Forgotten German vets of Indochine

It's not important for you to agree with the views expressed. You are free to read and disregard them, if you choose. The facts listed though are not opinion and remain facts, whatever you may think.

We know about the Dien Bien Phu type military defeats of France in Indochina but when and where was the US defeated in the field?

 

Most are facts, however this...

Is an opinion... as is this...

You gotta separate what is factually correct from the agenda of the author, which is to paint Vietnam as a military victory and shining example of American foreign policy... Not facts...

Again I repeat, how many 'Dien Bien Phu' situations did you see America engaged in at all? Please name some battles fought which were on that scale... As I have said before, battles in the American war were generally fought by smaller groups of forces than in the French, as well as over a longer period, due to a shift in North Vietnamese tactics. Thus you don't get any defeats on the scale of Dien Bien Phu, but nor do you get any individual victories on the scale of Vihn Yen (which History has conveiently forgotten)... Selectively conceptrating upon the failures of the French while failing to acknowlege their successes tends to skew history...

If you think that pulling out and leaving the ARVN alone exudes America from any responsibility for their defeat, fine... But understand that Dien Bien Phu was not a total 'rout' of French forces from Vietnam... It was a convieniently timed victory which combined with grouwing public opposition to the war contributed to France's decision to withdraw... The Geneva accords were not signed on North Vietnamese terms as you seem to think, they accounted for French interests as well, much like the American Paris talks...

Learn more about the French Indochina War here

http://www.miafacts.org/french.htm

Also I was under the impression that Nixon chose to resume the Paris talks due to increasing public pressure, not because the Viets came begging to the table

 

I'm well aware that some of the views expressed are opinions, hence my statement that you can choose to believe those "views" or not and contrasted those with the "facts" expressed.

I made no comments regarding the French battles in Vietnam nor am I particularly interested in that part of the conflict. I will gladly leave that analysis to others.
During the US involvement the size of the battles were dictated by the size of the enemy forces committed. The VC and NVA seldom ventured out in large forces because when they did, such as at Khe Sanh they got pounded by airpower, artillery and infantry forces. The size of the NVA forces at Khe Sahn was of multiple division strength but how that compares to Dien Bien Phu I cannot say. Nor do I think it is important to the point I'm making.
The Tet Offensive, if considered as a battle, was probably larger than any single battle fought by the French. Every major installation in South Vietnam was attacked. All attacks were repulsed and the VC soundly defeated.
My question (in response to your statement regarding the US being defeated in the field as well as politically) was simply when and where was the US defeated in the field?

Please don't put words in my mouth. It seems to be merely a way of setting up straw men so that you can pontificate regarding your own theories.
(BTW I don't think exudes is the word you were looking for )

As I understand it the North decided to resume talks after the failure of their spring offensive and the unprecedented (Linebacker II) bombing campaign against the North.

 

I would say that the withdrawal from Vietnam, for whatever reason it was undertaken, constituted a military 'defeat'... The US withdrew their forces and allowed land under their control to be taken back... The Viets outlasted them in the field... It was a strategic defeat, not a tactical one...

As for the French tactics, they suffered both strategic and tactical defeats though the effect was no different... At no point in either war were the Norht Vietnamnese prepared to cease hostilities against South Vietnam

 

There was no North and South Vietnam during the French Indochina war so any comparisons between the two involving this divide fail at this initial concept, indeed for most of the French war their high command was in Hanoi.

The US allowed no land under their control to be taken back permanently and all the while US forces were active in any significant quantity in Vietnam the VC and NVA were beaten back and defeated consistently. So there was no military defeat, tactical or strategic. If you disagree please point to one significant victory of either the NVA or VC over the US military. The political will to continue to war was lacking, so ultimately US policy in south east Asia was beaten, but this occured far more on the home front than on the battlefield, hence the defeat was political rather than military.

Khe Sahn is a clear example of when the US prevailed and their French predecessors failed, admittedly it is more likely down to resources rather than anything else, nevertheless the US military was far more successfull in Vietnam than the French. Khe Sahn was a US Victory, DBP a French defeat. Yes, there are significant instances where the French won and defeated the VM soundly but crucially there are no significant instances where the VC or NVA defeated US forces.

No-one is trying to paint US policy in Vietnam as a success AFAIK, however, at no single point was the US brought to the bargaining table in the same manner as France was. French policy, government and structure hamstrung their policy in Indochina, they would never have been likely to bring the resources to bear to defeat the VM even with nuclear weapons, there was just too much space to bomb. Ultimately the US could and a consistent US presence I would suggest would have resulter in a North/South divide as Korea did, however political pressure at home, far more than any military pressure in the field resulted in the US withdrawal.

I think you under-estimate the defeat of GONO and the loss of the vast majority of TAPI, without which the French in Indochina lost a large degree of their mobility, highly important in such a war.

 

Perhaps you're right, I simply consider the VC method of guerilla warfare a military defeat... The attritional killing of US soldiers, the sapping of morale, the swaying of public opinion... Though there were no victorious battles to speak of, the guerilla warfare campaign was overall a military success because it broke the US will to fight...

I realise that French mobility was contingent upon their airborne abilities... But I have never heard of anyone say that their airborne troops were decimated by 1954, I was under the impression that the French maintained sufficient reserves even after Dien Bien Phu... Can you source a link for the 'loss of the vast majority of TAPI'

 

Martin Windrow, "The Last Valley". At the end the French were dropping unqualified paratroopers into DBP in a desperate effort to reinforce GONO

 

The Vietnam War was but one of many confrontations between the Western Allies and the Communist Natons during the Cold War. Regardless of whether the U.S. was defeated or withdrew from Vietnam, defeating Communism was the ultimate goal, the same parallels can be drawn by the war in Iraq. Winning the Iraq War is secondary to defeating Islam.

 

Smeg:
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions from this discussion you will... but it appears clear you have some segments of the puzzle that elude you if you think the North Viets indeed forced the USA to the table at the Paris peace-talks.
The Linebacker/LinebackerII bombing campaigns were what did the trick. When previously "off-limits" targets were approved--at long last--the North Viets paid dearly. Previously, most of the best targets in the North were considered untouchable due to political meddling in target-selection.
Once the bombing began anew in '72, the North Viets were quick to return to the bargaining-table. (Check one of my prior posts for a timeline.)

As to morale...
In the early/mid 60s I recall that morale was not considered a problem with US troops. It was later in the decade when racial-problems began to plague the military, and it became clear to troops that US politicians would not allow a push for "total victory" that morale became an increasing problem.
My understanding is that the TET Offensive was a dream-come-true to the US Army soldiers and Marines. They were eager to square-off with their opposite-numbers... and the result was the Viet Cong were decimated, nigh annihilated during TET.
Wounded Marines often refused to leave the battle in Hue... they were finally meeting their enemy face-to-face in conventional battle, and were determined to extract "pay-back" on "Victor Charlie." Quite a different picture than the one you are attempting to paint...

Tim

 

And that is one of those reasons they couldn't win

 

I wasn't aware of the extent of the military victories that the US enjoyed, I had always assumed Vietnam to be a military defeat for the US, because that seems to be how the mainstrem media protrays it... Most material on Vietnam seems to place emphasis on Vietnam being an unwinnable attritional war on US forces; low morale; bad conditions; unseen enemy... The fact that American sources seem to admit Vietnam to being a military disaster

If as you say, the US experience in Vietnam was defined by high-morale soldiers, whose trigger fingers were just always itching to square off with charlie, and who enjoyed crushing the Viets at every turn, forcing them to come 'begging to the table', then I was mistaken, and the Vietnam war must be the greatest lie sold to the media in all time

Though I don't believe whatI just wrote for one second (I am still very suspicious about this extent of US successes), I concede that it was more promising than the French experience... Simon has shown me that the French performace was much worse.

I admit I was misinformed upon the subject and quite wrong...

 

The US were defeated in the field in some battles together with ARVN, the CIDGs or LLDBs.

January 2, 1963 Battle of Ap Bac
December 28, 1964- January 1, 1965 Battle of Binh Gia
June 10-June 11, 1965 Battle of Dong Xoai
10 March-11 March 1968 Battle of Lima Site 85
May 10-May 12, 1968 Battle of Kham Duc
....March 28, 1971 Battle of FSB Mary Ann

Only a few examples, this were not pure american defeats, in some cases "just" USSF advisory personal was involved.

The war in vietnam was lost at home in america by stupid politians and hysteric pacifists <= no offense against pacifism at all.

It´s interessting to compare the war in Indochine, Vietnam, and Iraq. I found this in the book Tet-Offensive by James R Arnold. In the war against the French, the Vietminh had successfully recruited sympathizers by entering urban aeas and forcing the French to employ heavy weapons to drive them out. They then blamed the civilian losses on the french. By occupying churches, pagodas, schools and hospitals, the reds created the same dilemma for the US durin the Tet-Offensive in 1968. Isn´t that the same shit in Iraq, insurgents hide using civilians as protection.

Regards,
Che.

 

The Vietnam war was a massive undertaking over a period of nearly a decade. There were numerous small skirmishes. Every time a position was evacuated or a patrol was ambushed does not constitute the loss of a battle. The first five actions you list did not involve US troops at all except as advisors to indigenous troops. It would be stretching credibilty to the breaking point for anyone to claim that no action ever resulted in a defeat whenever a single US soldier was involved and I haven't heard anyone make that claim.

The action at Mary Ann would be the closest thing to a battle lost yet even there despite being overrun (and poor performance by the 47th Infantry) the camp was secured and the VC attackers driven off. An attack that results in 33 dead with no captured units or real estate siezed (as at Hue for example) hardly constitutes a battle won. At best a skirmish or firefight.
It seems we have drifted off the original topic of this thread. :-?

 

Why do we always end up debating Vietnam?

*Note - Rhetorical question only! Do not bother answering.

 

I find myself wondering how ex-German soldiers fared under French command? I understand the FFL was never based in France, and accepted individuals from around the world... though they WERE expected to master the French language in short-order if I recall.
Were the French prejudiced in regards to German troops under their command, or were they accepted with open-arms?

Tim

 

There was little or no prejudice in the Foreign Legion, on the whole the Legion was officered by Frenchmen with the other ranks being foreign enlistees, but IIRC the men were seen as Legionaires first and foremost, their former nationality of little consequence. Significantly, I understand that Legionaires swear an oathe of allegience to the Legion rather than France. The Legion does have bases and recruiting centres in France and always did AFAIK.

The prejudice of a sort came afterwards as far as DBP is concerned, apparently their Communist captors were particularly interested in interviewing Germans, and especially those from East Germany, and Eastern Europeans. IIRC Martin Windrow hints at forced repatriations to their countries of origin for some surviving Legion POWs of East European and East German origins rather than returning them to the armed force they served in.

 

Co-incidentally, last night I happened to be reading a Commando comic which had the storyline of a Foriegn Legion officer who recognised a former SS officer among his men, and his desire for vengeance got iun the way of his job.

I would imagine that that type of encounter could well be a risk immediately post-WW2.

 

Wow , I tip my hat to you sir. This has to be possibly the single worse source used on this forum to date, even worse than Wiki (Though perhaps not by that much!)

Compared to such quality, informed and unbiased material I cannot even begin to form a rebuttal! :lol:

 

You mean it might not be correct?

 

This is a german documentry about the german volunteers of vietnam. They are talking about their experiences of their fighting against their vietminh and
the land itself

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid= ... 5816625049

Very impressive.

Regards,
Che.