the war Further fighting in 1968 and the increasing activity of the Phoenix Program further decimated the NLF's ranks and the role of the North grew even larger. The northern and southern parts of Vietnam had ancient cultural and social differences and while the communist cadres at the center of the N LF had managed largely to suppress these natural antagonisms, there still were basic differences in goals and approach. The N LF had gone into the Tet Offensive in the hope of giving a death-blow to the Saigon Government and, if it couldn't capture power directly, it could at least gain a coalition leading to ultimate authority. The NLF's dream vanished in the rubble of South Vietnam's cities and it would be Hanoi that conquered Saigon.

www.vwam.com...

Smallpeeps says:

“The PRC and the USSR were already communist by 1960. I don't understand your point.”

I was being facetious. Because we did not understand that Ho Chi Minh’s brand of Marxism was more a nationalism than anything else (cf. the short China-Vietnam war in 1980) we stuck our noses in there to halt the spread of “monolithic communism” which was every bit as real as Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

” In any case, aside from the fear of socialism, the US was also concerned that Japan might be sympathetic toward any nationalism of any kind (socialistic or otherwise) arising out of Vietnam…”

I disagree. The United States had no concerns at all about any possibility of an “axis of nationalism” between Japan and Vietnam (or any other country). As someone who was raised in the Pacific, spent six months in Japan, and read Yomiuri Shimbun religiously, I find that assumption simply ludicrous.

You cannot understand, unless you have been there, how seriously the Japanese took -- and still take -- Article 9 of their 1946 Constitution. Understand also, that the “Vietnam War” did not start in the 1960’s against the United States or even in the 1950’s against the French, but was going full-force in the 1940’s against the Japanese.

There is no love lost between those two peoples, just as the relationship between Vietnam and the PRC was never more than a marriage of convenience against a common enemy (The United States). If you’ve ever read “Letters from the South” You may not realize that, but “Letters”, of course, was merely a PRC propaganda piece (although a brilliant one). Read King C. Chen’s China's War With Vietnam”, or Elliot’s “The Third Indochina Conflict (1981)”

”…and any alliance of these two might create a Japanese "Super-Domino" which would effectively introduce an Asia that would be placed beyond America's control.”

No. Indeed, the rise of the Five Tigers have caused the Japanese as much dislocation as their commercial invasion against us did to our own companies and economy. The Japanese are in the same boat against their neighbors’ cheaper imports as we were against Japan when I was a kid, which is kind of ironic.

And in the final analysis, socialism is not an economic system that needs to be squashed; like any other command economy, given enough time it will squash itself. The only extant socialist country I can think of is Cuba, unless you think that DPRK “Juche” is socialism.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Wyrde, in some ways Vo Nguyen Giap is like Robert E. Lee or Isoroku Yamamoto; everyone remembers Dien Bien Phu (or First and Second Manassas or Pearl Harbor) but somehow they all seem to gloss over Ia Drang and Hue (or Gettysburg or Midway).

While taking away nothing from these three great military leaders, they all had major screwups in their resume.

The US aim in the Vietnam War was to prevent a 'dominoe effect' whereby country after country in S.E Asia fell to communism.

While the US lost militarily it achieved its aim in the sense that there was no widespread communist rising throughout the rest of Asia. This was probably due to the fact that there was fear of US reactions to such an event.

Therefore the US won. Good for them