Vietnam war

[anthrax]

The reasoning behind the Vietnam war was that if Vietnam became communist all the southeast Asia would become communist too.

What made Johnson think that the domino effect would lead to a communist SE Asia?

And besides, China was already communist, Japan was unlikely to turn commie and Thailand, Laos, Cambodia etc were not a big threat (if ever they became communist)

 

[EnderJE]

It was a coin toss for that or Iraqi.

 

[Megalomaniac]

I don't think we want to get into the political reasons for Vietnam. It has been disputed for over 30 years now, I don't think anyone on EF will be able to clear up the picture. Btw I just turned of Full Metal Jacket to see this thread.

 

[EnderJE]

Two words. Coin flip.

 

[Gambino]

The reasoning behind the Vietnam war was that if Vietnam became communist all the southeast Asia would become communist too.

What made Johnson think that the domino effect would lead to a communist SE Asia?

And besides, China was already communist, Japan was unlikely to turn commie and Thailand, Laos, Cambodia etc were not a big threat (if ever they became communist)

you do of course relealize that LBJ was not the pres who brough the USA into 'nam?

 

[Megalomaniac]

you do of course relealize that LBJ was not the pres who brough the USA into 'nam?

Thanks for catching that one, I missed it. I think his question is more along the lines of the US choice to have the 'conflict' and not the pres though.

 

[javaguru]

To make a long story short, the fall of China to communism 1948 really shook up the administration; China was expected to be the "bulwark" democracy on mainland Asia. So much focus had been placed on Europe very little was being done in Asia, outside of Japan. Then there was Korea and the direct Chinese intervention in support of communist N. Korea. The Chinese showing the willingness to engage in overt aggression to support communism was troubling. Opposing communism would send a message the US was determined to stop communist expansion. Something the US failed to do when Japan conducted their campaigns in Asia prior to WWII; By invading Korea, Manchuria and later China. Likewise, China shared a border with Pakistan/India and the Soviet Union shared a border with Persia. One can see the strategic significance of these areas to the US. It was felt US intervention would discourage widespread overt intervention by communist regimes and thus discourage a full scale global war.

US involvement in Indochina started with providing support for the French from 1946 onward. The US took over for the French after their withdraw, mainly by providing financial support and advisors to the recently partioned South Vietnam in 1954. It was seen as a move to allow the French government to save face and keep the French communists from gaining a clear political victory. The US was very concerned about the French going communist. Eventually, it seems the ideological cold war is what drove escalating US involvement as opposed to the actual strategic significance. However, the US Navy did not like the idea of the Soviet Union having access to naval and air bases in SW Asia, there was some strategic value to the area.

 

[javaguru]

Bump...I took time for an intelligent response you mofo's!;-)

 

[EnderJE]

Bump...I took time for an intelligent response you mofo's!;-)

SUCKER!

 

[javaguru]

SUCKER!

You would think I would know by now...:sigh:

 

[EnderJE]

You would think I would know by now...:sigh:

Yeah, I would. Actually I would like to respond, but I don't really have an opinion or my historical facts that detailed about the Vietnam war. Although, I find the note about the French Communist movement interesting. It would of made an entirely different political landscape in the 70s if they came into power.

 

[javaguru]

I did my Bachelor's thesis on, "How and why the US became Involved in Vietnam."

 

[EnderJE]

I did my Bachelor's thesis on, "How and why the US became Involved in Vietnam."

To be a software developer?

 

[javaguru]

History Major, took graduate level classes in military history. I originally planned on a military career, ROTC and everything. Went to law school, graduated and became a computer nerd.

 

[EnderJE]

My history papers were usually on the start of WWI. The Germans should of won that war. Might of solved a few things.

 

[javaguru]

My history papers were usually on the start of WWI. The Germans should of won that war. Might of solved a few things.

They would have if the US had not become involved. The French ceased to be an effective fighting force after Verdun and the English didn't have the population. WWI was the first time the British Empire had to resort to conscription. The Germans started working on the basis of blitzkrieg with their "stosstroopen"(stormtroopers) doctrine but the technology couldn't match the theories.

 

[EnderJE]

They would have if the US had not become involved. The French ceased to be an effective fighting force after Verdun and the English didn't have the population. WWI was the first time the British Empire had to resort to conscription. The Germans started working on the basis of blitzkrieg with their "stosstroopen"(stormtroopers) doctrine but the technology couldn't match the theories.

I hope that the Arch Duke Ferdinand burns in hell for it.

 

[javaguru]

The Austro-Hungarian empire was floundering since the Napoleonic era. The assasination of the Archduke was a comdey of errors...it would be hilarious if so many people didn't die because of some seperatist terrorists from an insignificant seperatist movement.

 

[Spartacus]

Bump...I took time for an intelligent response you mofo's!;-)

let's kick it back further and discuss the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905

 

[javaguru]

let's kick it back further and discuss the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905

What do you want to know?

 

[Spartacus]

I did my Bachelor's thesis on, "How and why the US became Involved in Vietnam."

what do you make of truman almost using nukes in support of the french postion(i.e. Dien Bien Phu) in '54?

 

[Spartacus]

They would have if the US had not become involved. The French ceased to be an effective fighting force after Verdun and the English didn't have the population. WWI was the first time the British Empire had to resort to conscription. The Germans started working on the basis of blitzkrieg with their "stosstroopen"(stormtroopers) doctrine but the technology couldn't match the theories.

this guy knows his wars historys

 

[Spartacus]

The Austro-Hungarian empire was floundering since the Napoleonic era. The assasination of the Archduke was a comdey of errors...it would be hilarious if so many people didn't die because of some seperatist terrorists from an insignificant seperatist movement.

I went to a good high school and can recall our teacher emphasizing this

 

[anthrax]

what do you make of truman almost using nukes in support of the french postion(i.e. Dien Bien Phu) in '54?

BUMP for that question

Intereting thread, guys!

 

[Spartacus]

BUMP for that question

Intereting thread, guys!

I stumbled onto that "gem" while researching Dien Bein Phu
can you speculate what the effect would have been on the Viet Minh and subsequent commie ops in southeast asia?

 

[Megalomaniac]

I love war!

 

[javaguru]

I don't think nukes were a serious option; everyone knew the ramifications. The point was to contain the conflict and using nukes would only escalate it. Had the US used nukes then Chinese "volunteers" may have "shown up." I believe it was even debated whether US aircraft should be used for ground support missions in defence of the garrison. McCarthur got canned for suggesting the use of nukes in Korea. Regardless, the French would have lost Indochina eventually, nationalistic movements along with the decline of "colonial will" among European powers would have seen a Vietnam free of the French eventually.

 

[EnderJE]

I don't think nukes were a serious option; everyone knew the ramifications. The point was to contain the conflict and using nukes would only escalate it. Had the US used nukes then Chinese "volunteers" may have "shown up." I believe it was even debated whether US aircraft should be used for ground support missions in defence of the garrison. McCarthur got canned for suggesting the use of nukes in Korea. Regardless, the French would have lost Indochina eventually, nationalistic movements along with the decline of "colonial will" among European powers would have seen a Vietnam free of the French eventually.

But, there are other options other then nukes. Like the water supply for one thing...

 

[javaguru]

Honestly, I think the recent Korean war experience made any direct US involvement unacceptable politically.

 

[javaguru]

let's kick it back further and discuss the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905

Battle of Tsushima? More about poor Russian leadershp and training of the Russian navy.

 

[anthrax]

Honestly, I think the recent Korean war experience made any direct US involvement unacceptable politically.

As long it's economically profitable....

 

[javaguru]

As long it's economically profitable....

War is politics by other means and everything comes down to resources..nuff said.

 

[anthrax]

Interesting quote:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in every country."

 

[chesty]

Part of it was we were allies with the French and the messed it up, guess who got left holding the bag. Plus the 10 year war was good for American companies (arms manufacturers, designers, etc) America loves a good war, until we lose it due to the stupid politicians thinking they know how to conduct a war.

 

[javaguru]

"War is politics by other means"- Clauswitz
The poor pay the price for war.

 

[jackangel]

Interesting quote:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in every country."

that's a goering quote, right?

 

[anthrax]

that's a goering quote, right?

Yep

Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship.
Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
- General William Westmoreland

 

[Spartacus]

I don't think nukes were a serious option; everyone knew the ramifications. The point was to contain the conflict and using nukes would only escalate it. Had the US used nukes then Chinese "volunteers" may have "shown up." I believe it was even debated whether US aircraft should be used for ground support missions in defence of the garrison. McCarthur got canned for suggesting the use of nukes in Korea. Regardless, the French would have lost Indochina eventually, nationalistic movements along with the decline of "colonial will" among European powers would have seen a Vietnam free of the French eventually.

if you get apocalypse now redux with the extra footage there is a scene involving some remaining French from that era. I get drunk when I watch it and can't recall the details.

 

[XBiker]

I don't think nukes were a serious option; everyone knew the ramifications. The point was to contain the conflict and using nukes would only escalate it. Had the US used nukes then Chinese "volunteers" may have "shown up." I believe it was even debated whether US aircraft should be used for ground support missions in defence of the garrison. McCarthur got canned for suggesting the use of nukes in Korea. Regardless, the French would have lost Indochina eventually, nationalistic movements along with the decline of "colonial will" among European powers would have seen a Vietnam free of the French eventually.

NUCLEAR is a big word, bro.

 

[jackangel]

Yep

Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship.
Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
- General William Westmoreland

is that really true? i have enormous difficulty believing any war could be prosecuted without censorship, primarily through the wilthholding of information. isn't it in the nature of government and military to decide carefully what it lets out to the public (sometimes with good reason)?

as for westmoreland, i remember seeing a clip of him speaking as to the character and nature of the vietnamese person. i was severely unimpressed.

 

[anthrax]

is that really true?

See for yourself at the bottom of this page : http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1864.html

 

[javaguru]

Dead servicemen were shown to the American public by direct order of FDR. It was the "first"reality TV.

 

[anthrax]

 

[Spartacus]

Battle of Tsushima? More about poor Russian leadershp and training of the Russian navy.

and it's popular to question Hitler's sanity for invading the USSR
add the woeful performance of the soviets against the considerably outgunned and outnumbered Finns
the woeful performance of the Russians in WWI
Drang Nach Osten!

 

[jackangel]

See for yourself at the bottom of this page : http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1864.html

thanks for the link, it includes this other quote, to which i was alluding earlier:

“The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.”

i wasn't questioning whether or not he made that statement about the vietnam war and censorship, but the veracity of the statement itself. in other words, he's full of fucking shit.

 

[Spartacus]

War is politics by other means and everything comes down to resources..nuff said.

yeah we economically forced Imperial Japan to take the action they did
perhaps left unhindered the Japanese could have solved the southeast Asia problem without US lives eventually paying the price.
what would have happened if Japan came to dominate mainland China and all of southeast Asia?
probably electronic equipment "made in china" under a Sony badge

 

[Spartacus]

Interesting quote:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in every country."

recent article in the WSJ argues quite effectively and by,as one might expect since it's the WSJ,how much more difficult it is to galvanize the people behind a war effort in a democracy.

 

[Spartacus]

NUCLEAR is a big word, bro.

true given the conviction,we could have pattern bombed to make our point

 

[Spartacus]

as for westmoreland, i remember seeing a clip of him speaking as to the character and nature of the vietnamese person. i was severely unimpressed.

because he got it wrong. I'm assuming you were unimpressed with his assessment. Not that he made such a broad-stroke assessment. There are many examples of successful military campaigns launched and concluded favorably based on decisions that factored the enemie's strengths and/or weaknesses as a "people".

 

[Spartacus]

I selected that photo in answer to AAPs thread asking for the most famous photo from the 20th century
but I gave it equal value as the photo of the SV officer executing the sapper that had murdered his family.
twist being the second photo was widely used by the media to exploit the barbaric application of the war in vietnam
what they didn't know was that the guy who appreared to be shot inhumanely execution style
had led a commando unit into the trigger guy's home and had executed his wife and children.

 

[jackangel]

because he got it wrong. I'm assuming you were unimpressed with his assessment. Not that he made such a broad-stroke assessment. There are many examples of successful military campaigns launched and concluded favorably based on decisions that factored the enemie's strengths and/or weaknesses as a "people".

i would have preferred something more like what kurtz had to say in apocalypse now *. something to the effect that they had an incredible will, enough to do things which we could never do as a people. but to say they value life less than we do, and to start off his statement with "the Oriental..." strikes me as mostly-retarded bigotry which dehumanizes. while such dehumanization may be helpful when dealing with an enemy, i don't see the value of making such a statement to the public.

you could argue his point to be true, based on what our enemies were capable of and what they in some cases did. but, you might also say that they still valued life as much as any other people and yet were willing to sacrifice in spite of that.

*

"...I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."

- kurtz

of course, kurtz may have been insane, so i'm not sure how far i'd like to take that.

 

[Spartacus]

i would have preferred something more like what kurtz had to say in apocalypse now *. something to the effect that they had an incredible will, enough to do things which we could never do as a people. but to say they value life less than we do, and to start off his statement with "the Oriental..." strikes me as mostly-retarded bigotry which dehumanizes. while such dehumanization may be helpful when dealing with an enemy, i don't see the value of making such a statement to the public.

you could argue his point to be true, based on what our enemies were capable of and what they in some cases did. but, you might also say that they still valued life as much as any other people and yet were willing to sacrifice in spite of that.

*

"...I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."

- kurtz

of course, kurtz may have been insane, so i'm not sure how far i'd like to take that.

learn more
we are all culpable
select the era and the army
everybody behaves relatively the same
"combat" is the extreme stresser
how would you have behaved when given the guy who exterminated your wife and children?
request a court?
the irony being that that photo was circulated with entent to depicutre our team unfavorably

 

[Spartacus]

See for yourself at the bottom of this page : http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1864.html

briefly I will comment in that my opinion the US soldier as a whole preformed most outstandingly and fine in Vietnam. Easily ecilpsing a mediocre showing in WWII. Korean war performance is more unit specific. And I don't have great respect for recent accomplishments. Mind you the Iraq war is being prosecuted quite well,but it's hard to give accolades when we have so many advantages.
We're damn fortunate Saddam was so insipid. If I was given the task of defending Iraq. I would have pooled all my forces/resources into Baghdad and created a cityfight that to the best extent could have negated our tech edge.
While the action was in progress I was pleased Blount went blitzkrieg into baghdad and essentailly short-circuited a "city-fight"

 

[jackangel]

learn more
we are all culpable
select the era and the army
everybody behaves relatively the same
"combat" is the extreme stresser
how would you have behaved when given the guy who exterminated your wife and children?
request a court?
the irony being that that photo was circulated with entent to depicutre our team unfavorably

i don't disagree, but i also don't see how this has much relevance to anything that i said in my previous post. remember, we're talking about westmoreland's quote re: "Orientals". if anything, your point above contradicts his. but then it's just an old quote and maybe not a point worth mentioning in the first place.

i have no comments about any photo in this thread.

 

[anthrax]

. Plus the 10 year war was good for American companies (arms manufacturers, designers, etc) America loves a good war, until we lose it due to the stupid politicians thinking they know how to conduct a war.

!??

A few US companies may have benefited from the Vietnam war but the overall cost for the country has been huge, in terms of human lifes, $ and psychological wounds

 

[javaguru]

and it's popular to question Hitler's sanity for invading the USSR
add the woeful performance of the soviets against the considerably outgunned and outnumbered Finns
the woeful performance of the Russians in WWI
Drang Nach Osten!

It's interesting to note the average Russian soldier during WWI was considered "outstanding" based on the view of a British army officer observer. He considered them to have the highest esprit de corps of any soldier he had seen. The logistical failure of the Russian army was probably the primary reason for the lack luster performance. Although, they did have moderate success against the Austro-Hungarian army. Likewise, Russian leadership was sub par, the 1916 Brusilov offensive was successful but Russian generals refused to commit their forces to exploit the breakthrough.

I've studied logistics quite extensively and many historians believe the German army couldn't have maintained an offensive had they won the first battle of the Marne. They were advancing so far ahead of their railheads that horse drawn supply carts were utilizing 2/3 of their carrying capacity to feed the horses.

Another interesting tidbit is that much of the social unrest that led to the German capitulation was caused by widespread hunger. The Germans had experienced a number of crop failures and this is likely due to the lack of fertilizer. Germany had to rely on overseas supply of nitrogen and the allied blockade prevented it. Without nitrogen one cannot manufacture fertilizer or ammunition/shells. In response they industrialized a process for extracting nitrogen from the atmosphere, something that had only been done in a lab beforehand. They were able to manufacture enough for shell production but not enough for civilian use.

 

[Spartacus]

I
I've studied logistics quite extensively and many historians believe the German army couldn't have maintained an offensive had they won the first battle of the Marne. They were advancing so far ahead of their railheads that horse drawn supply carts were utilizing 2/3 of their carrying capacity to feed the horses.

A.

the germans were in an even worse supply/logistics situation as they advanced deeper into the USSR. The russian road network was thin and poorly maintianed by western standards. same for the rail network,and what rail lines were available had to be converted over to a western guage beofre the Krauts could use them. And I'm sure you're aware that the popular idea that the german army was highly mechanized was a myth. Probably 90% of germany's military assets traveled by foot with horse drawn artillery. Then as they got to the outskirts of moscow despite thier supply difficulties,they got hit by the worst russian winter in about a 100 years. And they still came oh so close.

 

[anthrax]

Did the US lose the Vietnam war because they were too "soft" compared to the Vietcong who had nothing to lose?

 

[moose11]

I love war!

its fun isnt it!

 

[javaguru]

Did the US lose the Vietnam war because they were too "soft" compared to the Vietcong who had nothing to lose?

The US was fighting a limited war and the North Vietnamese a total war so that did play a role. The Vietcong ceased to be an effective fighting force after Tet 68 as they were used as cannon fodder by the NVA( probably for political reasons). However, the forced relocation of villagers by the US was seen by the South Vietnamese civilians as a brutal measure. They have strong spiritual and traditional ties to their family lands. So, there was also a fundamental cultural misunderstanding that led to US defeat. This is probably the closest parallel between Iraq and Vietnam, applying western cultural values to a very different culture. That is why a western style democracy is almost assured to fail in Iraq, at best you need a hybrid to succeed.

 

[anthrax]

The US was fighting a limited war and the North Vietnamese a total war so that did play a role. The Vietcong ceased to be an effective fighting force after Tet 68 as they were used as cannon fodder by the NVA( probably for political reasons). However, the forced relocation of villagers by the US was seen by the South Vietnamese civilians as a brutal measure. They have strong spiritual and traditional ties to their family lands. So, there was also a fundamental cultural misunderstanding that led to US defeat. This is probably the closest parallel between Iraq and Vietnam, applying western cultural values to a very different culture. That is why a western style democracy is almost assured to fail in Iraq, at best you need a hybrid to succeed.

History Repeats Itself
Too bad some people don't learn from their (predecessors') mistakes