Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by dovergunner (U2879723) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I know the USA was limited to what they could do in Vietnam, but how could they have won the war? If it happerned now would it be any different outcome
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 2
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Errrrm dropping a few mega tons of instant sunshine might have tipped the balance in their favour
In my opinion the war was always un-winnable for the US unless they invaded North Vietnam, which obviously they couldn't/wouldn't attempt.
Statistically though if you look at or compare Vietnamese casualties to American casualties, the US came out way on top......
The Vietnamese win was more of a technical knock out as opposed to an outright victory!!!Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I roughly agree with the above. Left-wing Vietnamese lost more than 200,000 soldiers (well, soldiers, commoners whatever, as these two could be intermingled there) while US lost only 50,000 (ok for americans this is a lot but then for any standards of war that is 100% normal). Under any other logic, US would be branded as winner of that struggle!
The trouble for US was that they made the same mistake that French did in the 50s: they had not one clear consistent strategy.
Thus if they were to win that war they had first to put down one consistent strategy.
In case of decision to 'conquer military' the whole of the country, they would simply have to start one nice propaganda back home and internationally... say that Vietnamese mad scientists are up to develop a secret virus that if unleashed will destroy the world... thus any lifes spent there worth the struggle... then bring some million more soldiers, 'infest' everyland of Vietnam, bomb all the place and there you go. Vietnamese would continue to be offensive but more in a terrorist style but in a war where 100,000s of US soldier would have died 10-20 more dead on the top would be the cherry on the cake.
Another strategy would be toxic nerve-gases but then I do not know if they had at the time those that were sprayed all over in Iraq (to make Iraqis dizzy and not be able to fight competently).. of course they could just continue with the Napalms and the traditional chemicals that indeed had a lot of success.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 4
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
The rotation of troops policy meant that US had a constant conveyor belt of 'green' troops. By the time the 'green' troops were seasoned veterans they were sent home. Many of the troops were poorly motivated conscripts. A volunteer force of regulars who were there for the course might have contributed to a more effective war effort by the US.
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 5
Posted by ImreWaterloo (U3785004) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
The US soldiers were not trained to fight in a guerilla war and the Vietnam soldiers of course done that. The Vietkongs also had way more soldiers because they were fighting in their homeland near loads of supplies. The American Soldiers were about 10 000 miles away from their mother country so they could only had a certain amout of supplies. and Anyway if The Americans won the war only a little would be different today
because then there wouldnt be communism but capitalism.
Best Wishes
Imre WaterlooLink to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 6
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I agree the use of conscripts to fight an unpopular war was a mistake.
2: Only having them serve one year and then go home alone (today we rotate them as a unit)
3: The failure to invade the north (Today we know that China had warned us that if we invaded the north she would come into the war. Since Korea wasn't that far in the past, we didn't want to go through that again)
4: Our inability to stop the flow of supplies on the Ho Chi Minh trail. (IMO that war showed how limited air power really is)Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 7
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I know the USA was limited to what they could do in Vietnam, but how could they have won the war? If it happerned now would it be any different outcomeΜύ
if they had known their enemy as well as them selves they would have won.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 8
Posted by dovergunner (U2879723) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
soory to to be a dim wit, why couldn't the USA invade the north
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 9
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
For the Vietnam war to have been won by the US would have required (obviously in my opinion) at least some of the following:
1. A genuinely popular regime in South Vietnam. Hardest thing in the list to implement Possibly "allow" them to publicly slap down the US on a trivial point to show that they are an independent regime? Plough money into buying the populaces love? Its a tricky one.
2. Impose discipline on the army, particulalry in relation to drugs. Again very difficult with a conscript army, as our experiences in both World Wars demonstrate. Would the civillian population in the US except the neccessary measures? Maybe a massive propoganda effort at home to try and increase volunteers?
As an aside I have personally seen how a couple of disruptive individuals can massively damage a units morale, and when weeded out and firm, fair leadership imposed a unit can be almost unrecognisable in a very short period of time. I'm aware that this is on a very small scale, and in this example it was a police rather than an army unit, but it's pretty much what was achieved by the whole US army post vietnam. Which leads me onto ...
3.Better officer corps. Theres a bizzare theory in most publice services that what you really need to lead people into a dangerous situation is three years at university and a chip on your soldier. Internal promotion of NCO's for combat units seems a much better idea to me, if you need an officer corps of the old order for other areas then go with it, but for the frontline you can not underestimate experience. (the British have tried this on a number of occassions historically and it's usually gone down badly with both officers and men, luckily the US doesn't have the class issues which have buggered it up in the UK)
4. Retention of veterans, nothing makes a soldier better than experience, find a way to keep veterans in the field. University scholarships/ trade apprenticeships when certian amount of tours completed?Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 10
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
soory to to be a dim wit, why couldn't the USA invade the northΜύ
dovergunner: China had warned the U.S. that if they sent troops into North Vietnam, she would send troops in support of the North. The memory of Korea was still fresh in the minds of the U.S.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 11
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
the u.s cold have asked the u.n for help at that stage (although it would have balooned way out of proportion if that happened i reckon)
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 12
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
JIM3152: This is in response to your post # 9.
I am a veteran of Vietnam. IMO the stupidist military idea, and it still applies today, is that an officer needs to have a college degree. Also, there is a tremendous "Class conscious" mentality in the military, especially the Navy and Air Force.
Second, while much is made of the "Lack of discipline" in the Amreican Army in Vietnam. I didn't experience that. In most cases they were dedicated and did the best they could for the first six months they were "In country." However, after that they just wanted to survive to get home. Also, since they were not there with the personnel they were trained with, they felt little to no alliegance to the unit they were fighting with.
Third: There WERE huge efforts to retain veterans, (in 1968 $10,000 could almost purchase a home) but the war was not popular. So those who stayed in were considered "Loosers" who did not have the abilities to do anything else. (I direct your attention to the TV show "MASH." In that show NO enlisted person is allowed to be intelligent. Even RADAR who actually ran the unit was afraid of girls and slept with a Teddy Bear. Only officers have any wisdon. That was pretty much the mentality of the whole nation at that time)
Fourth: Finally, always remember Churchill's statement: "A democracy can not fight a six year war." It must either be won in four or less or the population will turn on the government.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 13
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
mash was about korea werent it? i admit ive probably been duped into this belief, but i honestly thought that armies were made up of the dregs of society, untill the past 40 years or so?
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 14
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
mash was about korea werent it? i admit ive probably been duped into this belief, but i honestly thought that armies were made up of the dregs of society, untill the past 40 years or so? Μύ
marduk_report: Yes "MASH" was about Korea. But it very accurately reflected the public opinion of the war in Vietnam at that time.
I can only speak for the U.S. NO! the military was NOT primarily made up of the dregs of the U.S. society. They were some of the best our society had to offer. (The dregs could never have made it through boot camp)Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 15
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
i dont mean the ones who couldnt be bothered, i meant the working classes without the social or financial werewithal to get anywhere-im not having a go at anyone, jsut how i thought most armies were
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 16
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
IMO you have been watching too many movies.
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 17
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
nope, was just raised on mash and sharpe unfortunatley, both of which give a negative view of the soldiers below the rank of ensign
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 18
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
and, oddly enough, a negative view of the soldiers abover the rank of captain too....
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 19
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I will be honest, I have no idea what sharpe is. I have seen many war movies. The movie "We were soldiers" was fairly accurate. "Zulu" and "A brige too far" seem to have a certain amount of accuracy. But "MASH, The Deer Hunter, Apocclopise (sp) Now, The Green Berets," and some others are pure rubish.
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 20
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
so's the vast majority of sharpe...dont worry
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 21
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
OK, I give up. What was Sharpe?
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
a fictitious character who worked his way up from nco to a lefteennant colonel in-between the mahratta wars and waterloo. he was in the 33rd foot, 95th rifles and some orange regiment or other. the books are pretty accurate, the series is highly inaccurate...its got sean bean in it (boromir, alec travelyan and a couple other losers)
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 23
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Oh, OK, From what I have read, since England didn't have a draft, it was some of the worst that joined during that time period.
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 24
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
yep, murderers, rapists, theives, basically all those who should have done the gallows dance but died making britain great instead (along with an incredibly small amount of idealists and volunteers)
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 25
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
oh, and the irish
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 26
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
How about the Scotch?
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 27
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
they where the elites.....
prime example is how the scots regiments in india practically carried the mahratta wars for wellington, which skewed his view on seige warfare, which resulted in the casualties sufered in the storming of, among other badajoz.
us celts are hard, so come and have a go if yer think yer 'ard enough...
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 28
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
To determine whether the USA "won" or "lost" in Vietnam, you need to determine what the objective was.
If the objective was to rule South Vietnam, or prevent it from becoming communist, then the US certainly "lost" when Saigon fell in 1975 (?), although they had declared a victory and withdrawn already. Many Americans acted as if that had been their objective, and saw it as a failure.
The broader objective was to stop the spread of Soviet influence and win the cold war. In this sense the war in Vietnam was critical to American success in the long run. North Vietnam fell to Ho Chi Minh in 1954/55, and without American aid the South would have fallen sometime around 1960. The concern was that countries were falling "like dominos" into the Soviet sphere, and that the victories were quick and cheap for the Soviets.
By supporting the South, the USA held off the fall of the south for 15 years. The cost to the US was high, but the cost to Vietnam was far higher in manpower, and the cost to the Soviets in providing support was also escalated. It marked the end of their cheap and easy victories.
When viewed as a war of attrition it is not the failure that some people call it.
Even though the American mistakes were well-publicized by their free press, their military continued to pursue the war succesfully. The American withdrawal was driven by domestic American politics. American military leaders improved their forces having learned from Vietnam, and the American public demonstrated that their leaders were still responsible to the will of the people. In those respects the Americans emerged from Vietnam in a stronger position than they went in, if preserving their freedom was their overall goal.
Vietnam emerged as a nation independent of Soviet or Chinese domination, which might not have been the case otherwise.
The Soviet Union did not win much of anything.
I suggest that Vietnam was a strategic victory for the US.
Regards
BrianLink to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 29
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
well thats an interesting argument, wrong but interesting.
The Vietnam war was the wrong war fought for the wrong reasons against the wrong enemy. I'ld actually take the exact opposite view to you in that there were many unpublicised tactical victories but overall it was a strategic defeat.
"Vietnam emerged as a nation independent of Soviet or Chinese domination, which might not have been the case otherwise." Totally disagree a corrupt nominally democratic/capatalist regime in the South was propped up against a nominally socialist but more generally nationalist enemy.
the North vietnamese would have fought anyone to form a national Govenrment and historically did. If the West had seen the movement as a revolutionary nationalist movmeent (in many ways similar to the US's own) then a potential disaster and propoganda victory for the soviets and China could have been averted. The vietnamese have no love of the Chinese and would probably have been much happier to allign with the West than their scary regional power.
Domino theory depends on viewing the Communist powers as a monolithic power bloc, even by the 60s China and the USSR were falling out and reverting to traditionl power politics. they are not a natural fit as allies and China remained Stalinist a long time after the Russians moved away from his legacy.
And where has this odd myth that the Soviets and/or the Chinese were crippled by the conflict financially emerged from? Unless any one can actually show me any evidence I'll continue to beleive its a crock. I completely understand a wish to justify the casualties in the Vietnam war, but that appears to be wishful thinking to the point of utter tosh.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 30
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
It is nice to share contradictory opinions.
As to the economic costs of war, I will do some research to quantify the costs to the Soviets if possible. However, the Soviet Union was the major supplier of materiel to North Vietnam. (remeber those Russian ships in Haiphong Harbor that the US did not want to bomb?) Financing a war is costly. Even AK-47s cost money.
Russian statistics were notoriously inaccurate. A Canadian accounting publication noted that the US military spending was 6% of GDP. The Russians tried to match the US in dollar terms, and based on their official GDP they were spending 12% of GDP. However their GDP stats were inflated, and it is now estimated that their military spending was approaching 25% of GDP.
Anecdotal accounts told of Russian fighter pilots having to farm potatos on their airbases in order to eat near the end of the cold war.
I am of the opinion that the Soviet collapse was economic in nature. They didn't have enough goodies to share with their allies.
As to the domino theory, I recall the steady stream of post-colonial countries falling to the Soviets. The British success in Malaysia was one of the few exceptions. Had the Americans stood back and failed to react, I believe that many countries would have looked to the east bloc for protection.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 31
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
I personally have always felt there was a similiarity between the Vietnam War and our Revolutionary War. One historian wrote that Washington never won a battle and never lost a campaign.
In Vietnam we never lost a battle and never won a campaign. Vietnam showed how limited air power really is. In fact against a resourceful enemy it is worthless. We had total control of the sea and rivers, yet they were able to move with comparative ease on the rivers. Until the end they naver used armour, yet our armour was of limited value.
I can remember in 1964 when we really began to build up we thought that in six months and it would be over. What bothers me most is that every mistake we made in Vietnam we are again making in Iraq. We held multiple "Elections" in Vietnam. What a waste. At some point you would think that people would understand that an election where only people approved by the invador are allowed to run is not considered a valid election by the citizens of that country.
Eventually all we did was to turned every Vietnameese girl into a prostitute and every man into a Viet Cong.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 32
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
well thats an interesting argument, wrong but interesting.
The Vietnam war was the wrong war fought for the wrong reasons against the wrong enemy. I'ld actually take the exact opposite view to you in that there were many unpublicised tactical victories but overall it was a strategic defeat.
"Vietnam emerged as a nation independent of Soviet or Chinese domination, which might not have been the case otherwise." Totally disagree a corrupt nominally democratic/capatalist regime in the South was propped up against a nominally socialist but more generally nationalist enemy.
the North vietnamese would have fought anyone to form a national Govenrment and historically did. If the West had seen the movement as a revolutionary nationalist movmeent (in many ways similar to the US's own) then a potential disaster and propoganda victory for the soviets and China could have been averted. The vietnamese have no love of the Chinese and would probably have been much happier to allign with the West than their scary regional power.
Μύ
Yas, I think the motivations of the North Vietnamese were misread And like other revolutionary nationalist movements they were prepared to pay any price - including sacrificing a generation - to achieve their goals,
I suppose the question is that if the US, and its allies, had militarily won the war, could they have kept the peace.Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 33
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 21st April 2006
IMO, when you consider the close relationship that exists today between the U.S. and Vietnam, we have won the peace. Since Vietnam is so afraid of China, She will remain closer to us than to anyother nation.
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 34
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 21st April 2006
How about the Scotch?Μύ
On the rocks!! Scotch is a drinkLink to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 35
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 21st April 2006
the scots kick ass. if the british empire had got more scots into the army, we'd have ruled the world!!!!!!! mwahahahaha!!!!!
Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 36
Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Friday, 21st April 2006
I'm currently reading Unheralded Victory by Mark W Woodruff a Vietnam veteran who has written a revisionist history.
In my opinion (and certainly not all formed from reading approx one third of the aforementioned book) I think the N Vietnamese leadership and thir allies in the South were not quite as bothered by the losses and were fighting on what they considered to be home turf.
I also believe the war was lost at home in America due to its press coverage which was imo too one sided and turned public opinion against the war. I don't think enough was done to convey the attrocities committed against US/allied forces and S Vietnamese villagers/minorities irrespective of whether they (America) should have been there in the first place. You could add that the Communists won the propaganda war.
I have read elsewhere that the Americans reportedly considered nuclear intervention around the time of the Viet Minh defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954?
War is hell esp for civilians and the PBI
TomLink to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
-
Message 37
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
The Vietnam war was lost by the continued promotion by the RVN govt. supported by the US govt. of Catholic non-entities to positions of power when a large percentage of the RVN population were Buddhists or local religions with their own practices - they fact is these Saigon bigwigs were just awful in most cases and it was easy therefore for the VC to co-opt a lot of RVN villagers.
However the war could also be seen as being lost by the lack of US aerial intervention in attack strategic targets like the Hanoi bridges and Haiphong harbour - not maybe sinking Sov. or PRC ships but just time after time mining the harbours and rivers - get the problem sorted at source - also IMO it might have been pretty useful to pin-point bomb the railway tunnels that run between PRC and N. Vietnam.
However one could also argue the fact that the US did not fight a "total war" would always mean their likelyhood of "winning" the war was limited - however between 1960 and 1972 if you said that the war could be won by stopping NVN invading and taking the South then the US did "win" but as soon as the US weren't there to directly support the South then it was "game-over".Link to this forum: How could of the USA have won the Vietnam war?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.