Was Vietnamisation in fact Americanisation ?

[cparle87]

We are talking about the only nation on earth that has committed an act of nuclear terrorism. Twice.

Is that the left indoctrination about the end of WWII now? How about a little reality? If the US had gone ahead with a conventional ground invasion of Japan it would've done two things. Killed thousands more US soldiers. And possibly ended with the effective extinction of the Japanese people. Because if you know anything about the Japanese they would not have stopped defending their Emperor as long as there was a man, woman, or child left who could pick up a piece of pipe and swing it. Even after we dropped the bombs as we were laying down the terms of surrender they were balking at things like "The Emperor has to admit that he isn't a diety" and his people were resisting at that until he told them to agree to do it. The only way that war was ending was either surrender or extinction. And Truman decided a show of force that cost Japanese lives but not US ones was preferable to one that would kill many of both. It was horrible. But sadly it was the least horrible end result.

[sarahtasher]

The US never lost to the Vietcong, they stopped fighting because they lost at the homefront.

The US can win any war if they go all in. But after WW2, they never really went all in anymore.

One, the Vietcong did win several engagement-they are called ''ambushes'' or ''don't count'' because amazingly, they were not stupid enough to line up in a clearing to be bombed to oblivion and preferred to attack by surprise underdefended targets.

Two, 500 000 men and billlions of dollars sure seems ''all in''.

Three, the war was not lost because Jane Fond did a photo-op in Hanoi or because mean hippies said mean things about Marines. It was lost because in over 20 years of existence, South Vietnam failed epically at inspiring loyalty and abnegation to it's populace, while the North did. The homefront was in Saigon, not Washington.

[Deleted]

One, the Vietcong did win several engagement-they are called ''ambushes'' or ''don't count'' because amazingly, they were not stupid enough to line up in a clearing to be bombed to oblivion and preferred to attack by surprise underdefended targets.

Two, 500 000 men and billlions of dollars sure seems ''all in''.

Three, the war was not lost because Jane Fond did a photo-op in Hanoi or because mean hippies said mean things about Marines. It was lost because in over 20 years of existence, South Vietnam failed epically at inspiring loyalty and abnegation to it's populace, while the North did. The homefront was in Saigon, not Washington.

The US was plagued with doubt about this war from day one. They kinda rolled into it when France was losing and the US secretly started helping them in the final year.
Fear for the further spread of communism and Russian/Chinese influence in the region further pulled them in and they eventually decided to support the Southern region that was formed after the Paris agreement.

Yes, the Vietcong mastered the art of guerrilla warfare and managed to inflict damage on forward US bases, and even deep into the South at the end of the war after they prepped for years. This accomplished that people on te homefront got to see photos and videos of a country at war, which turned the public against it. And lets not forget the draft, which ment your children could be drafted into a pointless war and possibly die there for no reason.

The US shouldve finished this war in the first 2 years, which it was more than capable of. But like I said earlier, they hesitated every step along the way and never went full in.

[sarahtasher]

The US was plagued with doubt about this war from day one. They kinda rolled into it when France was losing and the US secretly started helping them in the final year.
Fear for the further spread of communism and Russian/Chinese influence in the region further pulled them in and they eventually decided to support the Southern region that was formed after the Paris agreement.

Yes, the Vietcong mastered the art of guerrilla warfare and managed to inflict damage on forward US bases, and even deep into the South at the end of the war after they prepped for years. This accomplished that people on te homefront got to see photos and videos of a country at war, which turned the public against it. And lets not forget the draft, which ment your children could be drafted into a pointless war and possibly die there for no reason.

The US shouldve finished this war in the first 2 years, which it was more than capable of. But like I said earlier, they hesitated every step along the way and never went full in.

Actually, as mentioned in the OP, the final offensive eschewed guerilla warfare for well organized and well planned conventional mobile warfare. Presumably not on the level of the US army, but this was the thing for which the ARVN had been trained-a war with tanks and artillery-and they yet failed at it.

[Mormolyce]

Is that the left indoctrination about the end of WWII now? How about a little reality? If the US had gone ahead with a conventional ground invasion of Japan it would've done two things. Killed thousands more US soldiers. And possibly ended with the effective extinction of the Japanese people. Because if you know anything about the Japanese they would not have stopped defending their Emperor as long as there was a man, woman, or child left who could pick up a piece of pipe and swing it. Even after we dropped the bombs as we were laying down the terms of surrender they were balking at things like "The Emperor has to admit that he isn't a diety" and his people were resisting at that until he told them to agree to do it. The only way that war was ending was either surrender or extinction. And Truman decided a show of force that cost Japanese lives but not US ones was preferable to one that would kill many of both. It was horrible. But sadly it was the least horrible end result.

Left indoctrination? LOL.

I don't agree with anything you've written here, but even if I did, nothing you wrote contradicts my assertion that it was an act of nuclear terrorism.

[cparle87]

Left indoctrination? LOL.

I don't agree with anything you've written here, but even if I did, nothing you wrote contradicts my assertion that it was an act of nuclear terrorism.

So you prefer them dead or under Soviet domination? Cause Russia was stampeding at them when they finally surrendered to us. And the fact you disagree with what I wrote is proof positive you don't know what you're talking about. There were Japanese soldiers hiding out on islands in the Pacific until the 70s. The Soviets didn't accept their surrender for 4 more years. You call it terrorism, we call it the only way to prevent an entire people from being wiped out.

Take a read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan.

The nukes, as horrible as they were, were the least horrible option.

[I Push Buttons]

For a lot of reasons, Vietnam's War was unwinnable since its beginning for the Americans.

Not really, the war was entirely winnable.

The North was not able to win a conventional war against the South so long as the US was involved... And the North was losing conventionally in a big way, their forces were being devastated, almost all of their offensives failed and the few that didn't had the losses reversed in short order thereafter... Then their last major offensive (during US participation), the Tet Offensive, tactically failed and the Viet Cong (the guerrilla forces in the South) basically ceased to exist as a force... This on top of the fact that the hearts and minds campaign was working in the South (the going out and building villages/infrastructure and helping people strategy)...

The problem was anti-war opposition at home and politicians lying (sort of). For a long while prior to the Tet Offensive, the government had been telling people that the war was dying down, the US was winning, and it would be over soon... Then out of nowhere the Tet Offensive happened, a massive offensive on the part of the North and the Viet Cong, across all fronts and within the South. Tactically that operation failed, the offensive was repulsed and as I said previously, the Viet Cong was basically wiped out. But it was a massive propaganda/strategic victory because at home it was a shock and directly contradicted what the politicians had been saying (that the war was dying down), adding a new fire to the already fervent anti-war movement.

And it was under this mounting anti-war pressure that Vietnamization started and the American withdrawal began. And in short order thereafter the ceasefire occurred and then the peace accords and the US had its face saving way out and took it. And then the North invaded again and the US government abandoned the South.

Had the anti-war movement not pressured the government into withdrawing, the war was winnable, they were winning.

[Macaquerie]

Not really, the war was entirely winnable.

The North was not able to win a conventional war against the South so long as the US was involved... And the North was losing conventionally in a big way, their forces were being devastated, almost all of their offensives failed and the few that didn't had the losses reversed in short order thereafter... Then their last major offensive (during US participation), the Tet Offensive, tactically failed and the Viet Cong (the guerrilla forces in the South) basically ceased to exist as a force... This on top of the fact that the hearts and minds campaign was working in the South (the going out and building villages/infrastructure and helping people strategy)...

The problem was anti-war opposition at home and politicians lying (sort of). For a long while prior to the Tet Offensive, the government had been telling people that the war was dying down, the US was winning, and it would be over soon... Then out of nowhere the Tet Offensive happened, a massive offensive on the part of the North and the Viet Cong, across all fronts and within the South. Tactically that operation failed, the offensive was repulsed and as I said previously, the Viet Cong was basically wiped out. But it was a massive propaganda/strategic victory because at home it was a shock and directly contradicted what the politicians had been saying (that the war was dying down), adding a new fire to the already fervent anti-war movement.

And it was under this mounting anti-war pressure that Vietnamization started and the American withdrawal began. And in short order thereafter the ceasefire occurred and then the peace accords and the US had its face saving way out and took it. And then the North invaded again and the US government abandoned the South.

Had the anti-war movement not pressured the government into withdrawing, the war was winnable, they were winning.

So pretty much...

[I Push Buttons]

So pretty much...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...k_postcard.jpg

Why are posting antisemitic nonsense in response to me?

[Macaquerie]

Why are posting antisemitic nonsense in response to me?

Because you are pretty much making the exact same argument, you just switched around the identity of the scapegoats.

We never came close to winning the Vietnam War, no matter what delusional fantasies people may have had that one last push would've ended it or anything like that. The South Vietnamese were doomed to collapse whenever we left, so unless the plan was to stick around as a permanent occupying force and continue the war in perpetuity, there would've been no way to even preserve the status quo, nevermind actually uniting the country under a pro-American regime.

And that last bit is the really ridiculous part, because the current state of affairs shows that the entire war was unnecessary to begin with. Turns out all those pinko Charlies are perfectly open to making friends with the USA, and now they are probably the strongest supporter we have in the region. They would probably be an even closer ally if it weren't for all those bitter old 'Nam vets lingering in the chain of command.

[ipaq]

(Yet another attempt to have a different thread therein)

The Vietnamisation was the Nixon policy of ''enhancing'' and ''improving'' the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) to fend off the PAVN (Popular of Army of Vietnam) post 1969, with the implicit goal that South Vietnamese would carry the fighting (they already did, but it's another issue)

It was a cataclysmic failure, as the ARVN performed between ''poorly'' and ''adequately'' with colossal American air support and folded in four months without the said support.

That the collapse was hastened by the cutback to American help is one thing, but was ''Vietnamisation'' fatally flawed from it's inception ?

The thing is, in addition that three years is not a very long time to build an army (that suffered from flaws pointed out since 1955, however), ''Vietnamisation'' had a huge issue : it was building an American army to fight a war American-style-with third world ressources and bad for third world corruption. All what made Americans relatively succesful in Vietnam (air mobility, tactical aerial support, lavish ammunition expense) was quite out of reach for the ARVN, who was trained to fight using them .

Not to mention that ironically, the ARVN was trained to fight a conventional war against conventional North forces : not only this training was widely inadequate for what would have been useful in 1969-1974, but it proved woefully inadequate when the North did attacked using massive conventional forces...

The USA cannot win a war (and didnt since Japan) without mass murdering 200k+ helpless women, childs and old people.

Pretty much that.

[I Push Buttons]

Because you are pretty much making the exact same argument, you just switched around the identity of the scapegoats.

We never came close to winning the Vietnam War, no matter what delusional fantasies people may have had that one last push would've ended it or anything like that. The South Vietnamese were doomed to collapse whenever we left, so unless the plan was to stick around as a permanent occupying force and continue the war in perpetuity, there would've been no way to even preserve the status quo, nevermind actually uniting the country under a pro-American regime.

And that last bit is the really ridiculous part, because the current state of affairs shows that the entire war was unnecessary to begin with. Turns out all those pinko Charlies are perfectly open to making friends with the USA, and now they are probably the strongest supporter we have in the region. They would probably be an even closer ally if it weren't for all those bitter old 'Nam vets lingering in the chain of command.

Only I never suggested anything like that? There was never any planned "push" into North Vietnam? The point of the war was to prevent the spread of communism (the domino theory) by preserving South Vietnam, the same as the Korean War. And the US could have easily achieved that...

The conflicts were incredibly similar apart from the massive anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Hell Vietnam was even more in our favor since the USSR and China didn't directly involve themselves as China did in Korea, they only provided material support and a guarantee of Northern sovereignty against US invasion.

You people keep going on about how terrible the government was in the South... Do you not recall Korea? South Korea was a dictatorship as well... Their government regularly mass executed accused communist sympathizers and the "president" (read: dictator) who did that was literally forced from office and into exile. That country succeeded? Are you arguing the Vietnamese were somehow inferior in that regard to Koreans?

[Mormolyce]

So you prefer them dead or under Soviet domination? Cause Russia was stampeding at them when they finally surrendered to us. And the fact you disagree with what I wrote is proof positive you don't know what you're talking about. There were Japanese soldiers hiding out on islands in the Pacific until the 70s. The Soviets didn't accept their surrender for 4 more years. You call it terrorism, we call it the only way to prevent an entire people from being wiped out.

Take a read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan.

The nukes, as horrible as they were, were the least horrible option.

Again, nothing you have said here disputes the definition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of nuclear terrorism.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what those words mean.

[SL1200]

I blame the Boomers for losing Vietnam. We'd have probably lost world war 2 if they were the ones sent to fight it.

[cparle87]

Again, nothing you have said here disputes the definition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of nuclear terrorism.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what those words mean.

I'm thinking the absolute same thing about you. People throw around the word "terrorism" so willynilly these days I think they've forgotten what is really means.

[Mask]

With enough nuclear bombs you can win any war. Americas problem was that it used zero in Vietnam. Replay history with 25 nuke drops and see who wins.

[ParanoiD84]

What a daft thing to believe.

- - - Updated - - -



It wasn't a question of willpower. We are talking about the only nation on earth that has committed an act of nuclear terrorism. Twice. You vastly overestimate the US's restraint if you think they wouldn't have taken an opportunity to end any war swiftly.

They didn't win because they couldn't. Quite apart from the entrenched nature of the guerilla resistance, if they advanced too far they'd be fighting the Chinese and that's something they desperately wished to avoid. It was not a winnable scenario, if it was then they would've.

This "damn hippies made us quit, we were totes close to winning bra" line is just the exact American parallel to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Who cares about the nuke, you should read about how many millions of chinese people the japanese slaughtered, Unit 731 etc etc, they had it comming.

[Macaquerie]

Only I never suggested anything like that? There was never any planned "push" into North Vietnam? The point of the war was to prevent the spread of communism (the domino theory) by preserving South Vietnam, the same as the Korean War. And the US could have easily achieved that...

The conflicts were incredibly similar apart from the massive anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Hell Vietnam was even more in our favor since the USSR and China didn't directly involve themselves as China did in Korea, they only provided material support and a guarantee of Northern sovereignty against US invasion.

You people keep going on about how terrible the government was in the South... Do you not recall Korea? South Korea was a dictatorship as well... Their government regularly mass executed accused communist sympathizers and the "president" (read: dictator) who did that was literally forced from office and into exile. That country succeeded? Are you arguing the Vietnamese were somehow inferior in that regard to Koreans?

South Vietnam was different because the regime was both dictatorial and incompetent, given that most of the leadership were mostly just French puppets who didn't have any support from the local population, which helps explain why they put up so little fight after the American troops withdrew. Say what you want about Syngman Rhee, you could hardly label him a colonial puppet and there were some genuine patriots who were willing to fight and die for the country which South Vietnam simply didn't have many of. The Korean War was a civil war with heavy foreign intervention, the Vietnam War was pretty much a war between the Vietnamese people and America, with some very half-hearted support from whatever useful idiots we could scrounge up.

[bladeXcrasher]

With enough nuclear bombs you can win any war. Americas problem was that it used zero in Vietnam. Replay history with 25 nuke drops and see who wins.

Nobody, we all would have lost.

[Realitytrembles]

Morally repugnant, unlikely to be effective AND stupid? Wow, that's right wing military fantasy bingo.

And yeah, the US isn't winning its wars because it's not "fighting to win". LOL.

It wasn't fighting to win. Politicians tied the soldier's hands. What would I have done?

1) 5 megaton airburst 1000ft directly above the geographic center of both Hanoi and Haiphong. China couldnt do diddly sht because their nuke arsenal at the time was laughable. USSR wouldn't have wanted to trade Moscow for Hanoi.

2)Napalm and HE carpet bombing of all other populated areas of 1000 people or more.

3)Full scale ground invasion of the North. Burn crops, shoot livestock, break dams, destroy power plants and power lines.

4) Vietnamese were tough, no doubt. but, any people can be broken. You simply have to be willing to do what is necessary.

The point of all this is to make further resistance unthinkable. It would literally lead to the end of everything they loved.

War should be horrible as we can make it, so people will not want to fight.

" it is well that war should be so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." --- Robert E. Lee

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't a question of willpower. We are talking about the only nation on earth that has committed an act of nuclear terrorism. Twice. You vastly overestimate the US's restraint if you think they wouldn't have taken an opportunity to end any war swiftly.

Hahahahaha.

Terrorism.

Bombing cities during a declared war is terrorism. You heard it here folks.

Cities; you know those things full of roads, supplies, communications infrastructure, and potential reinforcements (in the population of the city). Therefore a military target.

There's only one way to fight: you kill as many of the other guy as you can, as fast as you can. You bomb the backyard of his house and kill his dogs, you burn down the restaurant where he met his wife.

You make it clear that everyone and everything he loves will be erased unless he bends the knee and kisses the ring.


And when he does, you stop.