The Vietnam War

[savage560]

War of attrition ,it seems the VC & the NVA won that war.DT is right in one respect the US won all major battles & most skirmishes,but lost the battle of attrition?The US got out in what RMN said was a peace with honor, by implementing "Vietnamization".The Soviet backed NVA then soon after steamrolled the SVN army,who ,from what I was told by the numerous GI I talked to who were there,never really had their commitment into the war?

Its funny,all the GIs who came back, were I worked during the war ,to their jobs, told me if I was drafted, "Go to Canada",the war is insane!They told me SVN Rangers often fired upon US troops ,then when confronted ,said they thought the US troops were VC!

Really, the SVN numerous goverments were always corrupt,they learned from the French to be a haughty, exclusive bunch.The communists promised ,jobs ,healthcare,education all things, Socialist.The SVN coolie,or gooks as the US GIs called them,probably saw this as a improvement to the surf like status offered by just about all the SVN regimes in control.Begining to sound like here,between the Republicans & the Democrats?Repubs say give the rich everything they want ,& it soon rain down jobs & money on the lower classes.The Dems say give them affordable healthcare & lower their taxes?

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by savage560

War of attrition ,it seems the VC & the NVA won that war.DT is right in one respect the US won all major battles & most skirmishes,but lost the battle of attrition?The US got out in what RMN said was a peace with honor, by implementing "Vietnamization".The Soviet backed NVA then soon after steamrolled the SVN army,who ,from what I was told by the numerous GI I talked to who were there,never really had their commitment into the war?

Its funny,all the GIs who came back, were I worked during the war ,to their jobs, told me if I was drafted, "Go to Canada",the war is insane!They told me SVN Rangers often fired upon US troops ,then when confronted ,said they thought the US troops were VC!

Really, the SVN numerous goverments were always corrupt,they learned from the French to be a haughty, exclusive bunch.The communists promised ,jobs ,healthcare,education all things, Socialist.The SVN coolie,or gooks as the US GIs called them,probably saw this as a improvement to the surf like status offered by just about all the SVN regimes in control.

You don't get a revolution when times are good. The South Vietnamese ruling class, largely Europeanized and Catholic, treated the primarily Buddhist and agricultural common people as a resource to be exploited, not as valued fellow citizens. Ironically, when the country was reunited, many Southerners complained of discrimination from the new Northern ruling class.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by DTravel

...Militarily the US succeeded, destroying the Viet Cong and stopping the NV regular army...

I don't think they destroyed the Vietcong, and don't think they ever could have, because too many in the population supported them (or were members). And we all know the US has a ton more firepower than just about everyone else, but that's not the main point

The real question is "Who destroyed whose will to fight?"

[richardoe]

So why when it comes to defeating communist guerillas was Britain successful in Malaya but the Americans werent in Vietnam? My theory is down to history, Britain had a long history of dealing with guerillas and America hadnt. Yes we did use bombers in Malaya, but we didnt use Victors or Vulcans.

And I read a book by an officer in the RAF Regiment about his time in the Falklands, he was a Spanish interpreter. Anyway he had previously served in the New Zealand army, including Vietnam. Could he possibly be the only person to serve in both Vietnam and the Falklands?

[Rogerbh]

I thought that the North wanted the Viet Cong to fight and get its leadership exterminated so that the North could send their own people south to lead the southern resistance. This was supposedly so they would have less problems once the RVN fell. I recall reading that after 1968, the Viet Cong was no longer mainly southern troops but northern troops sent down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I have no idea how true that is.

As to the will to fight, people point to Walter Cronkite's February 27th TV show in 1968 as the moment where middle America decided that they wanted out of that Asian land war we were in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4w-ud-TyE Pretty clear proof that the US was not going to be it for the long term.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by richardoe

So why when it comes to defeating communist guerillas was Britain successful in Malaya but the Americans werent in Vietnam?...

The two wars were completely different. Vietnam was a Civil War and Malaya was not. Vietnam was a huge war lasting 30 years. Malaya (the part you mean) was a relatively small-scale insurgency that lacked public support - what most of them wanted was independence, and they got it because the British were soon gone

It is a mistake to think of either as a "battle against Communism". Also a mistake to think Britain had "superior" methods and USA "inferior" methods, or vice versa, imho

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I thought that the North wanted the Viet Cong to fight and get its leadership exterminated so that the North could send their own people south to lead the southern resistance. This was supposedly so they would have less problems once the RVN fell. I recall reading that after 1968, the Viet Cong was no longer mainly southern troops but northern troops sent down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I have no idea how true that is.

As to the will to fight, people point to Walter Cronkite's February 27th TV show in 1968 as the moment where middle America decided that they wanted out of that Asian land war we were in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4w-ud-TyE Pretty clear proof that the US was not going to be it for the long term.

The Viet Cong were not troops in the conventional sense. They were more like an insurgent militia. Lots of NVA were coming South but not to replace the VC, who operated locally and fairly independently. Like you, I have heard that the North wanted to "use up" the VC against US forces. That could be true but it doesn't square with my experience. The North was not in a position to issue orders to the VC.

[butterball]

Originally Posted by savage560

The Soviet backed NVA then soon after steamrolled the SVN army,who ,from what I was told by the numerous GI I talked to who were there,never really had their commitment into the war?

The ARVN did a pretty damn good job against the Easter offensive of 1972. And with minimal support from the US, at least in terms of ground forces. So you might ask yourself what changed between 1972 and 1976?

All this talk of South Vietnamese "corruption" is, in my opinion, just a cop out. There has never been a government or an army that didn't have some corruption. I could name certain American politicians who have managed to become awfully rich these days. And I'm old enough to be shocked by all these massive "speaking fees" that some folks are getting after they leave office. It looks like post hoc bribery to me.

[Rogerbh]

I knew a guy who was a brand new lieutenant shipped to an ARVN unit during the Easter offensive in 1972. He didn't speak Vietnamese and his assigned interpreter spoke mostly French and Vietnamese - little English. Other than having prepared positions when the T54s started to come toward him, his troops didn't do much more than die. He could not instruct them on how to fire the recoil-less rifles they had - only aim and fire them himself. He said all he could do was run from position to position firing the weapons until he decided to run away. I did point out to him that he managed to survive while his platoon died fighting, but he continued to mutter how they were inept and ill trained. If this is an example of the support we gave the RVN, it is a wonder they stopped the Easter offensive.

[butterball]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I knew a guy....

Yes...when I was growing up I knew a guy who was captured at Bastogne. (Swore he'd never eat cabbage again!) He told us how the Americans were taken completely by surprise and were totally unprepared, never having seen combat before. He also told us that there were Germans everywhere, American leaders were nowhere to be seen and the soldiers gave up pretty much without a fight. That's what tends to happen in a massive surprise attack.