Who won the Vietnam War?

Nearly 60,000 US and Australian soldiers were killed along with God knows how many South and North Vietnamese soldiers and civillians. What for?

Exactly, it does seem pretty pointless although the war was fought to rid the world of communism. At least on the part of the US. I don't know about everyone else that participated.

 

It seems pretty pointless now, but had you lived during that time and seen what had happened throughout the area (i.e. The Domino Effect) you would think, differently. For whatever reason, Vietnam was identified as the linchpin in Southeast Asia. If it fell to Communist rule, the rest of the region was expected to go even faster. Remember, China had been our Ally during WWII and in 1948 it had been taken over by communists. We didn't want communists to advance any further than they already had.


As for the War of 1812, we actually lost some of Maine to the British. The reason we invaded Canada was that it was presupposed that we would face token resistance by the populace as they wanted to rebel against British rule as well. Turned out they didn't. Add to that the fact that we used militia for the invasion, which was only intended for defense, not invasion. The militia was reluctant to fight in Canada and that played a prominent role in our defeat there. We were lucky that the peace treaty was signed when it was. Had we coontinued to press on, we would have been resoundly defeated as Napolean was beaten shortly thereafter and the British could have sent a more substantial size of an army to fight us.

 

Yeah Communism... what a threat. Look at what they did to us... we had to spend billions and trillions on nuclear deterrents to never be used, and then one day the entire Soviet Union just fell apart.

Yeah, what a threat. Oooh... here come the commies! Look out! They might make you a commie against your will, without you even knowing it!

Pfft.

Nobody won the Vietnam War... least of all the Vietnamese--for whom we were supposedly fighting (and we kept really good track of who our friends and foes were, didn't we?). LBJ started that war to placate the Military Industrial Complex which has a pretty huge influence on Southern politicians for some odd reason... (gee, where are most defense contractors located?)

 

Darth_SnowDog

Tell that to the 40 million Russian killed by Stalin who disagreed with him or were labeled a threat to his rule (Like one of my profs who was rounded up and sent to Siberia at 8 because the KGB had labeled a subversive.

Tell that to the 80 million that Mao killed in China.

Tell that to 1/3 of the population of Cambodia that was killed by the Khmer Rouge.

As for spending money on weapons never to be used, the Russians did that to. What would you have rather had us do, go to war with them and possibly kill the entire planet or force them to the breaking point in an economic game of brinksmanship?


By the way, we were involved in Viet Nam before LBJ. The OSS was running OPS in Nam in the late 40's.

 

Good points.

 

Not to mention that the French were fighting in Vietnam and America essentially took over for them. We didn't escalate until LBJ, yes, but we were involved before him.

 

The U.S. certainly did not win the Vietnam War. We did not accomplish anything there except show how unprepared we were for the type of war that we would be fighting.

As for Communist nations never being a threat that is a load of crap. The whole world is lucky that neither the U.S. nor Russia ever attacked eachother or else the map of the world would look a lot different and the population of the world would be a lot smaller.

 

double post

 

Vietnam was a politcal and social loss.

Militarily we won every battle (of any note, skirmishes are another matter), and never withdrew. Our hovercraft left the Vietcong surprised and in shambles in the south and proved the best new weapon of all. But hardware doesn't change peoples minds.

We just didn't have the support; here or there.

 

Ok to Vietnam. America bombed the hell out of the North Vietnamese in 72-73 to force them to the peace table. An peace treaty was signed and the North Vietnamese recognized the South. America withdrew from South Vietnam in 74, North Vietnam invaded and controlled the nation in 75. America accomplished its objective in Vietnam during the war, we kept the South from being over ran, two years after the cease fire and year after the last American troops left, it was overran. How weird, America was beat when it wasnt even there? Almost all 14 of my uncles were in Vietnam as was my dad, I grew up with stories and know a thing or two about the war. Fact is the US withdrew in 74 a year before the South was over ran, and a year after the war ended.

To the war of 1812, dont know what Brits and Canadians have been taught but Americans are also taught that the British were out to reconquer the colonies. And I believe it, if they wasnt they wouldnt have been in D.C. burning our nations capital to the ground.

 

Ok to Vietnam. America bombed the hell out of the North Vietnamese in 72-73 to force them to the peace table. An peace treaty was signed and the North Vietnamese recognized the South. America withdrew from South Vietnam in 74, North Vietnam invaded and controlled the nation in 75. America accomplished its objective in Vietnam during the war, we kept the South from being over ran, two years after the cease fire and year after the last American troops left, it was overran. How weird, America was beat when it wasnt even there? Almost all 14 of my uncles were in Vietnam as was my dad, I grew up with stories and know a thing or two about the war. Fact is the US withdrew in 74 a year before the South was over ran, and a year after the war ended.

Could you please show us your source? The rest of us have been taught that there was no peace treaty, and America abandoned the war effort because it was unpopular, and they were getting nowhere fast.

To the war of 1812, dont know what Brits and Canadians have been taught but Americans are also taught that the British were out to reconquer the colonies. And I believe it, if they wasnt they wouldnt have been in D.C. burning our nations capital to the ground.

I'm glad you admit that that happened. Many Americans refuse to acknowledge that the British/Canadians ever stepped foot on American soil during that war.

 

Companies in the USA selling stuff to US Troops and North Vietnamese troops won the war.

 

I'm glad you admit that that happened. Many Americans refuse to acknowledge that the British/Canadians ever stepped foot on American soil during that war.

Who??? Its in all of our history books. We know that the Brits burned D.C. They burned the White House to the ground. We also know of how Dolly Madison ran out with some priceless art before the house burned.


We also know of the battle at Fort McHenry which the Americans held on to during an all night seige. It led to a poem by Francis Scott Key which became our national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner."

Don't forget at this time, America was still in its infancy, while England was a world power. The fact that we forced a stalemate should be looked on as admirable. After two wars with the world's biggest super power, the US was 1-0-1. Not bad.....

 

Operation Homecoming

Vietnam Chronology

Paris Peace Accord

You may have to hit the refresh button on the Vietnam Chronology, its one of those pages that opens and shows nothing until you refresh. The joy of being a webmaster.

This is my proof that America left after accomplishing its objective. To say the Military lost this war is obsurd and idiotic. Alot of the problem with the war was the military wasnt allowed to run it, heaven forbid the military run a war, eh. Speaking to Vietnam vets, there were numerous times that soldiers who were getting shot at couldnt shoot back because there were supposingly friendlies in the area. (Not very friendly if theyre shooting at you, are they?) There were many court martials of MP's who would shoot a Viet Cong for trying to kill his buddy, the MP didnt have permission to shoot, and those that asked for it usually ended up being stabbed themselves. Soldiers shot kids who was pointing guns at them, only to come back home to be spit on and called baby killers, it was a nasty war, because the military wasnt aloud to run it. LBJ and Nixon after him pulled a Hitler, not let the Generals who know what theyre doing run the war, instead they wanted to sit on their perch and foul it up.

But the US Armed Forces won Vietnam, no ands ifs or buts about it.

EDITED to fix links

 

The Americans and British have fought two wars? I didn't know that. Very interesting. Weren't the British also engaged in conflict with the French and Napoleon at that time?


As an interesting side note to Vietnam and stopping communism in Asia, the British stopped the spread of communism in Malaya in the late 50's with the use of SAS troops. This is where counter guerilla techniques were first used successfully with a "hearts and minds" policy as well as long range patrols. It worked.

I know Vietnam was a different type of conflict, but it seems that the "hearts and minds" policy and the patrolling methods used in Malaya were not replicated by the Americans.

 

The Americans and British have fought two wars? I didn't know that. Very interesting. Did they Brits have the French as allies in this war or was that the Revolution?

The French and British hated each other, the French were direct allies of the US in the American Revolution 1775-1783 and warm friends in the War of 1812 (Probably should be called the Anglo-American War shouldnt it?) 1812-1815. A little known fact is Napolean was planning a war with the US and reconquering Canada and having a French Empire set up in North America from 1798-1803 he constantly pushed the US buttons to trigger a war (Ironically the UK would have allied with the US to keep France from controlling all North America), when French troops got their buts kicked at Hispanola, Napolean was forced to change his tune, and sold Louisiana to the US.

The US and UK were at odds for a good bit of the nineteenth century, I dont remember the British generals name in charge of the British forces in the War of 1812, but he disobeyed some orders from the King, he saw the US as a potential ally and knew some of the kings orders would have made the US a permanent enemy, (I dont remember where I read that). After the Emancipation Proclamation, and US victory in the Civil War, Great Britain saw the US as a growing power and thought it better the US be an ally than a foe, with few exceptions throughout the end of the nineteenth century the UK and US had very warm relations, and agreed alot on Naval treaties.

 

Yeah, Jedi-Xen I actually thought about what I posted and edited it before your reply. How could I forget Napoleon?

My knowledge of American history gets very shaky before the American Civil War.

 

Jedi_Xen-I still don't agree that America won the war and you won't be able to convince me otherwise. I'm not just talking about the military aspect of the war. Wars are about more than that. Wars also affect people's lives. No one wins wars. And if we were trying to keep S. Vietnam from becoming communist and to remain independent, we definitely did not succeed in the war. You bring up excellent points to support your views, but I'm still unconvinced about the success of the US in the war.
The US did not pull out of Saigon until 75 while N. Vietnam was overrunning the country if I'm not mistaken. Further, you say that the US soldiers only killed children when those children had guns pointed at them. What about the My Lai massacre and the situations where the soldiers burned entire villages and raped the women and young girls. I don't think it was just the belligerents that were harmed in those cases.

 

The US did not pull out of Saigon until 75 while N. Vietnam was overrunning the country if I'm not mistaken.

The US sent troops back in 1975 to get US personnel, and Vietnamese who didnt want to be red, out of SE Asia, most were relocated to Arkansas I believe. There was only few battle deaths, the Viet Cong had strict orders not to shoot Americans. The Reds didnt want the US to get angry over dead marines. The Marines were only there to keep things secure until the people they were taking out of the country were secure.

Further, you say that the US soldiers only killed children when those children had guns pointed at them. What about the My Lai massacre and the situations where the soldiers burned entire villages and raped the women and young girls. I don't think it was just the belligerents that were harmed in those cases.

I can see where they do that. Alot of those villages gave sanctuary to the Viet Cong, most of South Vietnam didnt care if they were Capitalist or Communist, most preferred the latter. The Viet Cong would come out of those villages and shot US troops. Now being a US troop and some one shot your buddy, and ran into a village that refused to hand him over to you, are you going to shrug and say "Easy come easy go?" or are you going to say "Im going to get him with your blessing or without?" And dont tell me that you would think that its ok cause its war, your buddys life is lesser than those harboring the man that killed him, especially when your buddy showed you pictures of his wife and kids, and told you of his plans of the future. The people harboring become him, and after losing a buddy you would think that all those people deserve to die too, if a chicken runs by its a communist chicken, its filthy, you know you have to kill it. War is much more than we see in movies.

 

We know that the Brits burned D.C. They burned the White House to the ground.

I recently participated in a thread here on the War of 1812, and many Americans adamantly refuted both of those statements.

 

I know war is much more than we see in the movies. I am very close to several Vietnam veterans that fought up close and personal with the Viet Cong. I have heard their stories and know what it was like for them and many of the soldiers that fought. I know what it's like for many of them today. Okay many of them may have been communist sympathizers, but did that gve the soldiers the right to burn the entire village. Did the soldiers have the right to burn entire villages because a VC that had shot one of their buddies was suspected to be in the village? Also, Jedi_Xen, what about the women that were raped?

 

They certainly burned the White House, but I don't believe they burned it to the ground. I'd be interested in seeing a source for that.

 

They certainly burned the White House, but I don't believe they burned it to the ground. I'd be interested in seeing a source for that.

You are correct. The White House was damaged, and it was then painted white.

 

The "President's Mansion" was indeed burned. Once the fire was extinguished, the brick exterior was too charred to refurbish so white limestone was placed over it. Thus, the creation of the White House.

 

LBJ never had any objectives on how to win the war. Nixon's objectives were to pull American troops out in a victory, so he bombed them to negotiate. We completed the objectives, what little ones we had.
We did change our tactics near the end of the war. Exploiting the speed of our fighters to make up for their lack of maneuverability, and re-educating our airmen how to use guns (much cheaper to kill MiGs with tried-and-true bullets than 1st generation missiles). The mechanical deficiencies were corrected with the M-16, among other changes (cant remember them). The only thing we never corrected was the tour of duty system, ensuring that we would always be replacing more experienced veterans with brand-new draftees who had to learn everything in combat, which wasn't too smart.