View Full Version : The REAL Attrocity of Vietnam...
Where to start? How about the idea that we lost.
US troops left Vietnam after the ceasefire was signed on January 27, 1973, the United States had 60 days to withdraw its troops from Vietnam. All US forces were OUT of Vietnam and we handed it over to the Southern Vietnamese with the assurance that if the North violated the border we'd return to support them.
The North didn't invade the south until the Spring offensive of 1975 and we abandoned the US embassy in April of 1975.
So for two years the threat of force kept the commies in the north. But if you watch just about any documentary, including the Ken Burns one you see footage of the Tet Offensive of 1968 combined with footage of the Spring offensive of 1975 and the evacuation of the Embassy presented as the same event that showed our "defeat" at the end of 1972.
As if the communists hit us hard and drove US forces out of the country by force with our tail between our legs fighting a running retreat as we tried to evac military forces out of the country to the point we had to abandon helo's to the see to make room for fleeing US forces.
And because the footage has been staged that way since about 1975 that is the version 99% of people believe, including a lot of vets who were there and should know better.
So how did we lose the war? Well for starters Watergate. Following the scandal President Nixon resigned office August 9, 1974 and that was the beginning of the North wondering if the next President would keep his pledge to return to Vietnam if necessary to support the south. And by April the next year it became obvious to Hanoi that President Ford could never get Congressional approval to send US forces back to Vietnam and the North easily defeated the ARVN forces and it was then we had to evac embassy personnel and as many Southern allies as we could manage to cram onto ships so we didn't leave them to the fate of the communists.
So there was a period of over a year from the withdrawl of US forces in Vietnam to the invasion by the North, we didn't lose a goddamn thing. Point of fact we slaughtered them during the Tet Offensive of 1968. During the first part of the surprise attack the North suffered 33,249 killed and allied dead numbered 3,470, one-third of them Americans. Basically we inflicted a 10:1 kill ratio on the enemy forces.
At the time journalist like Walther Cronkite were declaring the war unwinnable despite the fact that we just dealt the enemy one of the greatest defeats in the history of their conflict.
As the offensive continued another 4,000 Americans died but enemy deaths numbered at 58,000. But if you ask the history books, Tet is where we lost the war but somehow it took another four years for us to actually leave the country.
Now you can blame the Nixon scandal for making Hanoi realize he couldn't back up his pledge to Vietnam, or you can blame the Hanoi sponsored anti war movement in the US for undermining Nixon to the point that a couple of reporters decided it was more important to yank his carpet even though it might undermine the war effort in Vietnam.
Either way, because of amazingly effective propaganda, Hanoi convinced the US population that we were losing the war badly when the truth of the matter is we were eliminating nearly an entire generation of Vietnamese conscripts.
Of course the greatest atrocity related to Vietnam is that despite OSS pledges of support for the cause of the Viet Mihn and their independence movement from France (who was a collaborationist government with Japan and Germany during WWII) the biggest POS in the history of France, Charles De Gaulle threatened to move France into the Soviet sphere of influence if the US interfered with France regaining control of their colonies. Didn't seem to matter that we had just recently sacrificed a bunch of US and UK soldiers on Normandy so that the "Free French" could one day strut into a liberated Paris lead by a General who did nothing but make demands of the allies during the war.
Stalin was actually more directly useful to the war effort than De Gaulle ever was, but you'd have thought he liberated France all by himself. Sadly we weren't sophisticated enough to tell him to "run to the commies" and help the Viet Mihn fight for independence.
And that should be in every history book, but it isn't. Instead we see footage of the Tet assault on the embassy in 68, Cronkite and the other pinheads declaring we can't win and then footage of the 75 evacuation of the embassy despite the fact that our fighting forces had left more than a year ago.
Politics
Sadly not to win but pure political idiocy
Diamondback
07-23-19, 01:48
Truth, Steyr. Truth. :( We shoulda told CdG "this is how it's gonna be and if you don't like it you can solve your own Hun Invasion problem"... as it is, de Gaulle only flipped to the Allies because he was a butthurt little bitch that Hitler passed him over in favor of Petain as his puppet.
#F-ckFrance
Edit to add: I find it curious to note how many of the world's problems have started with the French: the Seven Years' War, Quebec, Napoleon, WWI (in part)...
I had a history professor who fought as a Marine in combat in Vietnam. I was very surprised to hear his presentation on why we should have been on Ho Chi Minh’s side decades earlier. He was a moderately hard line conservative on most things.
Tet 1968 was a resounding defeat for the communists, although our own subversive press made it look like quite the opposite. The Viet Cong were virtually eliminated during Tet and were not a factor for the remaining part of the war. Some theorize this was one of the North's goals since they knew they would have to deal with the VC after the war was over. There was an interview with General Giap after the war in which the interviewer said "General, you lost a million men in that war". His reply was a simple "yes". A war of attrition can only be won by the side that does not care how many men they lose.
Fear, lies, manipulation, intellectuals in Washington wasting lives on both sides, invading a country that posed no threat to the U.S., cover ups, billions of dollars, and the atrocities go on and on. And very little was learned. The same mistakes are still being made with intellectuals in DC making decisions that cost/waste American soldiers lives.
m24shooter
07-23-19, 07:42
I had a history professor who fought as a Marine in combat in Vietnam. I was very surprised to hear his presentation on why we should have been on Ho Chi Minh’s side decades earlier. He was a moderately hard line conservative on most things.
From what I understand the reason they went with the Communists was that in effect that was their only option after the US backed out of the wartime commitment from the OSS and then allowed CdG to strut.
sundance435
07-23-19, 08:14
Truth, Steyr. Truth. :( We shoulda told CdG "this is how it's gonna be and if you don't like it you can solve your own Hun Invasion problem"... as it is, de Gaulle only flipped to the Allies because he was a butthurt little bitch that Hitler passed him over in favor of Petain as his puppet.
#F-ckFrance
Edit to add: I find it curious to note how many of the world's problems have started with the French: the Seven Years' War, Quebec, Napoleon, WWI (in part)...
The early 50's was peak influence for Soviet communism. You can't just dismiss the impact of closer French/Soviet relations - French communists were many in number. Many Western European countries were in real danger of electing communist governments or being overthrown by them (namely Italy and Greece). Was backing France in Indochina the morally responsible choice? Probably not. Did we have to? Arguably, yes.
I will say that Ho Chi Minh was the most pragmatic communist leader of the time, along with Tito. Ho was not an ardent Marxist or Maoist, but they were willing to support his cause after the U.S. abandoned the Viet Minh.
It is possible to definitively win all, or a majority, of battles tactically and still not get a favorable outcome strategically or politically. And that sucks.
The_War_Wagon
07-23-19, 09:39
At the time journalist like Walther Cronkite were declaring the war unwinnable despite the fact that we just dealt the enemy one of the greatest defeats in the history of their conflict.
Good ol' RED Cronkite. I NEVER liked that S.O.B. after that. :mad:
He could be everybody ELSE'S "Uncle Walter." Our household (my dad was active duty USCG at the time) called him "Uncle JOE"... :angry:
In my family, I remember my dad referring to Cronkite as Walter Crankcase. Remember seeing the guy on TV, along with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC.
It's interesting how a one-time enemy in North Vietnam is now vying to take up some of the slack in Chinese-US trade. It also seems the Vietnamese are moving out of the orbit of the Peoples Republic of China and looking more towards us. Lots of Vietnamese came to the US and became successful with nail salons coast to coast. Hard working people.
Doc Safari
07-23-19, 10:44
We lost the war the minute LBJ believed Walter Cronkite instead of the sitrep in Vietnam.
... a country that posed no threat to the U.S.
Revisionist history always downplays the threat of communism and especially the threat of it spreading. Unsurprising as is often written by socialist academics.
Isolationism sounds great, but has a poor record of actually keeping us out of danger. It does keep us out of trying to deal with problems at the beginning, on our own terms, and possibly at a lower cost.
Failed to keep us out of two world wars.
Syria? Not our problem.
ISIS? Jayvee team.
World problems are more complex and interconnected than I think you give them credit for.
I will say that Ho Chi Minh was the most pragmatic communist leader of the time, along with Tito. Ho was not an ardent Marxist or Maoist, but they were willing to support his cause after the U.S. abandoned the Viet Minh.
Yes, one of the CIA's first institutional failures was to recommend kicking Ho to the curb....after the OSS laid some pretty good groundwork in WW2.
It was the perfect storm for Vietnam: increased communist activity and increased nationalism with every other 3rd world colony decolonizing.
. Lots of Vietnamese came to the US and became successful with nail salons coast to coast. Hard working people.
A lot of the Vietnamese nail salon workers were credited to ..... Tippi Hedren:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32544343
Some young people I know visited Saigon .... I mean Ho Chi Minh City ... and they visited the American war museum there. These people were born and grew up after the war so they only know of the war from books and media, so you can understand how they saw the whole conflict. They saw how the museum painted the American forces as invaders, imperialists, etc. They mentioned all the atrocities committed by the U.S. forces, etc. I told them that what they saw was the propaganda or story from the point of view of the victors (the communist North). They heard nothing of the atrocities committed by the VC on the South Vietnamese population or the treatment of the South after they lost.
But like you pointed out, old enemies are now friends. Americans are welcome in VN and so does the $$$$. There are now more American tourists in Southeast Asia than ever. At least the communists in VN learned from the mistakes of their old allies (Soviet Union and Chicom) that pure hard line communism don't work. There is something to this capitalism after all, give the people some so they won't starve. Don't get it wrong, the communist leaders are living like fat cats and loving it. Maybe one day, all of that will sink in to the little fat rocketman.
It is possible to definitively win all, or a majority, of battles tactically and still not get a favorable outcome strategically or politically. And that sucks.
It's not just that, fear of US involvement kept the commies in the North for another year and a half. I'm not saying we won the war, we never occupied the North and defeated the enemy. But we never lost the war either, they never occupied the South and defeated the enemy while we were there, and it was only after they realized we couldn't come back following things like Watergate that they realized they were free to run tanks south.
Maybe my view is somewhat simplistic, but my travels around the world showed that America's greatest export in the 20th Century was it's culture. I've now been to 23 Countries, while in the Army and out, and you always see bits and pieces of America in these places - some more than others.
I have always felt that if you could flood a closed society run by dictators with American stuff - movies, TV programs, blue jeans, Big Macs, iPhones and everything else that we consume, just getting a little taste of those "luxuries", and the population would never want to go back to the austere lifestyle. We invade with consumer goods, not military personnel.
I remember my first time back to Europe after Gothic Serpent in late 1993. I went to England first then a quick flight to Copenhagen and the Ferry to Malmö (before the Örresund Bridge). I was visiting friends and on Swedish TV, I saw an episode of the "Streets of San Francisco" with Michael Douglas and Karl Malden. It was in English with Swedish sub-titles. That same visit the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas was in a Swedish theater, and went to see it. Again, English Language with Swedish subtitles. It's a good way to learn profanity in a foreign language by just going to a movie....:)
Diamondback
07-23-19, 18:06
Maybe my view is somewhat simplistic, but my travels around the world showed that America's greatest export in the 20th Century was it's culture. I've now been to 23 Countries, while in the Army and out, and you always see bits and pieces of America in these places - some more than others.
I have always felt that if you could flood a closed society run by dictators with American stuff - movies, TV programs, blue jeans, Big Macs, iPhones and everything else that we consume, just getting a little taste of those "luxuries", and the population would never want to go back to the austere lifestyle. We invade with consumer goods, not military personnel.
I remember my first time back to Europe after Gothic Serpent in late 1993. I went to England first then a quick flight to Copenhagen and the Ferry to Malmö (before the Örresund Bridge). I was visiting friends and on Swedish TV, I saw an episode of the "Streets of San Francisco" with Michael Douglas and Karl Malden. It was in English with Swedish sub-titles. That same visit the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas was in a Swedish theater, and went to see it. Again, English Language with Swedish subtitles. It's a good way to learn profanity in a foreign language by just going to a movie....:)
Tom Clancy once said that "Kojak" was the root of Communism's fall in Poland. If a New York crime-drama looks like a better place to live than what you got...
Diamondback
07-23-19, 18:10
The early 50's was peak influence for Soviet communism. You can't just dismiss the impact of closer French/Soviet relations - French communists were many in number. Many Western European countries were in real danger of electing communist governments or being overthrown by them (namely Italy and Greece). Was backing France in Indochina the morally responsible choice? Probably not. Did we have to? Arguably, yes.
I will say that Ho Chi Minh was the most pragmatic communist leader of the time, along with Tito. Ho was not an ardent Marxist or Maoist, but they were willing to support his cause after the U.S. abandoned the Viet Minh.
Yeah, I know... Frog Commies were still regularly rioting into the mid-'60s when Grandpa and the family spent a year in Hell, er NATO Chateauroux-Deols Air Depot. No on-base housing so the families were out surrounded by hostile locals... made 'em nostalgic for the previous two years at Hahn and living in a guest-room above a Gasthouse in Dillendorf.
Given the longstanding Vietnamese-Chinese ethnic feuds, had we been a little more pragmatic with Ho maybe he woulda helped keep Mao bottled up for us...
Vietnam has never been anti American. Even during the war. They just their independence.
My dad did 2 tours in Vietnam, my wife is from Vietnam (born in Haiphong in 1970, came here in 1991), and I’ve been there many times. I’ve also read extensively about it.
Tom Clancy once said that "Kojak" was the root of Communism's fall in Poland. If a New York crime-drama looks like a better place to live than what you got...
Find "Chuck Norris vs. Communism." The film is about the illegal importation of American action and religious films on VHS cassettes to Romania in the late 1970s and 1980s, which the filmmakers believe contributed to the fall of the Nicolae Ceaușescu's communist dictatorship.
Vietnam was/is the same as Afghanistan: they cannot win while we are there. Whatever the eventual outcome in either it will not be accomplished while we are/were there. Did we "win" in either place? No. Were we militarily driven out? No again.
Vietnam has never been anti American. Even during the war. They just their independence.
My dad did 2 tours in Vietnam, my wife is from Vietnam (born in Haiphong in 1970, came here in 1991), and I’ve been there many times. I’ve also read extensively about it.
I completely agree that most were more "nationalist" than they were devotee's of communist ideology and for many, especially Ho, communism was just a means to an end. But there was a savage hatred of Americans for many, US POWs were tortured and executed routinely.
I don't think there was a single SOG POW that was ever returned alive. And while Ho himself was more of a "nationalist" than a "communist" there were thousands in the north and south deeply steeped in communist ideology who were as savagely anti American as any enemy we ever fought. Vietnamese communists were exceptionally brutal to their own people such as the Montanyards when they invaded the south and it was because they were either ardent communists or resented the yards working with the Americans or both.
The Vietnamese people were hardly of a single mind.
Vietnam is anti Chinese, French, American colonialism/occupation. They successfully fought the foreign invaders and drove them out. The Vietnamese were hardened from years of atrocities from war. They recognized the American soldiers to be decent young men called on to fight for their government and they had no problem killing them in a fight for their own country and a independence VN. There are no clean wars absent of brutality and injustices.
Belmont31R
07-25-19, 03:16
Don’t forget the USSR was extensively funding anti-war organizations in the US and in the west. A lot of the anti-war protests originated from groups like Students for a Democratic Society on college campuses. They also funded anti-nuclear groups (both energy and canned sunshine).
Soviet influence in the media was nothing new during that era. Walter Duranty, NYT writer, was covering up and denying Soviet atrocities as far back as the Holodomor. The communist infiltration of society was well underway by the 1960’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement?wprov=sfti1
Diamondback
07-25-19, 03:22
Don’t forget the USSR was extensively funding anti-war organizations in the US and in the west. A lot of the anti-war protests originated from groups like Students for a Democratic Society on college campuses. They also funded anti-nuclear groups (both energy and canned sunshine).
Soviet influence in the media was nothing new during that era. Walter Duranty, NYT writer, was covering up and denying Soviet atrocities as far back as the Holodomor. The communist infiltration of society was well underway by the 1960’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement?wprov=sfti1
Wanna see some REAL scary shit about how pervasive pinko Commie scum were and still are in our government? Read up on the Venona intercepts--better yet, go straight to the horse's mouth with the Mitrokhin Archive of KGB materials, as discussed in The Sword and the Shield and The World Was Going Our Way. You'll never respect ANY fruit of the Democrat Party or the American Left again after you see that... also, read the works of David Horowitz, indoctrinated from birth to be a faithful "soldier of the revolution" until a life-changing epiphany galvanized him into joining our side.
#McCarthyWasRIGHT
Vietnam was/is the same as Afghanistan: they cannot win while we are there. Whatever the eventual outcome in either it will not be accomplished while we are/were there. Did we "win" in either place? No. Were we militarily driven out? No again.
Vietnam, Astan, Rhodesia, etc.,those countries don't have to win. They just have to wait. There's no incentive for them to conduct a force on force type of warfare.
Kinda have to wonder about wanting to fight communists on the other side of the planet when plenty of communists are within strolling distance of most Americans.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
sundance435
07-26-19, 10:06
Wanna see some REAL scary shit about how pervasive pinko Commie scum were and still are in our government? Read up on the Venona intercepts--better yet, go straight to the horse's mouth with the Mitrokhin Archive of KGB materials, as discussed in The Sword and the Shield and The World Was Going Our Way. You'll never respect ANY fruit of the Democrat Party or the American Left again after you see that... also, read the works of David Horowitz, indoctrinated from birth to be a faithful "soldier of the revolution" until a life-changing epiphany galvanized him into joining our side.
#McCarthyWasRIGHT
Well, to be fair, we had contemporary intel on a lot of this stuff. Mitrokhin's "archive" provided more color for much of it, more than anything. Part of the problem was Hoover (like McCarthy) and the boy who cried wolf. You call everyone a commie or subversive and the president, bureaucracy, and public tend to ignore the real cases. Mitrokhin's material also paints a scary picture of how bush-league the CIA was compared to the KGB during various time periods. My own impression, after reading "Legacy of Ashes" and "Sword and the Shield" is that CIA thought they were Men in Black, while the KGB was doing real spy craft.
Not to go too far off topic, but MLK, RFK, etc., were far from saints. However, various presidents and Hoover were so eager to vilify them that Hoover just outright fabricated stuff instead of leveraging the real intel they had.
Vietnam, Astan, Rhodesia, etc.,those countries don't have to win. They just have to wait. There's no incentive for them to conduct a force on force type of warfare.
Agreed. What my point was is that as long as we have an active, reaction-to-aggression force in place neither the NVA or the Taliban in A-stan could officially rule those countries.
In 1972 we had largely withdrawn from Vietnam, at least ground forces-wise. I liken it to the current situation in Afghanistan; "adviser" phase with beaucoup air support on tap. The NVA got too froggy and jumped during the Easter offensive of 1972. The ARVN, backed heavily by U.S. airpower, hammered it to a stop and eventually retook most of the lost ground. Until we were totally gone (like starting in January of 1973) they couldn't take it. Fight open-endedly? Yes. Conquer? No.
Kinda have to wonder about wanting to fight communists on the other side of the planet when plenty of communists are within strolling distance of most Americans.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
That ain't no lie there. That said, there weren't as many "commies/socialists" here at home 50 years ago as there are now.
That ain't no lie there. That said, there weren't as many "commies/socialists" here at home 50 years ago as there are now.
Not sure about that. Also I don't think the average Dem does quite as much damage as Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenburgs. Giving Stalin the bomb was probably the greatest work of espionage by any foreign government in the 20th century. This led to the Chinese being able to develop their own atomic weapons in a very short time.
Not sure about that. Also I don't think the average Dem does quite as much damage as Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenburgs. Giving Stalin the bomb was probably the greatest work of espionage by any foreign government in the 20th century. This led to the Chinese being able to develop their own atomic weapons in a very short time.
Yeah but the only saving grace (which wouldn't happen nowadays) was that the Rosenbergs were indeed executed for their treachery; no needle-prick-go-to-sleep thing either. They got FRIED! While it didn't undo what they had done, it was nice payback.
I think you're referring to foreign espionage, and your point is valid. I'm mainly referring to domestic issues and policy. I'll guarantee you the average Democrat of 1969 would view the crap espoused by a LARGE segment of today's Demo-Socialists as appalling, i.e. the policies they want to inflict on our country.
Yeah but the only saving grace (which wouldn't happen nowadays) was that the Rosenbergs were indeed executed for their treachery; no needle-prick-go-to-sleep thing either. They got FRIED! While it didn't undo what they had done, it was nice payback.
I think you're referring to foreign espionage, and your point is valid. I'm mainly referring to domestic issues and policy. I'll guarantee you the average Democrat of 1969 would view the crap espoused by a LARGE segment of today's Demo-Socialists as appalling, i.e. the policies they want to inflict on our country.
During all that, how many hard core communists were directly in government or controlling government behind the scenes. J. Edgar Hoover was hassling gays while being gay himself as a similar example so there is a strong possibility of a low hanging fruit/useful idiot/cannon fodder aspect to anything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.