Vietnam, the hell of a war that it was and the only one to be lost by the US.
one of my teatchers, coatch peace is a vet of that war, and his storys are incredible. :sad:
he was sent back home from the war after a buddy of his picked up a helmate as suvinear... aperantly atached to a bomb underneath it that killed 4 and nearly blew his leg off... a friend of his *he didn say his name to keep his identy secreat* was ceptured and sent to a vc camp in cambodia, he was striped naked and trown in a pit for 3 months, one night the gards got drunk on rice wine an opened the bambo gate to the pit, then proceded to throw a snake in the pit that wraped around his arm.. he beated the snake to death aginst the pit wall.. when the gards whear pased out he craled out and ran into the jungel whear he lived on a diet of bugs and warms, evaded cepture and finly was found by a patrole 3 weeks or so later...

so was vietnam a lost cause?? whats ur opinion? and if ur eroupean what was ur thinking of it??

You missed your birthday thread!

The US war will soon be lost like the French one. A brief note to reference the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

I thought the Korean War was known as the forgotten war :confused:.

Vietnam is not a lost and forgotten war. It gets a lot more attention (at least here in America) then say… World War I, which led to the deaths of far more people.

Numerous Hollywood movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter, Forrest Gump, Full Metal Jacket, etc are based on the Vietnam War and usually convey and anti-war message.

Hardly lost and forgotten...mentioned all the time, especially in conjunction with the Iraqi war. If I remember correctly, the casuality rate percentage is mirroring that of the Vietnam War. And the Vietnam War got another boost with all that Jane Fonda publicity about her book and the controversy about when she posted for a photo next to a North Vietnam antiaircraft gun.

Yeah my coach back in highschool did a slide presentation for us during Veterans week. It was a pretty mixed school (my best friend is the offspring of South Vietnamese immigrants), so it was pretty shocking when he started throwing out phrases like "whenever bloodhound, we called him bloodhound cause he could smell out gooks, took point we never got ambushed. He always used to say gooks smelled like fish and rice."

I wouldn't say Vietnam is forgotten in the normal sense, but I think the nation has deliberately tried to forget what happened. Its pretty hard to think of yourself as a great nation when you put war on tv. Its hard to reconcile war, it was bloody then, and it was bloody at Lexington and Concord.

It really was one of those unwinnable wars. We couldn't be too hard without upsetting the international public, and we couldn't pull out without giving our allies the idea that we wouldn't defend them in their time of need. Added to that, the SVA just couldn't get their **** together. The United States didn't lose the war in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did (What was the saying, something along the lines of the military 20billion American dollars that could buy that fell withing a few weeks to the NVA and VC). Its been argued that Richard Nixon truely was the only man that could have gotten away with pulling out without the backlash of not fighting the communists on every front. What the United States lost, was the concensus we had before the 60s, and that period of tearing apart the nation experienced from the counter culture and new left movement. I think Vietnam was just another sympton of the time period, not so much a cause, but a fuel that added to the fire.

Tim O'Brien does a really good job of showing Vietnam in the The Lake of the Woods. Good showing of this "forgetting." Its something that had to be done to protect the country from shredding itself apart.

Moved to History.

You missed your birthday thread!

The US war will soon be lost like the French one. A brief note to reference the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson.
i had a b-day thred??? i rember posting my own cus i didnt see one for me... :P

Hardly lost and forgotten...mentioned all the time, especially in conjunction with the Iraqi war. If I remember correctly, the casuality rate percentage is mirroring that of the Vietnam War. And the Vietnam War got another boost with all that Jane Fonda publicity about her book and the controversy about when she posted for a photo next to a North Vietnam antiaircraft gun.

Hmm, I dunno if its exactly mirroring (maybe in the number over time?), but the numbers I'm using may be wrong. I just so happen to have a breakdown of the entire Vietnam era from nonservice to service, to combat to non-combat, and the casualties.

Heres what I get when I plug the numbers together, using 2,150,000 servicemen in Vietnam, 1,600,000 combat, and 550,000 non-combat.

Vietnam casualties w/non-combat: 20%
Vietnam casualties combat only: 15%

I pulled the number of 11,000 US casualties from an anti-war site, and plugged in 150,000 (I may be wrong on this number) for US forces in Iraq. This is what I came up with. I rounded up or down at .5 for every number.

Iraq casualties: 7%

It is certainly not forgotten in my family. My Dad served in Vietnam in 1968, and received a Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds he suffered there.

Also, I don't consider Vietnam a lost war. We certainly were not defeated militarily. And look at Vietnam today, they are rapidly moving towards capitalism, as is "communist" China. Rather, I think American culture, over the years, has permeated Vietnam to such an extent that they are becoming a part of the global family, not to be isolated from the west anymore.

In no way is Vietnam lost or forgotten.

Read me sig

The war was winnible, but waged in unrealistic ways from the get go. There was no bombing of north vietnam. No mining of north vietnamese ports. Not invasion of north vietnam. If we wanted to within a year that nation would be unified and Ho Chi minh would be half way to Moscow.

Certainly not forgotten. Highly recommend reading "A Vietcong Memoir, An inside Account of the Vietnam War and its Aftermath" by Thuong Nhu Tang, Former Minister of Justice

We were merely clueless Americans with good intent, but causing great harm to ourselves and others. This seems to be a standard flaw for the far right and the far left of modern times.

There was no bombing of north vietnam. No mining of north vietnamese ports.

?? We bombed the hell out of them--rolling thunder, linebacker. We also did mine their ports from early 70's on.

and if ur eroupean what was ur thinking of it??
The Vietnam war was the first Western European disenchantement with the US. The socialists wouldn't have liked it in any case, but it didn't make traditional liberals and conservatives happy either.

In the 70's prostesting the Vietnam war became a huge popular movement in Europe. Large parts of the whole 68' generation derived a major facet of their outlook on the world from these. These baby-boomers now run European society and protesting the Vietnam war a major formative experience for them. No chance they will let young people forget about it.

Au contraire, the 68'ers often complain about the lack of commitment in young people these days, their lack of international solidarity etc. etc.
If young people actually do protest against something, then it's usually the 'wrong' thing or done in the 'wrong' way — i.e. not like they did it back in their days of glory, before they aquired power and money (and stopped voting socialist). :crazyeye:

Most important reason why Vietnam won't be forgotten even outside US when WW1 or the Afghanistan/Iraqi wars will be only familiar to history buffs is the fact that Hollywood actually managed to make several really good Vietnam movies. Apocalypse Now, Good Morning Vietnam, Platoon, FMJ are simply something completely different from Rambo III. I can' even remember a single decent WW1 movie (not Black-and-White like 'All quiet...' , those are for historican already).

I can' even remember a single decent WW1 movie (not Black-and-White like 'All quiet...' , those are for historican already).
Most recently:
'A Long Engagement' (I think that's the title in English?)

Hollywood money and French talent. (Wouldn't perhaps call it a masterpiece as a WWI movie.)

Quite a few of the old B/W movies are pretty good you know. ("J'accuse", Abel Gance etc.)

More recent (well relatively) on the top of my head I can think of:
Gallipoli
Blue Max
Aces High
Lawrence of Arabia (mebbe...)
All quiet... (1980's remake)
Paths of Glory
Johnny Got His Gun
La Chambre des Officiers
Capitaine Conan

Who needs movies when you can learn all you need to know about WW1 from Blackadder Goes Forth? ;)

Actually, surprisingly few of those (English) titles tell me anything...
Paths of Glory - was that the one with Brad Pitt? Lawrence...well, entertaining.
But, hardly in the same category as Apocalypse.

<goes searching imdb>

Actually, surprisingly few of those (English) titles tell me anything...
Paths of Glory - was that the one with Brad Pitt? Lawrence...well, entertaining.
But, hardly in the same category as Apocalypse.

<goes searching imdb>
Nah. You would perhaps call it an 'oldie'. It's Kubrick's film from the 50's with Kirk Douglas in the lead as the humane French infahtry officer trying to prevent 'military injustice' from summarily shooting a couple of innocent poilus for failing to capture an objective.
It was shot in Germany since French authorities considered the story slander back then. Good film though.:)

The war was winnible, but waged in unrealistic ways from the get go. There was no bombing of north vietnam.

* Cruddy points and laughs

Look up Linebacker and LinebackerII sometime. Then see how many sorties weren't part of those 2 campaigns.

Also explain the downed B52 still on display in North Vietnam.

EDIT: The Light Horse is another great WW1 film from down under. I prefer it to Gallipoli.

Back :).

Paths of Glory - yes, seen it several times. Pretty good one, admittedly. Still, B/W.

Blue Max is just a typical war movie.

Gallipoli - may be good. Never had a chance to see it. Hardly known in Germany. Still, Australian movie, not Hollywood.

Johnny - never really liked it, a bit too much pathos for me. And, wasn't it in fact an anti-Vietnam movie? An anti-Hollywood movie for sure.

Aces High sounds like a typical war movie to me; but, was never shown in Germany, can't tell.

Hm, and neither Chambre des officiers, nor Captaine Onan were shown in Germany as well.

"A Very Long Engagement" - forgot about that one. Yes, great movie; but, Hollywood?

(The Pitt movie I had in mind was "Legends of the Fall", btw).

It is certainly not forgotten in my family. My Dad served in Vietnam in 1968, and received a Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds he suffered there.

Also, I don't consider Vietnam a lost war. We certainly were not defeated militarily. And look at Vietnam today, they are rapidly moving towards capitalism, as is "communist" China. Rather, I think American culture, over the years, has permeated Vietnam to such an extent that they are becoming a part of the global family, not to be isolated from the west anymore.

I feel the same way as Q! ;)

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Quasar1011
It is certainly not forgotten in my family. My Dad served in Vietnam in 1968, and received a Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds he suffered there.

Also, I don't consider Vietnam a lost war. We certainly were not defeated militarily. And look at Vietnam today, they are rapidly moving towards capitalism, as is "communist" China. Rather, I think American culture, over the years, has permeated Vietnam to such an extent that they are becoming a part of the global family, not to be isolated from the west anymore.[QUOTE]

It was lost, American forces retreated from a country that didn't even want them there. The losses in Vietnam were outstanding considering the diiference between the two countries, the war was stupid and needless, started by a country run by a bunch of paranoid loons. Thank God Nixon had the brains to pull them out is all I can say.

Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you burned today?

Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you burned today?

I always thought it went like this...

Hey, hey, LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?

Look up Linebacker and LinebackerII sometime. Then see how many sorties weren't part of those 2 campaigns.


some #'s

126,615 B-52 sorties dropping 2 1/2 million tons of bombs
total amount of bombs dropped ( including air force/marine/navy ) 6.3 million tons

4 times the U.S. & British dropped on Germany

I always thought it went like this...

Hey, hey, LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?

Thats how I remember it too.

American troops were not defeated in Vietnam, but the American people refused to pay the price of victory. That's an important distinction. Several presidents got sucked into Vietnam because, first, they didn't want to offend France, and, later, no one wanted to risk appearing reluctant to confront Communist aggression. And make no mistake, the North Vietnamese were the aggressors in the war.

Once Johnson realized he could not generate enough popular opinion to get the forces he knew he needed to win the war, he simply quit politics and retired. The next president, Nixon, got elected on the promise to "get America out of Vietnam," and he did just that, although it took a long time. This is not without precedence. As early as the War of 1812, the American people showed a marked reluctance to support what it would take to win the war. In 1812, it was the conquest of Canada (or at least some parts of it). In 1952, Eisenhower got elected on the promise of "getting America out of Korea."

It takes a lot to get Americans into a war big time, always has, and probably always will. As the casualties mount and especially if there is no dramatic progress, public support quickly wanes. In our long wars, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, it became very difficult to keep things going on the home front towards the end.

Americans still commemorate the harsh Winter of 1777-78, when Washington pulled off a seeming miracle by keeping his army together during that season of discontent. Had Washington not been able to hold things together that winter, the British would have likely won the war the following spring and summer. During the Civil War the number of Union voters eager for a negotiated settlement grew as the 1864 elections approached. Lincoln had to jump through a lot of political hoops to head off the peace movement. Even WW2, seen as "the good war," found the American people quite warweary in 1945. Despite what many feel we should have thought then, the use of nuclear weapons was enthusiastically received by a people quite tired of war and its sacrifices.

There's little doubt the U.S. could have defeated the Vietnamese Communists, but it would have meant a risk of war with China and/or the USSR and the application of much more airpower and infantry. There might have been twice as many American dead and many more Vietnamese dead. Still, it was certainly possible. But too many of the people were not behind the war. That's how a democracy works. Sometimes you can't win, or don't want to win. That doesn't mean you're necessarily defeated, but you have to change your goals. This was successfully done in Korea, where the goals were changed from utter defeat of the North Koreans to resumption of the status quo ante. In 1964, America wanted to keep the Communists out of South Vietnam. By 1968, most Americans just wanted to keep Americans out of South Vietnam. The American people got what they wanted.

Vietnam was certainly not a lost cause. It was won militarily and lost politically. The north vietnamese themselves have agreed with that statement, pointing to the streets of america and saying 'we won this war on two fronts'.

As far as forgotten, the 'americans' who handed the north vietnamese the political victory are still trumpeting the american 'wrongdoing' in vietnam.

It technically wasn't a US loss, because we and south vietnam signed peace with north vietnam. But the north broke it and Ford couldn't bring in troops to help the south because of public opinion.

But 58,000 causalties there were in Vietnam. Although it is alot, the causalties of the BATTLE of Gettysburg came close to 50,000.

But 58,000 causalties there were in Vietnam. Although it is alot, the causalties of the BATTLE of Gettysburg came close to 50,000.

Difference of tactics. The Viet Cong never used all out battles but guerilla warfare which was directed against a much smaller military force. Probably more effective too. Look, the U.S forces retreated from the war, pulled out all troops and influence. Vietnam fell to the north and became Communist. The only reason they're capitalist now is because of the basic wrongs with a Communist economy (especially Maoism) not because of America. How can you see it as victory?

There are more ways to loose a war than to be military defeated on the battlefield.

There are more ways to loose a war than to be military defeated on the battlefield.


Yes! We didn't loose WW1 on the battlefield also, our glorious Imperial Army was never defeated!
It were those evil Commies and Socialists who backstabbed us :lol:.

There are more ways to loose a war than to be military defeated on the battlefield.

Care to give an example? And not Cold War because that wasn't a war. Just two styles of government going "What are you lookin' at?"

Care to give an example? And not Cold War because that wasn't a war. Just two styles of government going "What are you lookin' at?"
Ever heard of 'Pyrrhic' victories?;)

I'm just saying that some political problems don't have military solutions.:)

US in Vietnam obviously — military winable, politically a huge liability to the point where a military victory would have accomplished what exactly? (Except some face-saving for the US army)

French army in Algeria in the 1960's*— de Gaulle asked the army to create 'facts on the ground', they did, and de Gaulle still gave up Algeria since it was the politically sensible thing to do. (The officers plot did try to assassinate him for that one.)

Some wars can only be won militarily at a political cost that no one wants to pay — or it makes no sense paying it since it won't solve the underlying political problems.

Often the most politically sensible thing to do is not to fight the damn war in the first place.
Unlike France Britain was smart enough to choose the winable conflicts when devolving its empire. Most of it they just let go, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but from the realisation that there was no good military solution. French stubborness handed it several defeats due to an inability to realise that the jig was up.

Israel has militarily beaten Palestinian ass for decades but still hasn't found a military solution to a political problem.

Sweden could have invaded Norway in 1905 to keep them in the union but what would have been the bloody point? Just a lot of furious Norwegians wishing them gone.

Really, too many people here have way to high an opinion of military prowess.:p ;)

But 58,000 causalties there were in Vietnam. Although it is alot, the causalties of the BATTLE of Gettysburg came close to 50,000.
That would probably include both sides however. The Brits suffered about 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Battle of the Somme alone.

Really, too many people here have way to high an opinion of military prowess.

Did you read the name of the forum on your way in? :p But I suppose you're right in a sense but I still see Vietnam as a loss for the U.S army because they retreated. and not in the Mongol "Ha, ha we fooled you." Way either.

But 58,000 causalties there were in Vietnam. Although it is alot, the causalties of the BATTLE of Gettysburg came close to 50,000.

58,000 US service FATALATIES. Probably in excess of 1.5 million Vietnamese fatalaties (not all killed by the US).

That doesn't include the wounded, the crippled, the blind.

Gettysburg was confined to a very small area. But the slaughter is in no way comparable. Sorry.

nevermind!

Did you read the name of the forum on your way in? :p
'World History', not 'World War History' last time I looked.:cool:

Vietnam was certainly not a lost cause. It was won militarily and lost politically. The north vietnamese themselves have agreed with that statement, pointing to the streets of america and saying 'we won this war on two fronts'.

As far as forgotten, the 'americans' who handed the north vietnamese the political victory are still trumpeting the american 'wrongdoing' in vietnam.
By 1967, it was obvious to all that the Communists would win if they could keep substantial forces in South Vietnam, but American firepower was making that increasingly difficult. At that point the Communists figured it would take five or ten years to get their way. This was too slow for the more radical Communists, who feared a defeat by the Americans. Under considerable political pressure Giap undertook the Tet Offensive in early 1968. The massive series of attacks was intended to liberate many towns and parts of cities long enough for the locals to join the Communists in a general uprising. It was felt that the situation was ripe for an all-or-nothing offensive and a call for the people of the South to rise up and throw off their capitalist leaders.

Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Communists. The people did not rise up, in fact many ferociously fought the Communist troops. The Viet Cong was wiped out as an effective military force, suffering over 50,000 casualties (NVA estimates, American estimates were over 75,000 VC casualties). But at the same time reports of military defeats were coming in, Ho and company noted that the American media had declared the Communists the winners. More accurately, the Americans were declared the losers. Why? Because the American leadership had been assuring the American public (and the rest of the world) for the previous year that the Communists in South Vietnam were finished, that the end was near. Actually, Tet did put the Communists further in the hole. Several years of determined effort could have ended Communist activity in the South. But it was not to be. The American people felt deceived and wanted no more of Vietnam. Ho and his merry men took their good fortune and ran with it.

Ho and his merry men took their good fortune and ran with it.

Wasn't Ho dead by the end of the war?

Yes, but he was still alive after Tet '68.

only war the U.S lost? HA, remember 1812? oh sure they "say" it was a draw, but what do you call it when one country gets invaded, kicks out the invaders, then burns the invader's capital?

agred, but we did repale the invaders. u can say with that point of view *urs* the soviet union lost ww2 cus thay whear invaded, the citys destroyed, 20 million or more dead, then repaled the invaders.

korea i whold say was a minor victory or a draw.. the war of 1812 whold be a minor victory

only war the U.S lost? HA, remember 1812? oh sure they "say" it was a draw, but what do you call it when one country gets invaded, kicks out the invaders, then burns the invader's capital?
The War of 1812 was a ghastly mistake. The U.S. had some major and legitimate complaints about the Brits, so in April they sent an ultimatum to the British government saying that unless they received a favorable reply by June 15, 1812, a state of war would exist.

However, on May 11th, the British Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, was shot and killed by a disgruntled office seeker. In the uproar that followed, the government simply did not get around to answering the Americans until too late. The answer was favorable, but the US didn't know about it until early July. (The British had their hands full fighting Napoleon, and didn't want to get involved in another war.)

?? We bombed the hell out of them--rolling thunder, linebacker. We also did mine their ports from early 70's on.

feh. (10 char)

Pardon me while I climb onto my soap box.

No war America has fought has been as tragic in its dimensions and its consequences as the Vietnam conflict, which ended 30 years ago in a humiliating retreat by the American forces. By that time, the conflict had consumed the energy and willpower of three U.S. administrations, the lives of more than 50,000 American soldiers and Vietnamese casualties numbering in the millions.

It was tragic by definition because it was the product of a great and well-meaning nation's blinding pride that eventually led to a great fall and enormous damage and loss of lives. America entered the war full of optimism and idealism and emerged from it dispirited and ashamed.

One of the lessons of the experience was a realization of the limits of military power, although it is a lesson that seems to have been lost on the current administration in Washington. A whole generation of military leaders, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, learned from Vietnam that America's technology and sophisticated firepower alone did not make the country invulnerable and that military power needs to be employed with wisdom and self-restraint.

Vietnam also cast lingering doubt on the credibility of the U.S. government, which systematically misled the public about the conduct of the war. That lesson, too, seems to have been lost in the passage of history, as evidenced by the ease with which the second war against Iraq was launched on apparently false pretenses.

The Vietnam War ended the political career of President Lyndon B. Johnson, and helped, along with the Watergate scandal, to tarnish the ideal of public service for some time.

American public opinion had started to turn against the war well before Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, but it would take the U.S. until 1975 to extricate itself from Vietnam through negotiations and military operations that added to the death toll. It would take another several decades for both Vietnam and the U.S. to recover from this experience and the turmoil that followed and come to grips with this unfortunate episode in both their histories.

Time has been kind to both. Americans have come finally to honor the service of the soldiers who were dispatched to the war, many of whom didn't come back, and many more of whom returned broken in spirit by their experience. The Vietnamese, with a robust market economy that depends on American wealth, have developed normal relations with the U.S. Most Vietnamese no longer harbor hatred toward the American people. Both peoples have recovered from their wounds from this conflict, which stood out in history for its futility.

I think the Vietnam War was healthy in a sense, as it purified a corrupted US governmental culture, which turned sour from the assassination of Kennedy to Watergate. I consider the Reagan years and onwards as the real revitalization of US self identity and global image, rising to the peak following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the first Clinton Administration.

Getting rid of all the dark eminences was key in getting USA a cleaner image.
And there are still some sinister souls in DC.

Getting rid of all the dark eminences was key in getting USA a cleaner image.
And there are still some sinister souls in DC.

Some? Try the entire fuggin' system. The whole U.S system is rotten from top to bottom with Bush and Dick getting most of the crea. On topic, did anyone watch the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon celebrations?

Vietnam war is not forgotten war, because when you say Vietnam, the first thing that comes to my mind is Vietnam war.