Who lost the Vietnam war and why?

[Hardrations]

A bit facetious, but I remember some one saying on Exercies as we ate American C rations. That no wonder they lost in Vietnam feeding these to the troops.  :

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually the most sought after and enjoyed rations were LRRP rations - freeze dried entree's.
Certain C ration items were popular chicken and noodles,beans and franks but the deserts were awesome.

 

[Hardrations]

Hi Tomahawk6. I should have stated that this happened in 72/73 in Germany. I really don't remember any thing good about them then, but you did get those free cigarettes in them. Which were popular to give to the locals. I also remember in 71 in Norway on a Northern Defence of NATO Ex. that we were told to pile all left over hard rations in piles by nationality, so as the locals could go through them and take what they wanted. So you had American, British and Canadian. The choice seem to be 1st Cdn. 2nd British 3rd American. Mind in those days Canadian hard rations were brand name items with the brand name lable on them. The Norwegion hard rations were something that came in a waxed box the size and shape of a 509 radio Battery and were donkey years old. Getting off subject here, aren't we?

 

[tomahawk6]

C rations were sort of timeless  ;D

 

[GAP]

C rations were sort of timeless  ;D

Survived the better part of 24 months on them.....our C rations had a 1943 date on them....

 

[JBG]

Time,

In my opinion, the US and its South Vietnamese ally lost the war.  For the US the 'why' is down to the political leadership of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson who wanted victory without cost.....I don't think it has anything to do with number of casualties, or of troops committed, or of the billions spent, or of superpower realpolitik, but the lack of an American will to fight a sustained all out war and the lack of the support of the South Vietnamese people.

I think that close on the heels of the Korean and WW II the American people had little appetite for involvement in another war. Thus, it was difficult to sell them on the total war effort needed to actually win. Tax increases, rationing and other measures to put the economy on a wartime footing were out of the question.

The 'why' for the South Vietnamese was the people not willing to support a corrupt regime no matter what the alternative may have meant.

I thought that at the time but since then I no longer believe it. The number of fleeing "boat people" belie the belief that the South Vietnamese people had no preference.

 

[Journeyman]

Your view was not the point I was trying to make.

Apparently.
My "view" is simply that if one is taking part in a debate, at least try and use rational argument. I wasn't making any point within the discussion, merely trying to raise the quality bar.

Your addition merely confirms that you disagree with "my view." Wherever you got that "addition," (which you clearly cut & pasted, without attributing the source for anyone else to judge), it is just as lacking as your original post.

I'm certainly not going to refute its tripe line by line, but using the first paragraph as an example:

Two countries were created shortly after World War II – South Vietnam and North Vietnam.  South Vietnam had the beginnings of democracy and a staunchly pro-west, pro-growth outlook.  It was on its way to being an Asian tiger like the others taking off at the time - Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

 
Two countries were not created shortly after World War II. The division of northern and southern Vietnam was a "provisional military demarcation line" -- Article 6 of the 1954 Geneva Accord's Final Declaration specifically states that "the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." The temporary demarcation was to be eliminated with the July 1956 elections, dismissed by Diem.
George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis, The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam. Delta Books, 1967.

South Vietnam barely pretended to be democratic. Ngo Dinh Diem's referendum, defeating Bao Dai, saw him win 98% of the vote (133% in Saigon!). As near as I can find, his domestic policy was limited to defeating the northern communists; no mention of "pro-growth outlook" -- oh, and protecting his nepotistic, authoritarian regime from several coups, bad publicity from those self-immolating Buddhist monks, and finally the '63 assassination by his own Generals.
Robert McMahon (ed.) Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War, 3rd Ed. Houghton-Mifflin, 2003.

Vietnam was an "Asian tiger," taking off economically in the 1950s?? Give me a break. Its economy was in tatters following many years of war (national and international) and its domestic production was still overwhelmingly agrarian.
Robert Schultzinger, A Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975. Oxford University Press 1997.


Opinions are fine; informed opinions are even nicer.

 

[mediocre1]

Apparently.
My "view" is simply that if one is taking part in a debate, at least try and use rational argument. I wasn't making any point within the discussion, merely trying to raise the quality bar.

Your addition merely confirms that you disagree with "my view." Wherever you got that "addition," (which you clearly cut & pasted, without attributing the source for anyone else to judge), it is just as lacking as your original post.

I'm certainly not going to refute its tripe line by line, but using the first paragraph as an example: 
Two countries were not created shortly after World War II. The division of northern and southern Vietnam was a "provisional military demarcation line" -- Article 6 of the 1954 Geneva Accord's Final Declaration specifically states that "the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." The temporary demarcation was to be eliminated with the July 1956 elections, dismissed by Diem.
George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis, The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam. Delta Books, 1967.

South Vietnam barely pretended to be democratic. Ngo Dinh Diem's referendum, defeating Bao Dai, saw him win 98% of the vote (133% in Saigon!). As near as I can find, his domestic policy was limited to defeating the northern communists; no mention of "pro-growth outlook" -- oh, and protecting his nepotistic, authoritarian regime from several coups, bad publicity from those self-immolating Buddhist monks, and finally the '63 assassination by his own Generals.
Robert McMahon (ed.) Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War, 3rd Ed. Houghton-Mifflin, 2003.

Vietnam was an "Asian tiger," taking off economically in the 1950s?? Give me a break. Its economy was in tatters following many years of war (national and international) and its domestic production was still overwhelmingly agrarian.
Robert Schultzinger, A Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975. Oxford University Press 1997.


Opinions are fine; informed opinions are even nicer.

Your style and your slant are similar to Leftist journalists who attempt to justify the fall of Vietnam due an 'authoritarian regime'. They are exactly similar to active measures campaign waged by journalists working for communist regimes like Cuba and the Old Soviet Union. They're empty.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Your style and your slant are similar to Leftist journalists who attempt to justify the fall of Vietnam due an 'authoritarian regime'. They are exactly similar to active measures campaign waged by journalists working for communist regimes like Cuba and the Old Soviet Union. They're empty.

Ah, JM, you've been outed at last, you old pinko commie infiltrator, you.

 

[TimBit]

Ah, JM, you've been outed at last, you old pinko commie infiltrator, you.

With a name like Journeyman we all should have known 

Anyone ever seen that movie "The Commies are coming"? Yep, sure sounds like that kind of paranoia...

 

[Old Sweat]

Journeyman may indeed be a closet commie, but I might have added wild eyed to the description.

I am old enough to remember the pre-Vietnam war era. As I recall it, the regime in the South was at best erratic, plagued with 'daily changing' personalities including the wife of one of the main players who referred to the Bhuddist monks who used to burn themselves alive on busy streets as something like cigarette lighters. All this was a major distraction as the country careened into chaos caused by a growing Viet Cong insurrection on top of the looting of the national treasury by all and sundry. In short, Journeyman's description is quite accurate.

 

[mediocre1]

Journeyman may indeed be a closet commie, but I might have added wild eyed to the description.

I am old enough to remember the pre-Vietnam war era. As I recall it, the regime in the South was at best erratic, plagued with 'daily changing' personalities including the wife of one of the main players who referred to the Bhuddist monks who used to burn themselves alive on busy streets as something like cigarette lighters. All this was a major distraction as the country careened into chaos caused by a growing Viet Cong insurrection on top of the looting of the national treasury by all and sundry. In short, Journeyman's description is quite accurate.

His so called 'barely pretended democracy' or his 'authoritarian regime is far more likeable among the South Vietnamese Army and the majority of Vietham than communist totalitarianism. In fact it is not 'barely pretended'. It's an exaggeration. Vietnam during those times was a full-blown democracy before the coup which legitimated itself through  another set of elections. Sometimes one has  to be perspicacious to be able to read betweeen the lines. As intituive as John Nash of the NSA. Where then has he gone? Into hiding?Waitinig for reply.

 

[Michael OLeary]

In fact it is not 'barely pretended'. It's an exaggeration. Vietnam during those times was a full-blown democracy before the coup which legitimated itself through  another set of elections.

Elections = Democracy.  That proves everything.

Then again, elections in North Korea are held every five years.

 

[TimBit]

Elections = Democracy.  That proves everything.

Then again, elections in North Korea are held every five years.

ANd in Iran, our heathen enemy. And in the USSR, the great devious bear. Gee, Hitler even held plebiscites from time to time.

As you said, elections don't make a democracy. Democracy is about shared commitment to institutions and values that are democratic, for example not meddling in electoral processes, free party-registration processes, legally appointed executives of the State, a sovereign representative and active body i.e. parliament. Did it have all that?

On top of that, I'm amused at that comment:

his 'authoritarian regime is far more likeable among the South Vietnamese Army and the majority of Vietham than communist totalitarianism.

If the north vietnamese regime was so despicable to its own citizens, how is it that they managed to find waves upon waves of people to go and fight the americans off, as well as people in South Vietnam to help them out, and how is it that South Vietnam never managed to find enough people to protect that wonderful regime of theirs?

 

[dapaterson]

I guess it would be pointless to point out that only a tiny minority of Vietnamese identified as Christians - the overwhelming majority identified as Buddist. (Another issue to consider when discussing the government in the South - the Catholic influence).


The title of this thread is very revealing (the contents, not so much).  In traditional "big wars" it's easy to say who won, and who lost; though even that depends on when you ask the question.  In 1942, Germany had won the land war in Europe; by 1945, not so much.

In "small wars", as we see today in Iraq and Afghanistan, the question is less "who won" or "who lost" than "What do we mean by win and lose?"  What is the strategic outcome sought in those conflicts?  Those desired outcomes may well differ for different actors; it's entirely possible that, depending on your definitional framework, no one loses or no one wins.

Back on to this topic, what were the strategic outcomes sought by the different combatants?  What did the US want?  What did the South Vietnamese want?  What did the North Vietnamese want?  What did the Viet Cong want?  By assessing those objectives against outcomes we can identify "winners and losers" if that's that we're trying to do.

 

[Old Sweat]

In "small wars", as we see today in Iraq and Afghanistan, the question is less "who won" or "who lost" than "What do we mean by win and lose?"  What is the strategic outcome sought in those conflicts?  Those desired outcomes may well differ for different actors; it's entirely possible that, depending on your definitional framework, no one loses or no one wins.

And that exercise will be about as useful as trying to pick winners and losers in the War of 1812. And let's not go there today.

 

[dapaterson]

And that exercise will be about as useful as trying to pick winners and losers in the War of 1812. And let's not go there today.

But it is, perhaps, the key question for the CF today:  What does "victory" look like in Afghanistan?  Or, in good, simple, Army staff officer terms:  Selection and maintenance of the aim.  What is our aim?  What is our national objective?  Without that clearly defined and understood, we can be in a whole lot of trouble.

 

[1feral1]

Apparently.
My "view" is simply that if one is taking part in a debate, at least try and use rational argument. I wasn't making any point within the discussion, merely trying to raise the quality bar.

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree then, but I will sum up by saying if the US government had the public behind this war, and if the media also supported it, the outcome may have been different.

My 'addition' used is an Australian view which many agree with in laymans principals.

Regards,

Wes

 

[time expired]

Given the fact that after "Tet" in 68 the Viet Cong had virtually ceased to
exist and glorious uprising of the down trodden Vietnamese people had also
failed to materialise.Gen. Giap was faced with a disaster.The US political
leadership and Walter Cronkite got him off the hook,Cronkite after a short
fact finding mission declared the war lost and Johnson stopped the bombing
of the north allowing the North to rebuild and rearm.From that point on the
media was almost anti war to a man and any objective reporting about the
war practically ceased.Gen Creighton Abrams,Westmorelands replacement,
got a handle on the war in the south,the Viet Cong were a mere Shadow
of the former strength and the incursion into the "Parrots Beak" area of
Cambodia had shaken the NVA but was portrayed as a widening of a lost
war by the media, with ample support from the lunatic left.This total lack
of support from the folks back home and the drawdown of US forces put
pay to any remaining desire to fight on the part of the US Army and the
aim of the average US Soldier was not to be the last man to be killed in
"the Nam.
        Hope this is not too boring but I am just trying to get this thread
back on track with a couple of not widely reported facts.
                                            Regards

 

[JBG]

South Vietnam barely pretended to be democratic. Ngo Dinh Diem's referendum, defeating Bao Dai, saw him win 98% of the vote (133% in Saigon!). As near as I can find, his domestic policy was limited to defeating the northern communists; no mention of "pro-growth outlook" -- oh, and protecting his nepotistic, authoritarian regime from several coups, bad publicity from those self-immolating Buddhist monks, and finally the '63 assassination by his own Generals.

Even if you're 100% right, look at the alternative. The bloodbath that followed the 1975 defeat of the South was worst than the worst nightmares of the ultra-right in the U.S.