What's America's best victory? I'm just curious.
Australia's best victory was Battle of Tan, which I'm currently researching right now. 108 Aussies vs. 2500 Vietnamese. The Vietnamese completely surrounded the Australians. We almost lost. If it weren't for the ammunition delievery and reinforcements, we would've lost, but we won! :D Only about 18 casualties too...the Vietnamese? 245+ casaulties.

We won most of the actual battles. It just didn't matter in the end.

Most of the battles fought were American victories.

La Drang Valley, the Siege of Khe Sahn, as well as Hue and Quang Tri were well-known American victories. Khe Sahn was probably the "greatest," as it was expected to become a re-enactment of Dien Bien Phu, but the Marines pulled through and eventually the siege was broken. But if you're looking for crazy, action-packed, tactical madness, the Battle of the La Drang Valley is the battle for you.

What's America's best victory? I'm just curious.
Australia's best victory was Battle of Tan, which I'm currently researching right now. 108 Aussies vs. 2500 Vietnamese. The Vietnamese completely surrounded the Australians. We almost lost. If it weren't for the ammunition delievery and reinforcements, we would've lost, but we won! :D Only about 18 casualties too...the Vietnamese? 245+ casaulties.

Battle of Ia Drang was kind of a mirror of that that battle. I can't think of any battles that I would call a great victory. The US won nearly all of them but they achieved little in the bigger scheme like the battles in WWII. Plus there weren't very many 'battles' in the Vietnam war.

The most successful aspect of US involvement was probably the air war. The 1972 bombing campaigns forced North Vietnam to negotiate a cease fire and hand over American POWs which years of ground fighting had never achieved.

The bombing campaigns were strategic victories, but absolute tactical nightmares. We had little or no accuracy, so we just carpeted the entire jungle with 2000 lb bombs. Truly stunning that more munitions were used in that war than world war 2.

It was said America won every battle, but lost the war.

[QUOTE=sendos;7147542]What's America's best victory? I'm just curious.
Australia's best victory was Battle of Tan, which I'm currently researching right now.[/QUOTE

Further research may reveal it was Long Tan not Tan.

It was said America won every battle, but lost the war.

They didn't lose the war. They just... didn't win, if that makes sense.

course it makes sense, cause the world was bigger then Vietnam

They didn't lose the war. They just... didn't win, if that makes sense.

They DID lose the war. That's why there is only one Vietnam now, and it is communist.

Just some random thoughts. Very few things in history can be considered stranger than that war. A massive commitment of American forces was supposedly justified by a very questionable incident in the Gulf of Tonkin. Also, one of the biggest arguments for fighting that war was the domino theory. Almost immediately after the North Vietnamese victory Viet Nam invades Cambodia, eliminates the Khmer Rouge, and briefly occupies that country. Then the Red Chinese fight a short, but bloody border war with Viet Nam. So much for the domino theory.

Many believe that the Tet Offensive which was a huge victory for the U.S. and South was the big turning point which eventually led to a communist victory. The U.S. won almost every military engagement, but didn’t win the war. However, in the long run was that war a contributing factor in the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R.? Maybe. Some think that the war demonstrated to the Soviets that it was almost impossible for their economy to sustain a long range “fight to the death” with the west. This is something that could be argued one way or the other until the cows come home.

Today millions of tourists travel to Viet Nam. This inludes many American veterans who have gone back to visit Viet Nam and have contributed money and labor to help build schools, bridges, etc.

The American military didn't lose the war. The American media stabbed the country in the back.

I sound like a certain German general...

Ok. The Vietnamese targeted Americans (just like the Taliban targeting the Americans mostly) more than the Australians, perhaps because the Americans posed a bigger threat to them, especially due to the bombings and Agent Orange (which is still affecting people today). It was good that America pulled out, otherwise the riots would intensify and more casualties would be lost. Also, further into my research, it claims in a Battle of Long Tan documentary that Australian soldiers (including conscripts) could manage hardship better than the Americans (serious, I'm not boasting) and are (present: reason? war on terror) better trained. I've heard Americans winning the battles, but hearing the casualties on both sides would suggest that each American battle was bloody. Americans wiped out heaps of Vietcong and have lost the most, but that was due to my first statement: they suffered more attacks.
To the guy that suggests Long Tan isn't the greatest, what is?
True, dreadnought, the media is to blame for both Australia, America and perhaps other countries that were involved.

The American military didn't lose the war. The American media stabbed the country in the back.

I sound like a certain German general...

German corporal, and yeah, you do. and in the modern era its no longer possible to separate the military and political aspects of war. they lost, mainly because of the political aspects, but thats all part of the war. trying to seperate them is like seperating naval and land war, they go in tandem so one cannot be ignored in favour of the other.

The goals of the war were inhernetly political, and essentially impossible to achieve. You lost the war because the law was never winnable. "We won the battles" sounds like imperial troops complaining about guerrilla-tactics being cheating even as they're being chased out of a country.

The American military didn't lose the war. The American media stabbed the country in the back.

I sound like a certain German general...

The American military didn't stop the Vietcong from getting steadily stronger and controlling more territory and having more support.

They lost. Deal with it.

In 1963, the vietnamiese territory was divided in 2, 1 under Ho Chi Minh, 1 under Diem. We can't know for sure what the US governement wanted from this war but we can made some assumption.

Best case scenario: they wanted the North Vietnam governement to collapse and be conquered by the South.
OK case scenario: both governement stay, an truce is signed and Vietnam is divided in 2 for good (kind of what happen in Korea).
Worst case scenation: the south collape, the whole country go communist.

Since now we know that it's the third one that happen, we can identify at least 1 winner and 1 loser: The North Vietnam were the winner and the South Vietnam goverment lost. I think even the worst american warhawks would not dispute that.

Now where the USA stand in it? They certainly did not win but did they lost? Some people have a hard time affirming that the USA lost because, at the end of the war, Vietnam was in ruins while the US was unscatted. But the US didn't achieve any of their objectives, they lost far more men that they expected and while they won most of the battle (not all, I'd like to remind that the vietnamiese claim some as victory for them) the communists were always able to cope with the lost and reorganize. This is what the Tet offensive show and why it has this devastating effect even if the engagement was won by the US: it show that the vietnamiese resolve would not diminish until they got independence. People here should know that were talking about one of the few people on earth that have resisted an full scale mongolian invasion.

So, in my opinion, the US lost, simply because they could not match the resolve of their enemy.

Now where the USA stand in it? They certainly did not win but did they lost? Some people have a hard time affirming that the USA lost because, at the end of the war, Vietnam was in ruins while the US was unscatted..

Well there is more to it than that.

The US pulled out after North Vietnam and South Vietnam had agreed to a cease fire and American POWs where released. In essence the situation of the war was back to how it was in '63 before major US involvement.

South Vietnam (not the North) broke the cease fire and the North invaded again in '74. The US refused to help and with out US aide the South Vietnamese defense eventually collapsed.

I don't think its as clear cut but people will interpret the war how they want and the Vietnam War was the kind of war which allows all kinds of interpretations and conclusions.

The US came to Vietnam for 2 reasons.
1) they have a war economy, meaning that they need to participate in a war to run their production.
2) the US (and Australia) were scared that the South-East Pacific would fall to the communists as well as Vietnam (domino theory). The US had politcal, military and commerical interests there.

The US pulled out after North Vietnam and South Vietnam had agreed to a cease fire and American POWs where released.
Including Senator John Maccain. So if the Americans didn't get out of Vietnam, they might have left later or would still be there today, and Maccain may not have survived longer. So perhaps some republicans thanked God that the Americans left Vietnam because Maccain would not be around. A bit off topic but that was a relief for Maccain.

It was said America won every battle, but lost the war.

Yes but it wasn't a real lost war.
After treat of Paris and USA's retreat, north vietnam violated peace and invaded Souther part of country. Commies won, but not against american soldiers.

Yes but it wasn't a real lost war.
After treat of Paris and USA's retreat, north vietnam violated peace and invaded Souther part of country. Commies won, but not against american soldiers.

They forced them out and then defeated their allies. Of course it was a real victory. Just because the US didnt have a man there until the final shot was fired dosent mean they didnt lose. actually it means they lost worse, because they couldnt stay around till the death.

They forced them out and then defeated their allies. Of course it was a real victory. Just because the US didnt have a man there until the final shot was fired dosent mean they didnt lose. actually it means they lost worse, because they couldnt stay around till the death.

I partly agree, but it was more a political commie victory than militar one. Vietnam is like Cuba: America tried to block commification, but in the last accepted it.

Yes but it wasn't a real lost war.
After treat of Paris and USA's retreat, north vietnam violated peace and invaded Souther part of country. Commies won, but not against american soldiers.

They didn't really "lose" against American soldiers either. Pretty much all the actual battles yes, but the American soldier never inflicted critical harm on the Vietcong, where the Vietcong did inflict critical harm on the Americans.

Pretty much all the actual battles yes, but the American soldier never inflicted critical harm on the Vietcong, where the Vietcong did inflict critical harm on the Americans.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quite funny...

What's America's best victory? I'm just curious.
Australia's best victory was Battle of Tan, which I'm currently researching right now. 108 Aussies vs. 2500 Vietnamese. The Vietnamese completely surrounded the Australians. We almost lost. If it weren't for the ammunition delievery and reinforcements, we would've lost, but we won! :D Only about 18 casualties too...the Vietnamese? 245+ casaulties.

Perhaps the reason the US never achieved victory in the Vietnam War was because it never fought one. Except for a few bombing runs in 1965, much of the effort was aimed at defending South Vietnam, both from within (Vietcong) and without (North Vietnam). There was never any effort to invade, capture, and overthrow the North Vietnamese government.

Yes but it wasn't a real lost war.
After treat of Paris and USA's retreat, north vietnam violated peace and invaded Souther part of country. Commies won, but not against american soldiers.

No, it was Saigon that broke the treaty, get your facts straight.


They didn't really "lose" against American soldiers either. Pretty much all the actual battles yes, but the American soldier never inflicted critical harm on the Vietcong, where the Vietcong did inflict critical harm on the Americans.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quite funny...

He's not completely wrong you know. The US did hurt the North Vietnamiese, very badly in some case, but never to the point that they would be in danger to collapse. They just keep coming back and everytime the US army lost more troops than expected, which happen frequently, their credibility and resolve was lowered, to the point that they eventually left.

He's not completely wrong you know. The US did hurt the North Vietnamiese, very badly in some case, but never to the point that they would be in danger to collapse. They just keep coming back and everytime the US army lost more troops than expected, which happen frequently, their credibility and resolve was lowered, to the point that they eventually left.

I've not said he was wrong. Just i have to note the huge differences in numbers between USA and NVA. One day Ha Noi could have millions of soldier and the day after, sacrifice all them. America couldn't.

In the last it was more a political victory than militar.

interesting remarks here. i agree with most of the battles that have been posted.

the viet cong and nlf were effectively wiped out as a fighting force after tet. so i'd say that tet - or the us and arvn victory on the battlefield from it - was perhaps the greatest "victory" for the anti-communist forces during the war.

now, did charlie and co. catch the us and arvn forces by surprise? absolutely. however, from a military standpoint, tet was a humongous failure for the communists. by this i mean that they were not able to actually hold any of the positions they siezed and they were not able to rally the peoples of the south behind their cause. iow, the whole thing backfired (from a military and hearts-n-minds standpoint).

of course, tet was the turning point in the war in terms of american public opinion. the "credibility gap" had reared its ugly head for the first time. the info that the generals on the ground were feeding the civilians back home (for the most part) was contrary to what was actually happening and it had a crushing effect on the support for the war and was essentially the beginning of the end. so on that note, the us "victories" right after tet were of the phyrric sense imo.

if i were to pick a single battle from tet that was most grueling, i'd say Hue City. brutal, brutal fighting and the entire city was leveled. my uncle fought there w/ the usmc and has painted a gruesome picture of it for me over the years.

as for the argument that the us did or did not hurt the north vietnamese - or the question whether the us and arvn inflcted serious damage upon them...well, yes and no. yes, they absoultely pasted them up north. so much so that during linebacker ii and the x-mas bombings, the nva was on the verge of collapse. the introduction of laser guided bombs had an enormous impact from a tactical standpoint. this meant that targets that were somewhat inpenetrable were now getting demolished (bridgeheads, railheads mainly). anyhow, it has been suggested in some circles that these late war bombings and the devastation they laid out no doubt brought the n vietnamese to the bargaining table and set the stage for the eventual american withdrawal. it'd be an interesting what-if to see what may have happened if there was no cease fire and linebacker ii kept on.

bombing runs along the HCMT were not nearly as effective as the us military would have liked. in what is imho one of the most impressive feats of 20th century warfare, the vc and nva operated w/ near impunity along the trail. sure they took the arc light sorties and other COIN operations. however, there was no way on God's green earth that the HCMT was going to be anihilated (or the overall logistics trail). so on that note, a very substantive victory imo for the commies - as a matter of fact, they'd never had won the war w/out it.

other highlights of the war that deserve mentioning:

the uparmored M113s that the us and arvn forces used during the war were actually first used by the arvn forces. now, there isn't much good we can say about the arvn. but early on in the war, arvn forces were taking heavy casualties (ie ambushes) when on patrol. so a few industrious mechanics (auto mechanics by trade) thought that adding ad-hoc gun shields and turrets to the top of the M113s would be a good idea. and it was indeed. it cut casualties in half and set in motion a slew of modified M113 variants. and once these modified apc's became more prevalent, the combat effectiveness (if we can even put these words in the same sentence) of arvn rose greatly.

the introduction of the F-4E Phantom and its 20mm gun revolutionized air combat over the skies of vietnam. it cured a huge gaffe for the usaf in that they had no close in weapons systems to deal w/ the mig's. once these beasts took to the air, it was lights out for the nvaf.

charlie and co., as we know, were masters of the ambush. but what alot of people don't realize is that they were experts in organized lethal fields of fire, too. by this i mean that they were superb at plotting out american convoys and patrols and maximized the kill zones. this is pretty impressive, too, when we consider that they were essentially an irregular force. but certainly a very well disciplined force.

i saw someone commented on how the ANZAC forces may not have been as effective as us forces. yes, they were not deployed in the numbers that us forces were. however, New Zealand SAS was the cream of the crop in the bush. so much so that US special forces seeked them out and in many cases, they trained US forces in jungle warfare. i think they had cut their teeth during the malaya crisis. nonetheless, Kiwi special forces were no joke during the war.

I've not said he was wrong. Just i have to note the huge differences in numbers between USA and NVA. One day Ha Noi could have millions of soldier and the day after, sacrifice all them. America couldn't.

In the last it was more a political victory than militar.

While it's true we were much larger than them, our tolerance for losses was less. Now under other circumstances that might not have been true. But they simply had more on the line to fight for.

10:1 was the so-called ratio. and yes, they did have more on the line.

10:1 was the so-called ratio. and yes, they did have more on the line.

Are you counting civilians too?

no, it's enemy KIA. and it ain't me who's counting :p it was Uncle Sam.

to be more specific, that was the 'accepted' rate of attrition. i mean, it was 10 of charlie for every GI. of course, the no's were certainly inflated at times and there was no ironclad method to count casualties...and then couple in the civilian totals and that's alot of death.

has anyone said the Tet offensive yet? didn't the Vietcong get wiped out

yes and yes :)

Watch "Eleven lessons from the life of MacNamara", he gives crucial insights in to the vietnam war.

i saw someone commented on how the ANZAC forces may not have been as effective as us forces. yes, they were not deployed in the numbers that us forces were. however, New Zealand SAS was the cream of the crop in the bush. so much so that US special forces seeked them out and in many cases, they trained US forces in jungle warfare. i think they had cut their teeth during the malaya crisis. nonetheless, Kiwi special forces were no joke during the war.

I must have missed the comment you're referring too regarding the effectiveness of "ANZAC forces", sendos did comment about Australian troops managing hardship better than the Americans and that the Aussies were better trained - I'm not sure what evidence and examples he has for these statements.

A New Zealand SAS platoon served in Vietnam with the Australian SAS Regiment, based at Nui Dat under Australian command and both were/are very good. Australian SAS were leaders in jungle warfare as a result experiences gained in WW2 campaigns against the Japanese and against the Indonesians during the 'Confrontasi' period fighting in Malaya and Borneo.

You can hardly compare SAS troops, who are special forces veterans, to the short service conscripts that were more American ground forces. They are certain to be better.

A lot has been made of America's failure to prepare for the type of war that we were actually fighting (sound familiar?)

You can hardly compare SAS troops, who are special forces veterans, to the short service conscripts that were more American ground forces. They are certain to be better.

I wasn't comparing Australian/New Zealand SAS to American conscripts, because there is no comparison. sendos, I presume, was comparing Australian conscripts to American conscripts, but as I said, I don't know what he bases his comments on.

A lot has been made of America's failure to prepare for the type of war that we were actually fighting (sound familiar?)

There are similarities with Iraq in the sense that American strategic planning was very poor. The strategy in Vietnam for many years appears to have been based on achieving a higher body count than the enemy and in Iraq the planning for war was fine but the planning for the 'peace' that followed was appallingly bad.

Watch "Eleven lessons from the life of MacNamara", he gives crucial insights in to the vietnam war.

Reading it is even better, but yes, McNamara's drawn conclusions about the Mistake of Vietnam should be an incredibly important piece of political literature, one certain powers that be could have benefitted from reading...

that macnamara documentary was superb. it even won an oscar or some type of docu award iirc.

i wouldn't really say that the strategic aspects of american involvement in vietnam were poor (as w/ iraq). i mean, tactically and strategically, the us did very well imo. they just lost the hearts and minds and were supporting a lame and repressive govt and the arvn was awful. so i don't like the vietnam-iraq comparisons b/c it's like apples and oranges imo (for lots of other reasons, too).

edit: there were many strategic and tactical errors during the course of the war. no doubt. however, in sum, i think that the us performance was pretty good, albeit brutal in some cases.

one aspect that not many people point out but is highlighted in some circles is the quality of the officer corps of the army during the war. it was pretty lame compared to ww2 and even korean war standards. and this absolutely has a ripple effect.

the draft also didn't really do any good either in terms of the quality of soldiers.

I wasn't comparing Australian/New Zealand SAS to American conscripts, because there is no comparison. sendos, I presume, was comparing Australian conscripts to American conscripts, but as I said, I don't know what he bases his comments on.



There are similarities with Iraq in the sense that American strategic planning was very poor. The strategy in Vietnam for many years appears to have been based on achieving a higher body count than the enemy and in Iraq the planning for war was fine but the planning for the 'peace' that followed was appallingly bad.

Yeah, I was refering to Australian conscripts and regulars (volunteered soldiers) to American conscripts and regulars (if they had any) at the Vietnam war. The NZ forces were as good as the Australian forces. The evidence is in the outcome and casualties in the Battle Of Tan. If that was an American patrol, they wouldn't have done well. The Americans...seem to believe to fight very drastically. Their training (I know from watching their war movies and playing hl: opposing force mod) is fairly 'in your face'. Australian trainers would not give, say, 100 push ups for mucking around. That's why Americans can't tolerate hardship, because the trainers are literally 'passing it on' to future trainers. With Australian training, our soldiers are like a community. They help each other out, they have fun in training. For Americans to become great soldiers, entertain them, not by money, but by having fun.
Strangely, the Australian conscripts, like the Anzacs at Gallipoli, thought they were going on an adventure, so they enjoyed their training, until they realized what was really going on when they arrived. Eventually, they coped with it.

i disagree about your assessment of american soldiers in vietnam. most were very professional and did some pretty ungodly tasks. they had some of the best training in the world (usmc, airborne, sp ops guys) at the time (and still). and i don't think the sop's for the us military had anything to do w/ what happened on the ground or in the air.

the in-your-face aspect of american warfare was a product of the environment (ie insurgency, jungle, mountains), not some image of the stereotypical swashbuckling american cowboy/soldier.

i wouldn't really say that the strategic aspects of american involvement in vietnam were poor (as w/ iraq). i mean, tactically and strategically, the us did very well imo. they just lost the hearts and minds and were supporting a lame and repressive govt and the arvn was awful. so i don't like the vietnam-iraq comparisons b/c it's like apples and oranges imo (for lots of other reasons, too).

At face value, there are certainly some similarities, though each situation is of course unique in its own way.

edit: there were many strategic and tactical errors during the course of the war. no doubt. however, in sum, i think that the us performance was pretty good, albeit brutal in some cases.

It is worth noting that in every open engagement, the United States won handily. The NVA and Viet Cong figured this out very quickly (as early as La Drang), which is why they switched to the tactics they did (again, based on what worked and didn't at La Drang). Tactically, it was very smart of them to adapt so effectively, which in turn led to a stratiegic advantage. While the US could win almost every engagement they fought, especially when proper firepower was brought to bear, the ultimate goal of rooting out the Viet Cong insurgency was never realized, beacuse victory in battle often meant driving the enemy away from you, not taking the land you attacked him on; this is mostly beacuse of the hit and run tactics of the VC; American soldiers in the South rarely initiated an engagment with them, it was more of a game of "go on patrol and wait for them to attack us, then hit them as hard as we can." Such practices cannot be expected to be fruitful, much less to be benifical for troop morale.

one aspect that not many people point out but is highlighted in some circles is the quality of the officer corps of the army during the war. it was pretty lame compared to ww2 and even korean war standards. and this absolutely has a ripple effect.

This actually led to a total redrawing of the officer training program once we got out of Vietnam, along with a host of other miltiary reforms.

the draft also didn't really do any good either in terms of the quality of soldiers.

Indeed. Whenever we are forced to resort to a draft, we are usually scraping the bottom of the barrel quiality-wise.

that macnamara documentary was superb. it even won an oscar or some type of docu award iirc.

i wouldn't really say that the strategic aspects of american involvement in vietnam were poor (as w/ iraq). i mean, tactically and strategically, the us did very well imo. they just lost the hearts and minds and were supporting a lame and repressive govt and the arvn was awful. so i don't like the vietnam-iraq comparisons b/c it's like apples and oranges imo (for lots of other reasons, too).

edit: there were many strategic and tactical errors during the course of the war. no doubt. however, in sum, i think that the us performance was pretty good, albeit brutal in some cases.

one aspect that not many people point out but is highlighted in some circles is the quality of the officer corps of the army during the war. it was pretty lame compared to ww2 and even korean war standards. and this absolutely has a ripple effect.

the draft also didn't really do any good either in terms of the quality of soldiers.

You can properly train conscripts, they just didn't bother.

well, there's much that can be said (and written) about the conscript soldier in vietnam. the training, i think, isn't what the primary malus was. the fact that the kids, and they were indeed kids - 18, 19 yr olds, simply didn't want to be there contributed to the many problems that the army faced in vietnam. i mean, they were trained well imo. but there were so many 'short timers' that there was simply no continuity (outside of lifers and alot of nco's). iow, there were few that actually reenlisted. and the lack of experienced soldiers being rotated into the field is probably the main point i'm trying to make. as Cheezy pointed out, the army and the military underwent significant comand structure changes after the war (reagan mostly).

The American military didn't stop the Vietcong from getting steadily stronger and controlling more territory and having more support.

They lost. Deal with it.

First of all, take a chill pill. I was playing on Ludendorf claiming the Jews stabbed Germany in the back. Relax man. Relax.

Second of all, yes, it was the media that lost us the war. We could have bombed the hell out of North Vietnam. We could have wiped them off the face of the map. Yet, the US media wanted us to fight a war without killing anyone :p . The media' mentality was that we would fight the war without losing any soldiers as casualties. They were expecting a chess game, not a battle.

It was the media that lost the war. You can't claim otherwise.

What should have happened is that the US, with total air control, should have bombed the crap out of North Vietnam and any South Vietnam villages harboring Viet Cong. They made their choice to protect them, and we have the right to blow them up.

Do I sound evil? Maybe. But I believe this about war: Go in and fight a total war, or don't go in at all.

Do I sound evil? Maybe. But I believe this about war: Go in and fight a total war, or don't go in at all.

You are Evil.

Do I sound evil? Maybe. But I believe this about war: Go in and fight a total war, or don't go in at all.And you did that and you lost it because you live in democratic country where most of the people didn't like unnecessary wars and killing innocent people in the name of total hocus pocus that is total war.

Your idea isn't evil, it is insane.

And you did that and you lost it because you live in democratic country where most of the people didn't like unnecessary wars and killing innocent people in the name of total hocus pocus that is total war.

Your idea isn't evil, it is insane.

It is both insane and evil.

Dreadnought... :D:D
I just laugh a bit about your comment. Does really have media something to do with the war?????
Does really US retreated because of that? Doubt that.
The thing that bothers me is that why did US bomb on Vietnamese soil those bombs... They just made the terrain useless.

Why does US send those soldiers in the first place? To win the fight against Communism??

Dreadnought... :D:D
I just laugh a bit about your comment. Does really have media something to do with the war?????
Does really US retreated because of that? Doubt that.

Of course it does. The media made the citizens into anti-war fanatics, which in turn forced the government to withdraw troops.

The thing that bothers me is that why did US bomb on Vietnamese soil those bombs... They just made the terrain useless.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking why we dropped bombs? Do you even know what a war is?

Why does US send those soldiers in the first place? To win the fight against Communism??

We told S.V. we would help in case of N.V. aggression.

Of course it does. The media made the citizens into anti-war fanatics, which in turn forced the government to withdraw troops.

Bullsh*t. The Media doesn't turn people into anti-war fanatics, poorly planned and poorly excused wars do. Americans had no intrest of going to Vietnam, just the Government... Contrary to popular belief, not everyone is hypnotized by the media... Some people genuinely are against war, useless bloodshed and shitty reasons for attacking.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking why we dropped bombs? Do you even know what a war is?

Perhaps he may not be solely commening on bombs... perhaps also the use of things such as Agent Orange, which also contrary to popular belief, doesn't have a refreshing Citrus after taste.

We told S.V. we would help in case of N.V. aggression.

The two sides shouldn't have been seperated in the first place. For all the hate Ho Chi Minh gets, Pro-War Twits sure seem happy to support Diem who, lets face it, was an idiot and a bad person at that.

Ho Chi Minh had attempted to get US support a long time ago, not through violent means but diplomatically... that was refused and so he fought for independance from France, only to have the oh-so-kind US come in and cut the country in two.

First of all, take a chill pill. I was playing on Ludendorf claiming the Jews stabbed Germany in the back. Relax man. Relax.

Second of all, yes, it was the media that lost us the war. We could have bombed the hell out of North Vietnam. We could have wiped them off the face of the map. Yet, the US media wanted us to fight a war without killing anyone :p . The media' mentality was that we would fight the war without losing any soldiers as casualties. They were expecting a chess game, not a battle.

It was the media that lost the war. You can't claim otherwise.

What should have happened is that the US, with total air control, should have bombed the crap out of North Vietnam and any South Vietnam villages harboring Viet Cong. They made their choice to protect them, and we have the right to blow them up.

Do I sound evil? Maybe. But I believe this about war: Go in and fight a total war, or don't go in at all.

I can, and I do. Because it's stupid to blame the media. All the media did was let the public, and many members of the government, know what was actually happening there. They did exactly what they should have done.

Now neither Johnson or Nixon did the military any favors in terms of CiC decisions, but the military didn't do any better.

I dislike it when people refer to the media as almost a conscious been, it's incredibly stupid. Tell me who is this hive brain controlling the media convincing them to hate America. All the media did was tell the truth the people responded to that truth in a way that conflicted with the goals of the war.

i disagree about your assessment of american soldiers in vietnam. most were very professional and did some pretty ungodly tasks. they had some of the best training in the world (usmc, airborne, sp ops guys) at the time (and still). and i don't think the sop's for the us military had anything to do w/ what happened on the ground or in the air.

the in-your-face aspect of american warfare was a product of the environment (ie insurgency, jungle, mountains), not some image of the stereotypical swashbuckling american cowboy/soldier.

Exactly. American soldiers tend to shoot first, ask questions later. Perhaps there were different American regiments if that's what I'm thinking about, like the German SS group, which was the most violent regiment of the German army.

The media also has an aim to undermine the government, so it is partially their fault. President Johnson tried to make the American soldiers leave without admitting defeat by leaving equipment there for the South Vietnamese soldiers. For a bit of military genius, why not leave some forces in Saigon? :rolleyes: That way the Vietcong can be held off for a while. If the Australians stayed for longer and defended Saigon, the Vietcong's assaults would be decimated.
I think I should do further research on why Australian, British, New Zealand and perhaps Canadian forces are better than the Americans...but I'm fascinated by everyone's opinions on the Vietnam war. ;)

American soldiers shoot first because that is trained into them. It was found in WWII that as many as a 1/3 of US soldiers in combat never fired their weapons at the enemy. The Army and Marines determined to change that, and decided it was a failure of training, so they altered the basic training methods to increase aggressiveness.

The theory being, the side that sends the most bullets at the other tends to win.

Dreadnought.. The media is easily or can be easily manipulated. It's made of picture and sound that are shown. How much truth is in the story they tell, it's already dealt. Seeing some report from TV you must start using your brains too. It might be helpful.

Yes, i know what war is, but you know what is tactics or strategy? Without any plan what to do there, war will be easily lost, even you outnumber the opponent. I tried to ask, why attack land and civilians? If there would be a tactical attack on strategic points than bombs wouldn't be used so much. The problem is that there wasn't a will to help some one. They just went there for there own goals. By the way... you know, how the Vietnam war started? And how it ended?
And if really US wanted to help Vietnam, why US already started sending troops there, even before some diplomatic talks started? War has always been, or was in a very deep past an extreme conflict resolver... No one, actually didn't want goto war, because that would suppose great men loss, great economy decrease etc.

By the way.. to shoot first and then ask questions comes from Communism.

It is interesting fact that US chooses her enemies, no the way around...

The theory being, the side that sends the most bullets at the other tends to win.

According to that logic the US should have lost WWII then :rolleyes:

Exactly. American soldiers tend to shoot first, ask questions later. Perhaps there were different American regiments if that's what I'm thinking about, like the German SS group, which was the most violent regiment of the German army.

The media also has an aim to undermine the government, so it is partially their fault. President Johnson tried to make the American soldiers leave without admitting defeat by leaving equipment there for the South Vietnamese soldiers. For a bit of military genius, why not leave some forces in Saigon? :rolleyes: That way the Vietcong can be held off for a while. If the Australians stayed for longer and defended Saigon, the Vietcong's assaults would be decimated.
I think I should do further research on why Australian, British, New Zealand and perhaps Canadian forces are better than the Americans...but I'm fascinated by everyone's opinions on the Vietnam war. ;)
heh, this is probably the most intellectually dishonest post i've seen here at cfc in quite some time :)

you compare american army units to the german ss? i'd love to see your proof.

and it wasn't johnson who wanted to leave w/out admitting defeat. that was nixon. get your facts straight if you're going to blather on.

as for your comment about saigon...well, it's evident that you really have no idea how the war really transpired. the us forces did have saigon heavily defended. and it was never truly threatened again until '75. please get your facts straight before you make such ridiculous comments.

for what it's worth, canadian forces did not fight in vietnam. and good luck on your report. i'd give you a D- so far due to your irreverent train of thought and near reckless assertions.

as for the media in vietnam, i agree that it had quite an impact. i mean, for the first time ever, us homes were getting a war beamed into their family rooms. and the visual impact that it had was very significant. there's also a very good argument in academic circles about not withdrawing congressional support for SV. the course of the war may have been different or NV may have collapsed under the terrible strain of the aerial bombing (it was getting more and more devestating by the day in '72). so i can see what Dreadnought is saying. i just think he could've worded it a little better :)

Is the media really the only square source of blame?

Its not like its the media's fault that soldiers blews some guys head to . .. .. .. . on camera. The media's presense may have revealed the cruelty and darker side of war, but is that really a bad thing?

That Vietnam was lost, was that truly a bad thing? Had it been South vs. North then the war would have ended quicker and their would be less deaths, less massacres and less drawbacks. The US had no buisness in Vietnam and that in itself should have been a lesson to all powers... like the USSR in Afganistan.

That so many lives was lost in a futile war is truly sad. But it is not the media's fault that the war is lost, the media is a check and balance to the military, keeping it in line in that if they f*ck up, people will know. You cant simply let your armies roll in, burn down forests looking for enemies and then leave the country black as coal claiming victory while thousands were murdered and thousands left to die.

I think I should do further research on why Australian, British, New Zealand and perhaps Canadian forces are better than the Americans...but I'm fascinated by everyone's opinions on the Vietnam war. ;)

Well if that's how you want to spend your time....

Personally I think there are more relevant and less childish things to do than looking up reasons to belittle American soldiers and why the Australians and British are so much more better.:rolleyes:

I would have hoped that the Australians were above British Montgomeryism.

We told S.V. we would help in case of N.V. aggression.


We created South Vietnam. If anyone caused the Vietnam War, it was the United States.

We created South Vietnam. If anyone caused the Vietnam War, it was the United States.

We played our part in the politics of 1950s Indochina but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Republic of Vietnam was an American creation. Vietnam was divided at 17th in cooperation between French and the Vietnamese representatives in Geneva. The French expected to keep South Vietnam but the South opted for total independence and turned to the US for protection and backing.

Exactly. American soldiers tend to shoot first, ask questions later. Perhaps there were different American regiments if that's what I'm thinking about, like the German SS group, which was the most violent regiment of the German army.

The media also has an aim to undermine the government, so it is partially their fault. President Johnson tried to make the American soldiers leave without admitting defeat by leaving equipment there for the South Vietnamese soldiers. For a bit of military genius, why not leave some forces in Saigon? :rolleyes: That way the Vietcong can be held off for a while. If the Australians stayed for longer and defended Saigon, the Vietcong's assaults would be decimated.
I think I should do further research on why Australian, British, New Zealand and perhaps Canadian forces are better than the Americans...but I'm fascinated by everyone's opinions on the Vietnam war. ;)

Please don't further embarrass yourself with absurd statements about the relative merits of different countries armed forces. If you are truly interested in learning more about Vietnam I suggest reading a book "A Bright Shinning Lie" or "The Battle of Long Tan" by Lex McAuley - and please get the name of the battle right.

:) Allowance made for age.

Yeah, actually, I'd take back some remarks anyway. I just heard from a Major in person at Vietnam that Australians had been a bit clumsy in training: friendly fire, deaths in training, mostly live grenades; etc. There had been some controversy with the battle of Long Tan: a) the RAAF refused to send ammo to the soldiers currently fighting so, heh, I guess the Americans had to be thanked for that. They were more courageous, we were more cautious, another reason why America had more casualties, but Australia has good bravery too. b) reinforcements were late due to problems where the gate out of Nui Dat had been moved, so the APC's circled about to find the exit and c) the military commander radioed the APC company to pick him up but they refused.
I had to get the info now not earlier, so I guess we're equal now. I hope Australian training improved after that.

Anyway, I'm changing military history subject tomorrow from Vietnam war to the American civil war for the whole semester, But anyway, I'd prefer this topic closed if I knew how to do it.

Em. To compare a troop to another troop is pointless... There are many too many features that can' t be compared.

War has changed. There is no war between two armies and there generals, between victory and failure. There are corporations that fight each other, and they use people and soldiers that are just thought as there arms, just extended. To understand the war, one has to see further than the battlefield, one must try to get to source of all things. It is time ti start analyse details of the war and the other wars.
I have read that here is only seen the battlefield.... There was no text that talked about the politics that were in charge of the things in that time.