In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
History shows US & NVN both WON
Ray B
Member Posts: 11,822
Interesting eh?, The definition being to get what you want, North Viet Nam got a unified country, the US wanted to stem the tide of Communism, which has been done, in large part due to the sacrifices of troops and funds on both sides. The price of the unification for the Communists was so high, some accounts list the dead resulting the "the American War" as 4 million, and bankrolling it, along with the efforts in Afghanistan, resulted in bankrupting the Soviet Union into default while setting China back several decades and leaders, which has resulted in Vietnam regaining it's independence from support by China, with both countries moving faster in the direction of Capitalism than any other countries in the world.
So the price paid and continuing to be paid by the US vets of the Vietnam conflict are paying huge dividends.
So the price paid and continuing to be paid by the US vets of the Vietnam conflict are paying huge dividends.
Comments
I respectfully disagree that the US won this conflict.
The human costs in KIAs and casulties of this war were enormous.
Many families are still paying for this war, with physically and emotionally handicapped relatives. 55K+ others lost a loved one.
The monetary costs to us were greater than China or the former Soviet's costs combined. Thanks to our strong economy were we able to absorb this hit.
Our country was deeply divided by this war and deeply torn. The hippies, drug culture, war protests, draft dodgers, Kent State shootings and the treatment of the veterans upon their return home have to be considered a vital loss as well.
Moreover, we lost the respect of other countries when they saw that we in essence abandoned an ally and left them defenseless againts a cruel and determined enemy. It showed the world a small nation can overcome a superpower. Our reputation world wide because of this has never been the same. The "another Viet Nam" syndrome can still be heard even today with Iraq.
Add all these factors and in my opinion we lost this war.
These comments are in no way intended to diminish in anyway what-so-ever the great sacrifice and courage our Nam veterans made.
I have nothing but upmost respect and appreciation for our vets.
One needs to review the decisions that were made regarding the conflict. First was that the US did not want to have it's actions lead to an ascalation that would draw in China and USSR as direct adversaries. The war was concluded and China/USSR remained covert in their support. The policies that resulted in leaving China/USSR out of it resulted no doubt in some Americans dying, but this must be compared to the number that would have died had this policy failed, China/USSR becoming involved and major exchanges and potentially leading to WWIII. Since the war remained at the level of conventional weapons and sidestepped direct confrontation of the major powers, the US was successful.
You note the costs of the war, both in personal and financial measures. But to do so, reduces the measure of victory or defeat to which side lost most; so by your measure, the Vietnamese people, both North and South lost, and lost in a big way; for in exchange for their several million lost, the US lost a mere 60,000. so to use your measure, the US was clearly the Winner.
You blame the disruption of the 1950s sense of order and priorities on the Vietnam conflict. While it might appear that they were related, the real issues involved individuals rejecting their obligation to society. The sense of order and responsiblity to the family and country that was so dear to their parents, was exchanged for individualism. The Vietnam conflict was a catalist in this in that it presented the situation to individuals where if they followed in their parents path, they might die on Vietnam. And further, the media was telling them that their parents and the country was in the WRONG for seeking to keep one country from attacking another, and it was said so often that people began to believe it. The individual rights movement and its conflict with the collective rights movement is a political process that has been going much longer than any present languages have been spoken, so to say that having it occur in the US was a result of the Vietnam conflict and as a result, the Vietnam War should be considered lost, is completely unrelated.
Your last claim that the US has lost stature in the world community because it left Vietnam and then allowed the NVA to successfully attack the south deals with perceptions that I believe you are not in position to make, particularly if you consider how the events will look in another 50 years. After those that had any involvment with Vietnam directly or as result of hearing the media perspective have all died, people will look at the following facts: NVn wanted to unify Vn, so attacked the south. The US came to it's aid, buying time for SVn to get its government and military in order, and as a process of buying time, killed NVns by the hundreds of thousands. in 1973 NVn, SVn, & US reached agreement to end the war, which included commitment by the North to curtail agression against the South. During the years 1973-1975 NVA regrouped and retrained, after being reduced to combat ineffectiveness by the US, and with the US out of the war, violated the agreement and re-attacked the south, who then lost the war. To history, the US will be neither a winner nor a loser in the Vietnam war, for their actual involvment ended in stalemate.
World opinion is very clear that the US is THE dominant power and has the ability to deal with any organized military opponent in swift and decisive fashion. The evidence is shown by adversaries resulting to "terrorist" tactics, which is an admission that the terrorist is reduced to merely making a statement, rather than seeking any political good.
Your claims that the Vietnam conflict had very real costs is valid, but the conclusion that these costs result in perceiving the endeavor as lost is not warranted. Just look at all the good that the lives of those 60,000 has bought for you. I hope you will learn to appreciate their gift.
China didn't really contribute all that much to the Vietnamese war effort in terms of cash, manpower, or equipment. China did enough to screw itself with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. The war in Vietnam had little impact.
The point you make about Russia, though, is interesting. I wonder just how much Russia spent propping North Vietnam up? Whatever amount it was, given the poor state of the Soviet economy, it's pretty obvious they couldn't afford it.
However, the U.S. did not stem Vietnamese aggression - remember: Vietnam invaded Cambodia not long after unification and installed a puppet government that lasted well into the nineties.
I do not think that the United States won the Vietnam War by any stretch of the imagination. What we did achieve in military terms was quickly overshadowed by the defeats we suffered politically and economically - and two out of three is a decided failure.
If anything, it was our way of life that triumphed over an opposing system. That our war effort had anything to do with it is rather dubious.
Mind you, I'm not saying any of this to denigrate our efforts in Indochina, but you win some and you lose some and Vietnam was, in sum total, a loss.
Thanks for the reply. I found it very interesting and well thought out. I was but a kid during the war. In high school (Class of '79) and even in college, I don't remember hearing any lectures about Viet Nam. Almost as if the mindset at that time was to forget about this conflict and dust it off under the rug. Later on in life did I take an interest in Nam. I hope to learn a lot more here on this forum from the people that actually lived it. Thanks again.
EMM: It is "fun" to badmouth you over at Politics, but I enjoy reading your posts and I have to admit, have learned from them.
We rarely agree with each other but lets agree to keep it cival on this forum out of respect for what it represents.
Almost forgot: Russia/USSR also invested countless millions in keeping the Castro regime in power. That also has to be a factor in their demise. Moreover, the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent stinger missles provided by the US further helped to deplete their resources. If anything, I guess you can say that helping the Mujahadeen was in essence payback for Viet Nam.
You are absolutely correct - There's a time and place for everything and this forum is too important in too many ways for us to ever devolve into petty bickering.
I know you can keep it civil and I will do my best to do the same.
If only because a war's purpose changes as the war progresses and after the war has ended. Whether that's for good or ill is up to the individual to decide.
That's amazing. If you could offer more hard data, I would love to learn more about China's involvement in the Vietnam War.
Mind you, I'm not disputing your account of things - this comes as a total, if intellectually stimulating, surprise to me.
The one book I have on the matter (China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975 by Qiang Zhai) barely mentions PLA involvement in Vietnam, devoting a grand total of two paragraphs spread over three pages to the subject.
I would greatly appreciate any other information you might be willing (or able) to share.
Thanks. I'll try to track down a copy of that book and check it out.
As I stated in other posts I was a "civilian" contractor. All the record that I knew about were given to the Hq Battalion. As to what they did with them that is beyond me. The only other place I have seen documented evidence of it is in the book 13 CENT KILLERS. A book about the 5th Marine Snipers in Vietnm. It is by Jon J. Culbertson.fb: I was also a "civilian" contractor. Which unit were you in? When? What time frame? Who did you report to? Interesting tours you had, that's for sure.
I just read up a little bit about the subject (I'd much rather have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, than from a book, but I'll take what I can get) and apparently the Chinese presence in Vietnam peaked at about 170,000 in 1967.
I'm willing to bet your dude was part of the party, so to speak.
Thanks for the info. From the information you and others have provided, I guess we can all safely say my previous statement regarding the PRC was bu!!$#!t (a fact I readily admit to).[;)]