I just want to express my opinionon this. The US won militarily but lost their objective of preventing the spread of communism. Please tell me what you think.
Well, even if Vietnam is not my speciality. (i really don't like it much) I do know a few things and those are that the Viet-Kong was not defeated in the fields. So, tactically, there were few victories and strategically, any objectives were reached. The only results of that war were 15.000 Americans killed and 3.000.000 Vietnamese...
Thanks, Panzerknacker. I was thinking that the number was too small... Even if you are right. It IS NOT good that you are right...
I hear that quite a few US deaths were caused by mines. I had no idea that so many Americans died, I too was thinking around 15,000, but never 58,202
No matter how one looks at the Vietnam war in number of casualties, whether it be fifty-five thousand, fifty-eight thousand, or sixty thousand, it was the longest war ever fought by the United States, and it ended in a total waste of lives on both sides with nothing gained for the tragic toll of wasted human lives. President Eisenhower was the first U.S. President to express the doctrine that if Vietnam fell to the communists, all of Southeast Asia would follow suite, and attempted to bring American resolve in to the region to prevent his "domino theory" from coming in to being. He sent a few "advisors" in to assist after the French pulled out, and President Kennedy followed along the same path too, but it wasn't until President Johnson cited the "Gulf Of Tonkin" issue as being the catalyst for American troop support that really got things flowing for the U.S. military with the U.S. Marines landing in 1965, and the build up just went on from there with each year after that seeing more and more troops coming in to Vietnam. In fact, in 1968, General W. Westmoreland requested another 200,000 plus troops with already nearly 300,000 men in Vietnam to "help him decisively defeat the insurgent communist and regular NVA troops in the field". But, as we all know, it never happened. Did the U.S. really beat the Viet Cong and NVA armies militarily? I'd have to venture that it did not. Did it help to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia? Again, no. I believe that the governments of Southeast Asia saw what happened with Pol Pot in power in Cambodia, as well as what the communist north did to South Vietnam, and determined their own countries wanted no part of that, and they on their own did what they could to prevent it. At least at the public level. What happens behind closed doors who knows. In 1975, while serving in the U.S. Air Force our unit assisted in those mass evacuations of American embassy personnel etc as well as nationalist Vietnamese, many who had worked for the American government in Vietnam. Approximately 28,000 Vietnamese went through our own channels of operation. From infants to grandparents. It didn't seem like a "victory" to me, but then, I have always thought that the only victor in any war is the Grim Reaper. Be good to each other. Bill
....I am sorry but I must disagree with you. The US won every major military engagement in Vietnam ... But still lost the war, no matter who is to blame for disengagement or what happened and when, the North took the south. That is a fact. That is how it ended. America withdrew. America withdrew for many reasons. Napolean won many battles but lost the war. Hitler won many battles but lost the war. The Kaiser won many battles but lost the war. The war was won by the North. Unpallatable as it may seem that is the fact.
Welll--the first post pretty much sums it up as to what happened. A few things though. I was born in 1967--the heaviest day of fighting on Hamburger Hill was on my Birthday in the year it was fought. I remember the NVA/VC attack on the U.S> Embassy--and the U.S. Marines who defended it. I remember other events to do with the Nam War--though I was still a yonker. I remember Walter Kronkite on the evening news--and especially when he said: "The war was un-winable." I remember vividly the evacuation of Saigon. The first U.S. Soldier killed in Vietnam (Then it was Indochina) was a Captain Brown. The last U.S. soldier killed in Vietnam--was U.S.Marine Lance Corporal McMahon (SP?) I also remember when I was in Kindergarten--we once a month--sent soldiers in Vietnam--pictures we had colored (or attempted to color) My Cousin--who now is a fairly wealthy businessman) served in Nam. Once he was walking down somewhere on the grounds of a huge U.S> Airforce base at Da Nang. Anyway, my cousin was walking and was between two buddies. The VC launched a mortar attack, a mortar round fell directly in front of my Cousin which knocked him to the ground--he did not get a scratch (thankfully) but--his two buddies were killed. This is the only story I could ever get him to tell me about--but I do understand where he comes about not wanting to talk about it. [ 17. May 2003, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]
Those are very sad stories Carl and I sympathize with you. My uncle Don was an MP in Nam. But what I don't understand is why everyone(including historians look at Vietnam as this huge injustice by the Americans. Does nobody get that we WON that war? We did, even though we did not stop S.Vietnam from becoming communist.
WW2buff, please explain how you won that war then, The northern communist objective was to unify the whole of vietnam under their control and their rule. That was their one objective. That objective was met. The war ended in North Vientnam controlling all ov Vietnam. How did the USA win the war?
Hi ww2buff--Thanks for the sympathies. My Cousin has pretty much overcome any troubles to do with the deaths of his friends. I too lost some friends--two during the First Gulf War--one in a scud attack--the other by friendly fire. These two friends I had known since I was about 4--and their friendship cannot ever be replaced. I make new friends on occasion and I never try to compare them with friends from the past because there could never be a comparison--and it would not be fair to judge then that way. On Nam: We have to also be fair and say that--yes we won most of the battles but--we didn't win the war. In 1975, Saigon was evecuated--the NVA and VC captured the capitol of South Vietnam. I remember seeing a lot of news footage showing the South Vietnamese forces in almost continous combat--and retreat. The USA basically had to leave S.Vietnam--too many internal problems at home to deal with. Just like what was attempted during the recent war in Iraq. But back to Nam. We can't say that we won that war when we left the country and the S.Viet gov't fell to Vo Nguyen Giap's forces. All of Vietnam is communist controlled to this day. The was was unpopular for many reasons--some good--some bad reasons. I would not want to have to fight either but--I believe that if my country called me up--I believe that I would do my duty to the best of my ability. I cannot say that I would be a or try to be a hero--impossible to be able to tell that. I can say that I firmly believe that I would do my duty. Too many what if's are involved to accurately say what outcome that war would have had. For example: What if the politicians had let the military fight this war instead of having their hands tied behind their backs--like what happened. See what I mean? I would like to suggest that you find the site listing the Medal of Honor Citations--and please read the one for Roy P. Benevides. He was an extraordinary soldier and was a Medal of Honor Recipient. He passed away within the last several years and was a native of Texas. What this man did--was way more than his duty for his country--he also went way beyond his duty for his comrades as well. At any rate--with the internal problems existing at the time of the Vietnam War--we could not have a good chance of winning it--like a more conventional war such as WW2. Bill is correct in his assessment--he served in that era--and was spit on by two females--tho he had nothing to do with the fighting in Vietnam. this is a darn shame too. Can you just imagine how it would feel to--be on your way home from serving your country--only to be spit on by two morons who never had served their country one single day of their lives--and who just did not have a clue on what the real world was about. Just my 2 cents worth.
Also--we had near 60,000 KIA in the Korean War. Something that is mostly called a "Police Action," which irritates me to no end. And a correction--we had about 400,000 KIA in ww2.
Let me put it another way. What little bit I was involved, and again, this is in April of 1975 while assisting to evacuate those American and Vietnamese individuals who were attempting to flee the capital, by the evacuation of embassy personnel, Marine guards, Vietnamese nationals working for the American government, and anyone else you want to throw in there who was there at the time, from this viewpoint, we were disengaging and leaving the country. Sure, the United States might have one a set piece battle here and there, but in the end, you might as well say that Hitler won the Western campaign over France, but in the end, it's all the same, but lost the game. Call it what you will. A win, a loss, a tie, it really doesn't matter to me. I served, I did my job, I moved on and am a well adjusted tax paying, flag flying American citizen. But, in my book, we lost Vietnam. That doesn't mean your uncle, myself, the average guy on the street didn't do his job. It was an unpopular war during a difficult time. Time to move on. Respectfully, Bill
Actually the cyphers would be that the USA lost: -350.000 men in WWI -300.000 in WWII WWI was much bloodier. And let me tall you this, buff. It is totally unwise to compare WWII with Vietnam. You can't say that Vietnam lasted more than WWII and had less casualties. First, the number of men involved were not the same. Second, the nature of fighting was very different, the terrain, the weaponry, the tactics and the enemy. And of course USA did not win that war. They didn't achieve their strategic goals and lost many men, expent too many resources and after Vietname the US Armed Forces were pitiful... in a very bad shape, as well as the country's morale. Maybe the USA could bomb Hanoi freely with their B-52s and take some villages, but they could never whipe the Viet Cong out of the forests... That is not a victory, and in case it would be a victory (which is NOT) it would have been a phyrric one...
Were there any New Zealand and Australian troops involved in the Vietnam War. I have heard somewhere that they participated, not in a major way but did a little bit of fighting. Does anyone have any information ?
Yes, I know for fact that the Australians sent some of their famed engineers to assist the United States Army in "digging out" the Viet Cong from their tunnel system around the "Iron Triangle", an area of South Vietnam west of Saigon. There was a story about the Australians and their efforts to assist the United States on our cable television station, "The History Channel" on this very subject the other night. Perhaps someone else might know about the New Zealander's. Other than the Australians, the only others I know about were the British, and the South Koreans. Bill
