I am doing a research project on the Vietnam War. I can't find any good sources so could any one give me some resons why America lost? Or direct me to a good source?

We(the USA) weren't able to put our entire military muscle into the conflict. we had too many restrictions on our military

i think that the vietnamese had a advantage because of the terrain. not sure?

I advise you look to British History books for realiable info on the Vietnamese war (i did it as part of my GCSE course last year).

For one thing, Viet Nam was a good example of politicians micro-managing a war from the other side of the world. Johnson, then later Nixon, placed many restrictions on his generals that the NVA exploited.

Viet Nam was also the first (and last!) American war that TV reporters had free access to the battlefield and its aftermath. A truly grisly picture. It has often been said by soldiers in battle (in many different words, but in the same spirit) that if the people at home could see this, there would be little or no support for war.

Media can influance public opinion in a big way.

Finaly, in short, it was the first modern defeat for the US in political terms. Doubly damned because the military dominated the battlefield in almost every fight. Even Korea was considered a draw by most.

These are just a few ideas for you, which Im sure can be greatly expanded on and argued as well.

Some other good points about the aftermath of the Viet Nam War, was the impact in US policy about deploying troops, exit strategy, "acceptable losses" ...etc. It made a huge impact on the American psyche.

However, the Gulf War changed some of that, then Somolia changed it right back.

Maybe this shld be in the History forum. About time somebody asked about the Vietnam War.
I agree with joespaniel on every point. America didn't lose militarily; only lost cos of the crumbling home front. Actually the Vietcong had almost collapsed when the Americans pulled out and left.
Only thing I want to add is that the Soviets were supplying the Viets with weopans and equipment which were a contributing factor too. An army armed with Soviet weopanry would definitely be more powerful than one armed with home-made bombs, bamboo spears and captured US weopans.
One side-note - the Chinese invaded Vietnam in 1976 (or was it 1978?). Lost 26000 men in just a few border skirmishes. Actually Deng Xiaoping wanted to give a wake-up call to the PLA to show them how badly they were trailing behind the militaries of other countries in tactics, operational readiness, equipment, doctrine etc. And the PLA had been furiously upgrading and training ever since.
Had the US stayed for a while longer and coordinated with the Chinese, we would have a different outcome today. Cos the Chinese Commies then had broken off with the Soviets and were aligned with the USA. Then the US could invade N Vietnam w/o provoking China. Heck, China could even have joined in. :crazyeyes

My grandpa would have been able to tell you a lot. He fought it. For the South VN of course. But well, there's something wrong, US didn't lose it militarily, only politically. Which was a shame, because all those hypocritical europeans didn't know what communism was, yet. Yeah the actual reason was that there were to many hypocritical bastards in Europe condemning that.
Oh and there was also something else that made South army lose. Army corruption. It's not told but this might not be a minor reason.
Btw, SKM, China always invaded VN, since the old times. For 1000 years we had to fight them...

China joing in? That's an idea I hadn't heard before. Sounds like the outcome of that would have been a Chinese backed North Vietnam and an American backed South Vietnam. China was at odds with the Soviet Union but I would not say the Chinese were allied with the Americans. Vietnam, like Korea before it, was a battlefield between the USA and communism. Detente with the communists was still not all that accepted in the US even at the end of the Nixon presidency. Actually it still hasn't been accepted! The 80's saw the Evil Empire bashing of Reagan. Once Soviet communism crumbled the US began to look upon China as the main threat to its security.

That was a very good point about Vietnam being the only war where reporters had real access to what was going on. I was 12 by the time we pulled out in 1973 and remember seeing the war on the news. (Back in those days we had one tv with 4 channels and we watched what my parents wanted to watch. Not like today where my kids have their own tv in thier rooms with hundreds of channels to choose from.) Anyway, one of the things I remember was the Lt. Calley thing. The impression I got as a youngster was that we had sent this guy over there to fight a war and kill people. So he killed people and we wanted to put him in jail. Didn't seem right to me that he was in trouble but it didn't seem right that Calley was killing people who weren't in the army. This was a youngster's impression but it did seem to me even then that it would be hard to have a war without some 'regular' people getting killed. I think it helped us in the US to realize that war is a pretty unsavory business. (A lesson we would be well served to remember today!)

Another angle is the theory that John Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1964 and try instituting detente. There are those who think that Kennedy's assassination was a political coup designed to keep the fight against communism going. Johnson certain brought the Vietnam war to its height. This theory also speculates that the Watergate scandal was another coup designed to get rid of Nixon who had embraced detente.

I am not going to involve myself in a JFK conspiacy threory in a Viet Nam Thread, but I would like to point out that Nixon was not a victim of a coup, rather a victim of his own greed and lust for power. The Watergate Hotel scandal was of his own making.

I hope that we helped with your research project, Xeven. Please let us know how it comes out.

SKM - Donsig brought up a good point. I dont think the US and China were all that cozy in the 70s??? I would have thought an all out push on North Viet Nam would have ended up much like Korea, with a Chinese entry into the war against the US and its allies.

An interesting view, to say the least. Not something I've ever heard of before.

The theory about Nixon's removal being a coup was mentioned in a book called the Assassination Chain (I forget the author). In a nutshell the premise of the book is that JFK was killed because he was going soft on the war against communism. Eliminating JFK put in Johnson, a man willing to continue the fight by escalating the war in Vietnam.

When LBJ decided not to run for re-election in 1968 those who had eliminated JFK wanted Nixon to be president. Nixon had been a fighter of communists from the days of Joe McCarthy and as vice-president was in on the planning that led to the Bay of Pigs. (Presumably if Nixon had won in 1960 the US would have actively supported that invasion.) Anyway RFK was a threat to Nixon's election and the killing of Martin Luther King, Jr. was meant to be a warning to RFK. Bobbie didn't take the hint and became the next link in the chain. George Wallace was a threat to Nixon's re-election in 1972 and he was shot to remove him from the race.

Nixon became somewhat of a statesman, ended things in Vietnam and even went to China. The book maintained that the Watergate affair was not contained as it could have been because Nixon's removal in favor of Ford was desirable. (Remember that Ford had been on the Warren Commission.) Those of us old enough may remember Ford's declaration that there was no Soviet domination of Poland.

Anyway, that is the book's theory. It may also have alluded to the U2 incident during Ike's administration. Gary Power's U2 was shot down by the Russians when they supposedly were incapable to doing so. The incident occurred right before a planned summit between Ike and Kruskev and ended any hopes of the summit easing the Cold War.

The book was written in 1976 and at that time the authors could not have realized that the man in charge of the CIA would end up being VP under yet another anti-communist President and then become President himself with his son getting a turn at the top job as well. It would be interesting to see an updated sequel to The Assassination Chain. With the first Bush we had Desert Storm and with the current one we have the Afghanistan war. It does seem that there is a chain of related links extending back a good 40 years and a common denominator seems to be war. Eisenhower's warning to us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex have gone unheeded...

So, as far as the topic of this thread is concerned, Vietnam seems to have been all about the US fighting communism but it may well have merely been about keeping the military-industrial complex in business.

Very odd, I will have to read that book. I like a good spy story.

The military-industrial complex was being fed just fine with a (not so cold) cold-war with the USSR. I find it hard to believe that anyone could send 55,000 Americans to their deaths and get hundreds of thousands wounded for that. And a couple million Viet Namese as well.

Greed, and the lust for power are strong motivations, but these men calling the shots were Americans themselves. They had to have some sense of right and wrong, a conscience, or at base a guilt that would prevent them from doing something so horrible.

I dont deny that tremendous bad judgement reigned during the Viet Nam War on the part of the US Government. But I dont think these were evil men that would send off their countrymen into a meat grinder for industry.

At least I hope so.

This particular book did suggest a single individual that might have been behind the supposed assassination chain (I won't spoil your reading by saying who) but it is quite possible that the 'chain' was not the consious effort of any one person. The profit motive is a strong one (whether you are living in a capitalistic society or otherwise) and if your profit comes from making weapons then war is good for business. I read once (don't recall where now) that the US did not have a permanent armaments industry until after WWII. Apparently we geared up for WWI then afterwards went back to building other things. After WWII we kept pumping the armaments out. The 'threat' from the communists was the justification for doing so.

I doubt the 'chain' was the work of one mastermind but I do think the desire for profits by the defense industry contributed to the war in Vietnam.

:eek: oooh... this sounds scary. Im definately going to buy this book now. :) Thanks.


BTW - I started a "conspiracy" thread here in the history forum, and its dedicated to all you "conspirators".:cool: Donsig gave me the idea...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7039

Originally posted by GenghisK
Btw, SKM, China always invaded VN, since the old times. For 1000 years we had to fight them... Only twice; during most of the Han and 1-2 decades during the Ming. In Han times, N Vietnam was part of the Nan Yue kingdom (together with Guangxi and Guangdong). Had been set up by a Qin general who made himself king of the region after the Qin was overthrown. Then the Han came and he submitted and became the regional lord. After the Han broke up, N Vietnam (known as Tonkin) drifted away and never returned to the Chinese fold (unlike neighbouring Guangxi and Guangdong).

The Ming also invaded and then ruled N Vietnam for 1-2 decades at the end of which, the Ming were kicked out. By then, a Vietnamese national consciousness had developed so could not be absorbed. Otherwise, the Chinese never really looked south. More worried about nomadic tribes to the north and north-east.

Only one time was during the Qing when they sent troops (Black Flags) to help the Vietnamese emperor fight the encroaching French. The Black Flags were successful but then the French won the Opium War (together with the Brits) and as part of the peace treaty, needed to withdraw. Then after some more fighting, the French occupied Indo-China.

Otherwise, the Chinese had never touched S Vietnam. Cos in times long ago, this was the area of the Chams and Khmers (Indian influenced) and had never been Sinified.

Originally posted by donsig
China joing in? That's an idea I hadn't heard before. Sounds like the outcome of that would have been a Chinese backed North Vietnam and an American backed South Vietnam. China was at odds with the Soviet Union but I would not say the Chinese were allied with the Americans. Vietnam, like Korea before it, was a battlefield between the USA and communism. Detente with the communists was still not all that accepted in the US even at the end of the Nixon presidency. Actually it still hasn't been accepted! The 80's saw the Evil Empire bashing of Reagan. Once Soviet communism crumbled the US began to look upon China as the main threat to its security. I agree it's probably unlikely since China was then still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution. But remember that it's the Soviets who provided most of the equipment to the Viets. The Chinese only made some token contribution but were otherwise at loggerheads with the Vietnamese (behind the scenes).
At the very least, America could have made some smart diplomatic overtures and had the Chinese pressurizing the N Viets and pulled off a good part of their military. Why do you think the Viets maintained a 1 million plus strong army (4th largest in the world at that time) fr then till the late 80s and a military alliance with the Soviet Union? Cos they feared China.

Originally posted by joespaniel
SKM - Donsig brought up a good point. I dont think the US and China were all that cozy in the 70s??? I would have thought an all out push on North Viet Nam would have ended up much like Korea, with a Chinese entry into the war against the US and its allies.

An interesting view, to say the least. Not something I've ever heard of before. Well, I am an interesting sort of person or hadn't you noticed that? :lol:
The Americans and Chinese Commies were getting cozy cos of their mutual antagoism against the Soviet Union (the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing) in the early 70s. Remember the ping-pong diplomacy? But then China was pretty chaotic then cos of the Cultural Revolution and later the deaths of Mao and Zhou Enlai. The leadership was kinda weak; Deng only came to total power 1-2 yrs after the death of Mao. Probably won't be of much help in any coordinated military action against the Viets.
Also Korea and Vietnam were different. Korea bordered on Manchuria, which was a crucial industrial region for China and also pretty near to Beijing. Vietnam bordered on Guangxi, which even today is still relatively poor and backward. The Chinese could afford to take a risk with the Americans driving up Vietnam but not with American forces driving straight at Manchuria and Beijing. And also this was after the Korean War so I don't think the Americans would repeat their same diplomatic mistake again (of not even wanting to talk to the Red Chinese leadership).
BTW, where IS starlifter? I am sure he would have TONS and TONS to say about the evil Red Chinese.....

SKM's points about how Vietnam and Korea were different make sense. I guess what I've been getting at is that the US did not win the war in Vietnam because the war was profitable for many people in the US. Winning the war would not have been as profitable.

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that the media had unparralled access to what was going on. This led to a war weariness among a large portion of the American people. This in turn ended the war. If not for the media then the war (and its profits) may have dragged on quite a bit longer.

This opens up a subject that is pertinent today: where is the open society that we Americans are so proud of? We had little news about Desert Storm and we're getting even less about Afghanistan.

Starlifter? He disappeared in the midst of our forgotten war (Korea) thread. He must not have access to a computer where ever he is...

When the United States and its allies launched operation desert storm, the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq, media was grouped into pools from which Army "liasons" would take them where the "media officers" wanted them. Reporters were not allowed into the area of operations on their own. This was in part possible because of the Saudi government and its strict policies, and helped play into the hands of pentagon cencorship.

The US military is well aware of the power of the media to affect its opereations. Viet Nam was the litmus test. They were not going to allow this to happen again. In fact, if it wasnt for the TV broadcast of the "highway of death" near Basra, the 100 hour ground war could have gone on longer. Public opinion turned at that point. It was no longer just buildings, but bodies. The real face of war, human suffering, was in the US living room again via TV.

It was no longer just about ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, but ensuring Saddam Hussein could not continue to threaten his neighbors, by destroying his military equipment. Iraqi soldiers were allowed to surrender their tanks and APCs and spared death, at the risk of Allied soldiers lives. Leaflets were dropped by the millions telling the Iraqis they would not be killed if unarmed and on foot.

Some did not heed this warning. Especialy amongst the Republican Guard, Saddam's hardliners and semi-elite troops. The SS if you will. Thus a slaughter ensued on the Kuwait-Basra road as A-10s strafed and bombed retreating Iraqi columns.

The military censors did not want this shown, but control was lost in the blitz-like advance into Kuwait and Iraq itself, reporters slipped into the desert and pictures came out via satellite link.

American and allied media today is more on the honor system when it comes to operations, due in part to technology, as one guy with a satalite phone can send real-time images from the other side of the world, live to our TV set. Military censorship is still in place, but it is actualy helped by a willing partner, the media itself.

Now that terror has struck at the media in the form of Anthrax, I dont forsee any real opposition to the war against the Taliban or any other states that sponsor terror. American media is behind the war, and may offer only token "resistance" to the military for the purpose of maintaining an image of impartiality.

I, personaly am just fine with that for now, and hope that this "power" is not abused in the future. The media can go back to bashing the government all it wants when this is over, and it should.;) The military of the United States is in the service of its people, and should be scrutinized. Just not when operations are ongoing, as it endangers the lives of our troops.

When its over, they could, and should, scrutinize the actions of the pentagon, after the fact. Live battlefield reporting is just not a smart thing from a security standpoint, and wont be possible anyway as long as the pentagon has the power to control it.

When its over, they could, and should, scrutinize the actions of the pentagon, after the fact. Live battlefield reporting is just not a smart thing from a security standpoint, and wont be possible anyway as long as the pentagon has the power to control it.

The problem is this: How can we as American citizens decide how far we want a war to go if we do not know what is happening? Right now we can only trust in those who are in power. That does not seem to me to be the American way of doing things. 'We the people' are supposed to have the power and we're supposed to have an open society which allows us to exercise that power inteligently. Shooting now and asking questions later seems to be a very dangerous way to go about things in the long run.

Now that terror has struck at the media in the form of Anthrax, I dont forsee any real opposition to the war against the Taliban or any other states that sponsor terror. American media is behind the war, and may offer only token "resistance" to the military for the purpose of maintaining an image of impartiality.

While we do not know who is behind the anthrax attacks on the media and the government one thing bothers me. By attacking the media and congress the attackers are only ensuring that the war on terrorism will go on with much support from the American people. Eisenhower's 'military-industrial comples' must be very pleased indeed.

Were getting off topic, but the terrorist tactic is to hope we get mad and overreact, widen the war, and piss off more people.

They are also not as smart as everyone thinks. Their tactics probably wont work.

However, the US should be spinning their own propaganda over there alot more. We seem to be way behind in that front.

You cant fight a war and tell the enemy what your next move is by broadcasting it on TV. Unless you want to lose, ofcourse. What I meant by scrutinizing the military (leadership in particular), was to hold them accountable for their actions now (in Afghanistan) at a future date, via the media. When its over, the facts can come out. They usualy do.

VietNam was not a model of winning hearts and minds either. Seems like we were pissing off the civilians more than anything.

I read a good book called "we were soldiers once, and young" authored by a CBS newsman who was a soldier in the US Army.

He fought at the Ia-Drang Valley, a horrific battle between an American rifle battalion and a NVA regiment. One of the largest engagements of the war, btw. Check it out.

It was considered another turning point in the war, after too many proud boasts by the pentagon that the US was winning.

which happened immediately after LZ X-Ray .. which was a US victory. What happened .. was a battalion of the 7th Cavalry was hiking back from the X-Ray battlefield & had very poor security & was spread out in one long column. They ran into a NVA Regiment which was returning from beseiging a Special Forces Camp ( Plei Me .. I believe ) .. and were largely massacred. This WAS an important engagement as after this US operations became much more massive & slower. Very rarely after this could we bring the enemy to book & then only at places & times of their choosing.

I suggest Bernard Fall, David Halberstam, Giap, Frances FitzGerald, Stanley Karnow & many others for your reading.

The basic reason for the US failure in Vietnam was that in the strategic sense, it sucked big time. They could reinforce freely, we could not & they had various sanctuaries where they could regroup & reform. This plus .. we way..way underestimated their power of resistance. Ignorance of the history, culture & customs of this land, did us in. The rest.. batttles, tactics, the media, & the anti-war sentiments at home were by-and-large sideshows.

Dog

The US didn't lose the war in Vietnam.

The US just didn't win that why people think that the US lost.
A professional army like the US Army would have a tough time fighting any kind of guerrila movement.
The same thing happened with the Soviets in Afghanistan, eventhough the soviets had much fewer casualties, I think it was 20.000
An Army fighting a guerrilla will seldom win but will never lose, that is because one has a hard time diferentiating a fighter from a peasant, without using evil methods like tourture.

The media had an effect, but the most important factor for the withdraw I think it is the fact that you can't distinguish the enemy, therefore the casualities seemed for no reason.

Overall that is the point, eventhough communism was a threat, the threat was never a strong reason to justify the death of young americans in a jungle in the middle of nowhere

We could have won the Vietnam War, had it not been for the massive and malodorous public protests which turned Johnson into a broken man. One of the shortages of democracy, is the capability of the people to actively protest against the deeds of the government, saying that a democractic country will never be able to win a war without the public support. It may seem like a trivial matter, but the public support is essential when waging war, especially on far-away territory. Atrocities were made out of frustration and bitterness, which was one of several reasons why we failed in Vietnam.

It essential to lay out from the start what the country's government wants to achieve by going to war in a country like Vietnam. The people found themselves deluded and misinformed when the government decided to go to Vietnam. This is a grave mistake, which makes such outrage and protests somewhat understandable. But I do think that the people could at least have been a little more supportive when our boys were already there and deeply involved.

Had the people been supportive and had they been well-informed from the beginning, the war could probably have been won. Because then, we would have been able to commit more forces to the war effort. The troops would too have found themselves with a higher morale and tenacity. But trust me, it was NOT an easy job being president at the time, Johnson and Nixon had a hard time, and with the Watergate, hell Nixon couldn't have had a particularly swell time.

Originally posted by nixon
One of the shortages of democracy, is the capability of the people to actively protest against the deeds of the government,

This is a 'shortage' of Democracy? I think it can be one of its greatest strengths. I too agree that the war in Vietnam could have been won, but it would have taken a lot more than public acquiescence to the war effort.

The failure to secure victory in Vietnam is not the fault of the American Public. The American Public caused the withdrawal when it became apparent that victory was already beyond the US's grasp. This was the case due to many factors, some of which were the limitations on the fighting, corruption in the S. Vietnamese government, Westmoreland's belief that he could win a war of attrition against the VC and NVA, and a host of other factors.

xeven_god_of_helsibahr

...give me some resons why America lost?

It is extremely simple.

The American electorate was not prepared to accept substantial American casualties to prevent the communists from occupying an undeveloped and strategically unimportant asian country; but the Vietnamese nationalists were very willing to accept very heavy Vietnamese casualties to re-unite their own country and drive out foreigners.

Here are my opinions on the Vietnam War.

It was lost for many reasons. Rushing to support the quick succession of despots is a sure way to undermine support for a war against other despots, even if they wave red flags.

Secondly, the media coverage was a killer.

Third: The NVA and the VC kept coming and coming and coming, and no matter how many more the American's killed, they just kept coming.
America COULD have won the war if they'd killed every last Vietnamse person. Period. So no matter how much U.S. armed might dominated, by continuing to come, the other side DID win the war on the field of battle. What I hear some of you saying is similar to the German belief they lost WW1 because they were stabbed in the back by the politicians.

BIG POINT: the Tet Offensive, although it failed in it's military objectives, put an end to speculation that the end of the war was just around the corner. It proved that, far from down and out and on it's last legs, the North Vietnamese were in fact strong enough to launch a major attack on every major city in South Vietnam.

And to sum it up: We have Americans fighting and dying on national television for questionable reasons, with no end in sight, against an enemy who is determined never to give up.

But ultimately, it was the frustrated futilty of the American soldier. A year's tour of duty and constantly cycling in green troops, both bereft the U.S of experience, and led to a common desire of the soldier to just get the hell out of there as soon as his time was up. Also, because while every American was subject to be drafted, it was possible to be excused for any number of reasons not available to the poorer Americans (such as college, etc.), and because many of the poor were blacks, they felt increasingly like they were fighting the white man's war. This spilled to the home front, and was further tearing apart the American social fabric.

And the last straw: The enemy was hard to distinguish between the innocent, and trying to root him out often made more determined enemies.
Once word got out of that their enemies were children and women, too, and what soldiers had to do to survive and try to win, the whole weight of the mess there came crashing down on the American people themselves who became strongly divided over it. Without support, without an end in sight, the Vietnam War was lost.

BTW, sorry for rambling :)