Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War? Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 13:25 |
If you take someone else's advice and look for some books, start with Frances Fitzgerald's 'Fire in the Lake', with an excellent (and rare) understanding of the Confucian psychology of the Vietnamese, and the lack of understanding of it that meant the US would never win.
Halberstam's 'The Best and the Brightest' is also good.
And it needs to be underlined that the Vietnamese are historically one of the most militarily proficient peoples on earth.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 11:00 |
Originally posted by Illuminati
the US had the ability to invade and defeat the North. They would have
had to deploy more troops to do it, but the numbers were there.
However, public support was not with the Vietnam War. America defeated itself.
|
This is a wrong analysis: invading or not invading Northern Vietnam was
trivial, as the guerrilla was everywhere... there's nothing to invade
when you're fighting against a guerrilla.
Also the USA somehow "won" the war: it had to retreat but it left
Vietnam so deeply detroyed that even today it hasn't recovered. This
prevented that Vietnam could grow as a model for neigbour nations.
The domestic protests were just an aspect. Important, yes, as
imperialist powers found themselves unable to persuade its own
populations of the need of imperialism, at least when so costly. But I
think that war-wise, it is the least relevant item.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 06:26 |
the US had the ability to invade and defeat the North. They would have
had to deploy more troops to do it, but the numbers were there.
However, public support was not with the Vietnam War. America defeated itself.
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 06:03 |
Follow the link, I gave. Explain who HochiMinh was, who the Vietcong was, how Vietnam got divided in the mid 50s, and how in the beginning of the 60s, slowly but surely the war started, first the US only send advisors, the more and more and troops and at the end of the 60s the whole country was in flames.
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 05:57 |
I'm at school, in a history lesson and we're working on our reports. Ok, so far I've given an introduction aboutthe start of the war. I've spoken about the attack of the French in Hanoi, and I'm writing about French Indochina, any ideas of anything else I could say?
Edited by odin_anubis
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 10:46 |
Originally posted by deniztc1983
and lets dont bs each other .. U.S. didnt sent his best people there ...
p.s. if you watch forest gump you know what im taling about
|
This is true, the US did not send their best troops, as always (and this is not a criticism it's a fact) the poorest and uneducated are always the first one to be sent to the front. The problem with the demonstations on US Universities' campuses really started when the US army started to enroll America's Elite children. John Kerry is a pure product of this.
I bet there is no Hampton House owner whose son was in Vietnam or is in Iraq right now.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 12:23 |
well here is a few reason...
anti war protest at home ...
gerilla war is a hard to win war for any conventional army .. it can drag for lon ( i mean long years )....
and lets dont bs each other .. U.S. didnt sent his best people there ...
p.s. if you watch forest gump you know what im taling about
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 09:34 |
There is another twist to this on the military side.
The US military were fully aware of the reasons they couldn't fight the
war as it was going but they knew that if they could get the NVA to
start the final conventional push (which they knew would include
putting Vietkong into uniforms and attacking the cities) they could
inflict sufficient casualties on them to stop the offensive ang give a
military 'win' that would allow a reasonably dignified political exit.
They actually suceeded and were inflicting massive casualties but they
hadn't expected, or allowed for, the immediate and very damaging press
coverage. The political situation then collapsed before they
could gain the military 'win'.
For your eassy, you should start at the peace settlements made at the
end of WW2 (at which piint the British were controlling all Vietnam,
using rearmed Japanese POWs as police!). The North was given back to
France who proceeded to try to run the colony in pre war style, the
South was given over to a 'democratic' goverment which lurched rapidly
into a right wing state. Then you can focus on the CIA 'anti
communist' involvement, black ops, military advisors, and the slow
sucking of the US into a full scale war without proper military
preparation and planning. All factors in the eventuall defeat.
It's a very big topic though..
for references I'd actually suggest going to the library and getting a
couple of books rather than sifting through internet sites that may, or
may not, be strongly biased.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 09:17 |
To win the war, the US must have invaded the North. In that case, I'm almost certain that PRC would have got involved. USA couldn't afford another Korean scenario. USA should've stayed out of it from the beginning.
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 08:16 |
Originally posted by Maju
I think the USA (nor France before them) had no chances of winning Vietnam. You can't defeat a willing nation in their own territory unless you are ready to exterminate them 100% (what would have unpredictable consequences anyhow).
The people of Vietnam was willing to gain their freedom, what could the USA do to counter it? Nothing.
|
I agree with this statement. But also, US troops are not famous for being good fighters on foreign terrain... and when it is jungle !!! The local population was like a fish in the water (building tunnels and other means to move without being seen) while many "boys" were not used to this terrain.
The second thing is that the US could have blasted the Vietnamese - they had the shotpower to do so (atomic) but the consequences would have been terrible as this could lead to NUKE show-down between the two blocs.
Cheers and good luck with your report.
|
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2006 at 07:57 |
Originally posted by AlbinoAlien
well lets see, the war was startted because of the trumans doctrine statement on the policy of containmemnt of Communism. The US didnt neccisarily lose the war, so much as we pulled out because of a highly anti-war population and protest |
Agree.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 21:45 |
I think the USA (nor France before them) had no chances of winning
Vietnam. You can't defeat a willing nation in their own territory
unless you are ready to exterminate them 100% (what would have
unpredictable consequences anyhow).
The people of Vietnam was willing to gain their freedom, what could the USA do to counter it? Nothing.
But, in a sense, the USA won Vietnam: it left the country so deeply
destroyed that it was bound to poverty and underdevelopement, being
therefore not an attractive example for its neighbours to follow, nor a
viable economic power to challenge US regional hegemony.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 13:28 |
Thanks very much Komenos. Any more information would seriously be appreciated!
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 12:56 |
The Vietnam War of the 60s and 70s was only the continuation of a much older struggle for the indepence of Vietnam. About the very beginnings of the wars see here
The second Vietnam war starting in the early 60s was one the many substitute wars of the Cold War, where the US and the SU fought out their political differences in, what was then called, the 3rd World.
As AA said above the US became involved as it quite rightly feared that all the other states in the region would adopt Communist regimes, something that eventually happened in Cambodia and Laos.
There are two main reasons the US were defeated or had to pull out, although militarily far superior they had no chance to defeat either the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese Army in the jungles of Vietnam, the Communist forces relied heavily on guerilla warfare to which the Americans had no answer. Another factor was that at the end almost the entire South Vietnamese population supported the Vietcong guerillas, and the US could not defeat a whole people.
The other reason for the American defeat was the internal and international pressure against US intervention in Vietnam, or the way the US conducted the war. There was huge protest all over the US and the rest of the world against the US bombardement of North Vietnemese and Cambodian cities, against the employment of Napalm or the use of chemical weapons (Agent Orange) in the jungles of Vietnam.
By the mid seventies it had become obvious that the US could not win the war militarily, and had already lost the propaganda war. So they pulled out of Vietnam on April 30, 1975 when Saigon was liberated by the Vietcong.
For more info look here
Edited by Komnenos
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 12:38 |
well lets see, the war was startted because of the trumans doctrine statement on the policy of containmemnt of Communism. The US didnt neccisarily lose the war, so much as we pulled out because of a highly anti-war population and protest
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 12:35 |
coincidentally, I'm also doing a project about the same thing! I haven't
researched it yet, but if I find a good site, I'll be sure to post it here!
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 11:55 |
Hey. I'm doing a big essay in my history class. We need to pic a question on any event or person (needs to be outside Europe) and write about it. My question is "Why did the USA loose the Vietnam War". Does anyone know and good sites that would be usefull to look at this quetion in more detail? I allso need to write alittle bit of how the war started, why it started etc. Any help will be appreciated!
Thanks in advance
Zagros Edit: Sorry I can't stand the misspelling of "lose", especially in a topic title.
Edited by Zagros
|
|