|
Vietnam
Nov 2, 2001 19:31:53 GMT -5
Post by Diogenes on Nov 2, 2001 19:31:53 GMT -5
This arises out of some comments made in the Precision Bombing thread.
After all these years, it still seems popular to claim that the US could have won the war in Vietnam "if it had really wanted to."
Such statements strike me as being along the lines of juvenile excuses to salve bruised egos after a lost ball game.
Give me a friggin break.
The US military brutalized the population of Vietnam, by every means short of dropping atomic bombs. We dropped twice as much bomb tonnage on that small country as was dropped in all of Europe in all of World War II.
Over 2 million Vietnamese were killed in the war. 2 friggin million. And people have the gall to claim that the US didn't really try to win.
I have to wonder what definition of "winning" is being used. Sure, we could have used even more destructive power. We could have used atomic weapons and annhilated every man, woman, and child in the entire country. We could have exterminated the Vietnamese. Would that have been "winning?" Would that have meant victory in any real sense?
"Winning" and "Victory" can only be understood in relationship to one's goals. Was it our goal when we got involved to wipe out the country? Was that something we wanted, so that accomplishment of it could be declared victory?
No, meaningful victory for the US was impossible in Vietnam. We were fighting for the wrong reasons, against what was at bottom a popular national movement for independence, which had started after World War II in an effort to throw off French colonial domination. When the French could no longer suppress the Vietnamese, the US stepped in to fill the void for a variety of misguided reasons.
The Vietnamese saw us as an outside power, seeking to subjugate them for our own interests and against theirs, and they were right about that.
"Winning" the war under such circumstances was something that we should never have tried to achieve. It was a misguided effort from the start. "Winning" it would have involved the brutal subjugation of a people that wanted no part of our rule. Hell, we tried. We killed 2 million of them in the effort.
At last we came to some semblance of sense and gave up the impossible goal. I am glad we failed. I am glad we "lost," for "victory" under such circumstances could only have meant that no matter how brutally we had fought the war to that point, it would have been nothing compared to the monstrous evil that it would have taken to "win."
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 2, 2001 20:11:02 GMT -5
Post by Solaufein_Xiltyn on Nov 2, 2001 20:11:02 GMT -5
*!
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 2, 2001 21:16:14 GMT -5
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 2, 2001 21:16:14 GMT -5
You can't win by bombing (Serbia was an anomoly). We never invaded the north. We never marched into Hanoi. We never attacked the NVA on their own turf. If you pursue the enemy up to a line, then stop. The enemy heals, reconstitutes, and marches forth again. And again. And again. That's what happened in VN.
I stand by my statement. If the VN war had been run with military considerations taking the forefront instead of political, then North VN would have fallen no later than 1969 (If the Chicoms didn't pull their "volunteer" crap again.) Total loss of life would have been much less on both sides. What would have happened afterwards is a topic up for grabs, but that would have been a proper place for political considerations, not which bombing missions should be flown.
The NVA never won a battle against the US, how would they have stopped us?
|
|
|
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 3, 2001 0:53:03 GMT -5
I find it amusing that some people think that the country that was able to defeat the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany couldn't "win" in vietnam if it wanted to. Think about that...
Billy Yanks analysis is pretty much right on point. I never suggested that we didn't bomb enough, I stated that our goal was never to "win", and the politicians made sure that we wouldn't.
|
|
Zoras
Minion
Burn with the Dragon's soul
Posts: 203
|
Post by Zoras on Nov 3, 2001 2:23:23 GMT -5
So essentially it was just a defensive war that ultimately resulted in a lot of suffering but no real victory? *shakes his head*
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 6:48:52 GMT -5
I find it amusing that some people think that the country that was able to defeat the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany couldn't "win" in vietnam if it wanted to. Think about that... Billy Yanks analysis is pretty much right on point. I never suggested that we didn't bomb enough, I stated that our goal was never to "win", and the politicians made sure that we wouldn't. Hmmm . . . you guys seemed to have missed the point of my post. Here it is again: "Victory" is a fluid concept. It depends entirely on what one's objectives are. Yes, it was probably within the US military's power to exterminate every last man, woman, and child in Vietnam. Feel reassured about your country now?
|
|
|
Post by Belecthor on Nov 3, 2001 7:20:55 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . you guys seemed to have missed the point of my post. <br> Here it is again: "Victory" is a fluid concept. It depends entirely on what one's objectives are. <br> Yes, it was probably within the US military's power to exterminate every last man, woman, and child in Vietnam. <br> Feel reassured about your country now? <br> You may want to consider this. It was the South Vietnamese government that requested our help. The South Vietnamese government had the support of many, many of the Vietnamese people. Additionally, the South Vietnamese military consistantly wanted more involvement from us, a true campaign aimed at military victory, as opposed to the 'police action' that it became.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 3, 2001 7:39:08 GMT -5
Are you doing this on purpose to piss people off? Or are you really that stupid?
Why would the military want to kill every man, woman and child in VN, when victory could have been acheived by destroying the NVA and forcing the government to flee or capitulate. Not only could we have done that, we could have done it without killing two million people.
|
|
|
Post by Belecthor on Nov 3, 2001 9:56:35 GMT -5
Are you doing this on purpose to piss people off? Or are you really that stupid? Enough of that. Make your points people but personal insults are out of line. I'd appreciate not having to say it again.
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 3, 2001 10:20:01 GMT -5
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 10:20:01 GMT -5
Are you doing this on purpose to piss people off? Or are you really that stupid? Why would the military want to kill every man, woman and child in VN, when victory could have been acheived by destroying the NVA and forcing the government to flee or capitulate. Not only could we have done that, we could have done it without killing two million people. In my experience, people who are quick to resort to personal insults are people who are short on real argument. Billy Yank, you are misunderstanding my point completely. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clearer. I certainly was not saying that exterminating the Vietnamese would have been a desirable military goal. By saying that the military could have done so, I was merely acknowledging the enormous capabilities of the US military if truly unrestrained. However, you are fooling yourself if you think the US could have easily achieved a meaningful "victory" by invading North Vietnam. Such a belief is based upon a misunderstanding of the true nature of the war over there. Vietnam was not so much a war between govenments, so that victory over the government of North Vietnam would have been a "win," as it was a popular revolution against foreign influence, supported by most of the Vietnamese, north and south. If the US had overrun all of North Vietnam, it would not have meant a conclusion to the fighting. The Vietnamese would have fought on from the countryside, and neighboring countries, in the same guerrilla fashion that they proved time and again to be so adept at. Belecthor, it is an understatement to say that the South Vietnamese goverment requested US military aid. The South Vietnamese government was largely the creation of the US in the first place, an unpopular regime which could not have survived at all without being propped up by the US. The majority of the people of Vietnam did not want it, and were fighting against it. That gov't depended on foreign (US) support to have any prayer of suppressing its own people.
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 3, 2001 10:21:35 GMT -5
Post by Diogenes on Nov 3, 2001 10:21:35 GMT -5
Enough of that. Make your points people but personal insults are out of line. I'd appreciate not having to say it again. Understood, Bel. Thank you and I agree.
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 3, 2001 12:43:54 GMT -5
Post by pedro2112 on Nov 3, 2001 12:43:54 GMT -5
The majority of the people of Vietnam did not want it, and were fighting against it. That gov't depended on foreign (US) support to have any prayer of suppressing its own people. Whether or not this may have been true at one point, after the communists took over the entire country and were responsible for over a million murders, you can bet your bottom dollar that the people would have rather had the US "win." Another strange irony of life.....
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 3, 2001 18:18:42 GMT -5
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 3, 2001 18:18:42 GMT -5
In my experience, people who are quick to resort to personal insults are people who are short on real argument. Billy Yank, you are misunderstanding my point completely. Perhaps it is my fault for not being clearer. I felt personnally insulted by what I thought you were saying about the US Military. I was clearly mistaken and I apologize for reacting so harshly. It depends on what you mean by "meaningful". We certainly could have acheived a MILITARY victory. As I said in my earlier post, what happened after that is beyond the scope of a discussion of military capabilities. Would we have stationed an army of occupation over there? Would we have pulled out and left the north to the "tender mercies" of the south? How large or effective would the continuing Communist guerrilla forces be? All unanswerable questions, and none of which actually have any bearing on the military capabilities of the United States in the late 60's and early 70's. Technically, it was a creation of the French. The trouble with VN is that the majority of people didn't want either govenment. It was Commie dictators vs. Fascist dictators.
|
|
|
Post by Feraess on Nov 5, 2001 7:49:40 GMT -5
It's surely not nice to call your own government a facist dictator:) Although the US probably could have 'conquored' all of Vietman eventually, and without all the mess back home, it would have been a case of defeat in victory, since the casualties suffered would have been ridiculously huge. Anyway, it's nice for every country to be humilliated every once in a while
|
|
|
Vietnam
Nov 5, 2001 11:35:39 GMT -5
Post by ElricMorlockin on Nov 5, 2001 11:35:39 GMT -5
So essentially it was just a defensive war that ultimately resulted in a lot of suffering but no real victory? *shakes his head* Precisely Zoras, when your military isnt "allowed" to attack certain areas because of the "know it all" politicians it hampers a commander from being able to win. To my knowledge no one has ever won a war fighting on the defensive strategically. Dio, The object of the war was to "defend" South Vietnam against attack not ensure that the attacks wouldnt happen. The "save face" exit strategy was what wound up killing a great many N. Vietnamese, when it didnt necessarily have to happen that way. B-52 strikes were called in against the north around the clock to get them to the bargaining table, in order to allow us to pull out. Also, keep in mind that the number of casualties suffered by the North wasnt from us frag bombing the entire north for years on end. Much of that area was part of the "off limits" as set by Johnson. A great majority of their casualties were caused from inferior battlefield tactics when things went conventional. Look at the famous Tet offensive for example, it was what caused the greatest uproar in the US media, yet N. Vietnamese forces took a resounding beating. Nearly their entire attack forces were wiped out to the person, yet since a couple soldiers penetrated the US embassy grounds, the media went beserk and began declaring absolute defeat in the War. And Dio, you assert that it was in our power to exterminate every man, woman and child in the North. However, we didnt do that now did we? If you knew any servicemen that had the misfortune of serving in Nam, you would know that they couldnt trust kids especially, since the North ruthlessly used them to perform all manners of dirty little tricks. And Fearass, I know how much you both want and love to see my country humiliated. I would add that hopefully in the next war that Britain needs you that you get to face the same things that your countries older generations had to. In this way, you may be able to dry out some of that water behind your ears and appreciate what people sacrificed, in order to give you the ability to lambast everything others do.
|
|