Was Vietnam Misunderstood?

Bugfatty300

Buddha Squirrel
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
10,368
Location
NC
In the U.S., Americans often find themselves deeply devided among one another over the United State's involment in the Vietnam War. Many "Facts" that are considered a no-brainer truth by many are infact complete myths and fabrications.

The Vietnam War was one of the most intense wars of the century. The average infantryman of World War II saw 50 days of combat in a four year period.The average infantryman in Vietnam saw 240 days of combat every year! 58,148 Americans were killed in the war. America's bloodiest behind WWII and the Civil war.

When America's military became involved in Vietnam, it instituded a new policy of not controling the movement of journalist and reporters. Unlike in WWII and Present day Iraq, reporters had complete freedom in Vietnam. They were allowed to come and go as they please and where allways welcomed to acompany the next Squad in their Huey ride to a hot LZ. In fact Vietnam was was the most documented and publisized war in history.
Reporters were allowed to film, photograph and publish more horrific scenes of war than ever before. Which was the top reason for the loss of public support of the war. Americans saw for the first time on their TV sets the true meaning of war.

Along with media spin and Hollywood, Vietnam has been turned into a huge web of untruths that has now somehow become "facts" to many people.

The biggest untruth I have seen people swear to is that most of the fighting done in Vietnam was done by people who were drafted. Untrue. Infact 2/3 of Veterans were volunteers. 70% of combat deaths in Vietnam were volunteers.

Another big myth which is played over and over is this idea that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the war. Again this is false. %86 of the men who died in Vietnam were white. 12% were black. 2% Were of other races. This figure is proportional to number of whites and blacks in the U.S. at the time.

Alot of people argue that 18 was the average age of soldiers in Vietnam. Infact its closer to 22 or 23.

And where do people get the idea that the American military was pushed out of Saigon in 1975? The last American soldiers left Vietnam in May 1973. The only soldiers left were Marines to guard the embassy and organized the evacuation thousands of refugees.

The average American believe that the Vietnam War was an exclusively Viet-American war. Infact thousands of soldiers from Austrailia, South Korea and many SEATO members fought and died alongside U.S. troops during the war.

Another big myth circulated mainly by hollywood is that the U.S. military was generaly defeated in the ground war. The U.S. never lost a battle of any consequence. Infact from a military stand-point it was almost an unprecedented performance.

America's departure from the war is considered a Vietnamese victory. Infact more Vietnamese(North and South) were killed in the 2 years before the fall of Saigon than durring the entire U.S. involvment.

Many consider the Tet offensive to have been a Communist victory. In all military aspects it was a complete military disaster for the North Vietnamese. The Tet Offensive was not against Americans. It was against South Vietnamese troops and installations with the exception of the attack on the U.S. embassy. 30,000 NVA and VC were killed. The Tet offensive's goal was to spark an uprising in the south much like Cuban insurgeants hoped to at the Bay of Bigs. The uprising never happened.

Another Hollywood myth is that Vietnam still holds American POWs. All of the American POWs who were not returned in 1973 were kept as bargaining chips if the U.S. was to violate the Paris peace treaty. By the time Saigon fell in 1975 the POWs had out lived their purpose and sadly, instead of revealing the illegal holdings of these POWs, all evidence shows that the remaining POWs were put to death by November 1975. 2,200 Americans remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam War.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
Another Hollywood myth is that Vietnam still holds American POWs. All of the American POWs who were not returned in 1973 were kept as barganing chips if the U.S. was to violate the Paris peace treaty. By the time Saigon fell in 1975 the POWs had no other purpose, sadly, instead of revealing the illegal holdings of these POWs, all evidence shows that the remaining POWs were put to death by November 1975.

Sad, very sad...
 
I would also like to say that the U.S. involvment greatly weakened the communist North which saved many SEA countries from simular fates of the Vietnamese and Cambodians.
 
Good one. :goodjob: I must admit I'm one of those who subscribed to some of those notions, since I never cared to read too much on that war. Revealing.

Articles, more articles! :hammer: :whipped:
 
YotoKiller said:
I would also like to say that the U.S. involvment greatly weakened the communist North which saved many SEA countries from simular fates of the Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Actually China had a part in holding back Vietnam after the Viet-US war. By using limited warfare against Vietnam and made them camping thier troops along the China-Vietnam borders instead of Thailand and Malaysia.

Ramius
 
That didn't stop them fr sending tens of thousands of troops into Cambodia, to help overthrow the Khmer Rouge...

I think you guys are underestimating Thailand - the Thais are the most confident people this side of Asia, having never been colonised by the West. Even Imperial Japan didn't absorb Thailand directly into its empire (the fact that the junta at that time was symphathetic to Japan helped). The Vietnamese and Thais were old rivals - the Thais would certainly give the Vietnamese a hard enough time shld they ever decide to expand outwards.

Plus, the Thais are close allies of the US.
 
Actually China had a part in holding back Vietnam after the Viet-US war. By using limited warfare against Vietnam and made them camping thier troops along the China-Vietnam borders instead of Thailand and Malaysia.

Like XIII said. It never stopped them from invading Loas and Camboadia. The Chinese attempted an invasion in 1979 but were repulsed after just reaching 30 miles into Vietnam. Imagine a N. Vietnamese army that had not been worn down by years of U.S. bombs and bullets.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
Like XIII said. It never stopped them from invading Loas and Camboadia. The Chinese attempted an invasion in 1979 but were repulsed after just reaching 30 miles into Vietnam. Imagine a N. Vietnamese army that had not been worn down by years of U.S. bombs and bullets.

The China did successfully hold back vietnam, infact the invasion starts only when Vietnam ranover Cambodia, The Pol pot regime was a walkover by the veitnam armies as its own terror regime weaken the country so much. The Pol pot regime is anti-USSR and vietnam, hence it gather support from the Chinese and USA during that period.

The Vietnamese armies starts to build up their forces along the China-vietnam border hence stopped them from continuing their path into Thailand and malaysia, hence Thailand and Malaysia and the rest of South east asia countries had the best economic growth during that period. This will not happen if SEA is a war with Vietnam.

This part of history is documented in the Biography of Lee kuan yew, then the Prime minister of Singapore. Where he and Deng xiaoping of China came up with this tactic.

Ramius
 
Ramius75 said:
The Vietnamese armies starts to build up their forces along the China-vietnam border hence stopped them from continuing their path into Thailand and malaysia, hence Thailand and Malaysia and the rest of South east asia countries had the best economic growth during that period. This will not happen if SEA is a war with Vietnam.
I still think Thailand alone would have stopped this hypothetical Vietnamese advance.

Plus Thailand as a member of ASEAN might call in the body for help. Which would likely be answered, and would in effect militarize the hitherto more peaceable group.

Plus the Americans would certainly be called upon to help. And this time they would be fighting in a very friendly country, against a Vietnamese army far away fr its roots.

This part of history is documented in the Biography of Lee kuan yew, then the Prime minister of Singapore. Where he and Deng xiaoping of China came up with this tactic.
Where he said he and Deng came up with this tactic.

Frankly, I don't believe it. The Chinese were in this, for their own game, and wouldn't give a damn about SEA. And our economic growth were also due to many other factors.
 
XIII said:
I still think Thailand alone would have stopped this hypothetical Vietnamese advance.

No kidding. The Thai military was well equiped and well lead, and was genuinely motivated to defend its' country.

Anyway, I've yet to see solid evidence that the 'domino theory' was anything other then a paranoid fantasy. The North Vietnamese were interested in unifying Vietnam under their rule. Period. They only invaded Cambodia after the Kmer Rouge turned on ethnic vietnamese in Cambodia. Whatever the Chinese were interested in, the Vietnamese certainly weren't their puppets.

IMO, the domino theory was nothing more then racism mixed in with paranoia. It was assumed that:
a) All Asians were the same, and that based on events in China and Vietnam, they would inevitable embrace communism.
b) The communists actually wanted to conquer South East Asia
c) The communists could invade South East Asia, despite the massive logistical barriers to doing so

It doesn't seem to have occured to the western policy makers that Asia is a continent rather then a nationality, and that different nationalities had differing opinions of their differing governments. For instance, while the average Vietnamese may have wanted to get rid of their government, the average Thai or Malay was willing to fight for theirs.


re the original post in this thread:

Bugfatty300 said:
The Vietnam War was one of the most intense wars of the century. The average infantryman of World War II saw 50 days of combat in a four year period.The average infantryman in Vietnam saw 240 days of combat every year!

Those statistics are deceptive. First of all, the WW2 figure applies to the Pacific Theatre, where the American campaigns were usually short and fierce. Troops in the European Theatre spent a lot more time in combat. Secondly, the WW2 figure refers to days in actual combat. The figure of 240 days you're quoting refers to days on patrol, most of which didn't involve any combat. If you count the days WW2 infantrymen spent on the front line you'll find that they spent a roughly the same ammount of time in harms way that their sons did in Vietnam (though the troops in Vietnam still did typically spend more time in combat as a result of improved transportation). Thirdly, the increasing technological sophistication of the US military combined with the need to build and maintain a base structure from stratch meant that a much larger proportion of US servicemen in Vietnam were in non-combatant support positions then was the case in WW2. Of the 500,000 US servicemen in Vietnam at the peak of the American commitment less then 50,000 were actually in combat positions.

The average American believe that the Vietnam War was an exclusively Viet-American war. Infact thousands of soldiers from Austrailia, South Korea and many SEATO members fought and died alongside U.S. troops during the war.

The 'many' [other] SEATO members you refer to here were actually three countries, only one of which sent a substancial force. Thailand sent a small division to a very quiet sector of Vietnam. New Zealand attached a rifle company group and an artillery battery to Australia's small task force and the Phillipinos sent an understrength battalion which was used exclusively to protect American bases. See: www.gruntonline.com/Order of Battle/Other Freeworld/free_world_oob1.htm and www.gruntonline.com/Order of Battle/ANZACs/anzac1.htm for information on these forces. Some British SAS members are rumored to have served on attachment to the Australian and NZ SAS, but their numbers wouldn't have exeeded 10 in total.

Furthermore, SEATO was a joke of an alliance and was essentially meaningless. Just becuase it had a similar name to NATO doesn't mean that it was in any way an Asian equivalent of this effective alliance.

The U.S. never lost a battle of any consequence. Infact from a military stand-point it was almost an unprecedented performance.

...if you ignore the numberous phyric victories and the simple fact that the effects of the war almost destroyed the US Army (see Shelby Stanton's classic book 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army'. Stanton served in the Special Forces in Vietnam and has written a number of well respected books on the war, including the definitive 'Vietnam Order of Battle').
 
Good post, Case. :)

The Communists in Malaya (former W Malaysia) had already been smashed by the 50s; and the local populace wasn't eager for it to return. Not even the Chinese, who're mercantile and capitalist by and large.

Had the Vietnamese by some incredible odds and incredible luck made it to Malaysia, we would have called on our British, Australian and NZ allies (per the Five Powers Defence Agreement). The Americans would have definitely help, if they had not done so already.

And definitely I think even the Indonesians and Filipinos would have stepped in; not unless they wanted to the only remainder non-Communist countries in SEA - Indonesia in particular had cracked down brutally on its Communists in the mid 60s.
 
They only invaded Cambodia after the Kmer Rouge turned on ethnic vietnamese in Cambodia.

And Laos. But lets stay on track. This wasn't a point in my thread. Somebody else brought this up.
 
Great post Bugfatty, I agree :goodjob: . I don't agree w/ Case's point that
the effects of the war almost destroyed the US Army (according to Stanton's
book) I feel that the policies of the Army and politicians, not the effects of
the war hurt the Army much more than the actual war. So yes I feel that
Vietnam was misunderstood and is used as an false example for everything
that the military has done or is doing wrong. You guys keep the good info.
coming :thumbsup: . Very interesting stuff.
 
dgfred:
In what way can the extremely unclear US policies that got the army stuck in Vietnamn fighting a war no one knew how to win be separated out of the actual fighting? (As it seems to me you are doing above. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Far from believing with Clausewitz that: "War is the continuation of politics by other means" (or word to that effect), I still think that the political framwork sorrounding the actual fighting has always been a key factor for military performance as well. An army is dependant on (and a often reflection of) national policies.
 
In what way can the extremely unclear US policies that got the army stuck in Vietnamn fighting a war no one knew how to win be separated out of the actual fighting?

The U.S. military knew how to defeat the North. U.S. officials at the Pentegon and White House feared Chinese and Soviet entry into the war and as a result nothing even resembling an 'offensive' with the exception of than airstrikes in the North were made by the U.S. and its allies. The "invasion" of Cambodia as it was called by an over-hyped media was really a border raid by 3,000 U.S. and ARVN troops.

Military strategist were badly hendered by LBJs insistance on running the war from the White House.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
The U.S. military knew how to defeat the North.

While the US military thought it knew how to defeat the North, it most certainly did not.

U.S. officials at the Pentegon and White House feared Chinese and Soviet entry into the war and as a result nothing even resembling an 'offensive' with the exception of than airstrikes in the North were made by the U.S. and its allies.

Those 'airstrikes' were actually a sustained bombing campaign which resulted in significantly more tons of bombs being dropped on North Vietnam then the combined tonnage which had been dropped on Germany and Japan in WW2.

From your comments, I take it that you believe that an invasion of North Vietnam would have won the war. I sugest that you read up on the French experiance in North Vietnam and the drubbing the Chinese gave the US in North Korea. There's no reason to believe that history wouldn't have repeated itself if the US had been so foolish as to invade North Vietnam.

The "invasion" of Cambodia as it was called by an over-hyped media was really a border raid by 3,000 U.S. and ARVN troops.

No it wasn't. Stanton states that the American forces which crossed into Cambodia were the equivalent to about 2 divisions (including the famed 1st Cavalry Division in its entirety). That's over 30,000 Americans. They were accompanied by roughly the same number of South Vietnamese. While the American forces were in Cambodia for about 4 months, the South Vietnamese stayed much longer. While this was occurring USAF bombers where hitting (and missing) targets across Cambodia. The results of the invasion and bombing fatally weakened the Cambodian government, and resulted in the Khmer Rouge gaining the upper hand in the Cambodian war. The invasion was also illegal. William Shawcross's book 'Sideshow' is the classic work on this topic and I highly recomend it.

Military strategist were badly hendered by LBJs insistance on running the war from the White House.

True. However, guerilla wars can only be won through political and economic means, and the military cannot be allowed to run the show. While Johnson undoubtably exceeded his job, the extent to which he did so is routinely over-stated. While the generals blame LBJ, at the time they generally got their way and were able to run the war as they best saw fit.
 
Er, what's to misunderstand?

A superpower grossly invaded and occupied a country for political reasons. Millions of Vietnamese died. Many died in neighbouring countries too.

Eventually the US realised it's mistake (that the North Vietnamese were vulnerable to invasion) and left.
 
Er, what's to misunderstand?

Did you not read my post? I gave plenty of things people misunderstand about the U.S. in Vietnam.

A superpower grossly invaded and occupied a country for political reasons. Millions of Vietnamese died. Many died in neighbouring countries too.

Invaded? And no American 'regular' soldier ever sat foot in the North with the exception of downed pilots.

South Vietnam and the U.S. were allies. The South's government welcomed the U.S. troops. Maybe alot of the people didn't except for the urban population in Saigon, but officially we were asked to intervene by the South.

Eventually the US realised it's mistake (that the North Vietnamese were vulnerable to invasion) and left.

Again the U.S. never invaded the North! The object of the war was to keep the communist out of South Vietnam and SEA.

This is exactly what I'm talking about!
 
No it wasn't. Stanton states that the American forces which crossed into Cambodia were the equivalent to about 2 divisions (including the famed 1st Cavalry Division in its entirety). That's over 30,000 Americans. They were accompanied by roughly the same number of South Vietnamese.

The Cambodain incursion of 1970 I really don't know where Stanton or you get those numbers.

The Cambodain incursion of 1970, only elements of the 1st Cav Div used in the Cambodian incursion as well as a airmobil regiment and the 11th cav. Regiment. I have no idea how many ARVN troops there were.

The incursion lasted 60 days.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
The Cambodain incursion of 1970 I really don't know where Stanton or you get those numbers.

I got a list of units involved from Stanton's 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army'. Shelby Stanton is the leading expert on troop movements in Vietnam, and has written both of the two definitive works on this topic ('Vietnam Order of Battle' and 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army') along with excelent books on the 1st Cavalry Division and Special Forces in Vietnam. What's your source?

The Cambodain incursion of 1970, only elements of the 1st Cav Div used in the Cambodian incursion as well as a airmobil regiment and the 11th cav. Regiment.

Even if the US forces in Cambodia had been restricted to the 11th Cav and an airmobile regiment from the 1st Cav that would still have resulted in an American strength in Cambodia of well over 6000 men.
 
Back
Top Bottom