AHC:PRevent the AMerican "Doltchstosslegende" After the Vietnam war

[SergeantHeretic]

ModernKiwi, I did not ask how to wi nthe war in Vietnam, I asked how to prevent the Doltchstosslegende.

Please adress that question regarding that postwar myth and stop hi-jacking my thread with attempts to answer a question I did not ask.

[ModernKiwi]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

You are speaking of select units that were never more than a minority in a majority incompatent and disinterested force.

Why should THEY fight their war when we'll do it for them?

The SVN army had 12 divisions. Having 3 good divisions from that is actually quite an impressive acheivement. The US Army that landed in Normandy would have loved to have had 25% of it's divisions being that good.

[ModernKiwi]

I have said how to stop the myth. And it's not "winning"...

I will however respect your request and stop posting in this thread.

[RousseauX]

You have to understand that fundamentally the stab-in-the-back myth is part of the entire conservative revolution after the 70s.

There is one line in American Hardcore which describes it perfectly "In the 80s, there was a sense of re-establishing -the- order, the Reagan, white man order, you had that wimp Jimmy Carter talk about peace and human rights and all that shit, and the feminists and the Negros are getting uppity on us, that's why everyone started to act like it was the 50s."

It was about a general backlash against the entire progressive era of the 1960s/70s. America felt it was humiliated, first with the helicopters on the embassy rooftop in '75, then the oil crisis which provoked the most severe post-war economic crisis up to that point, and then you had the Iranian hostage crisis. America's silent majority desperately wanted to turn back the clock, back to when America would smash the world's evils, the economy would be back on an endless upward spiral and the minorities would know their place.

It made sense for everything to be blamed on one group of people, especially since they don't really exist anymore, plus they were the people most visible to Americans at home, and perceived as being responsible for much of the social chaos of the 60s. when your goal is to go back to the future (lol get it), that is the 50s, it make sense to attack the most visible transformer from the imaginary peace and prosperity of the 1950s to the chaotic world of the late 70s.

Vietnam of course, had to be rewritten, it can't be that Vietnamese peasants defeated the American military. The narrative have to be that the Americans were defeated by themselves, because only then can we expunge the humiliation, only then can we comfortably pretend once we get rid of the "bad" elements of American society in the form of the "hippies", America can go back to being the invincible, righteous force as it was remembered in popular memory to be before Vietnam.

I think you'd have to change the national mood at the time as a whole in order to avoid the stab-in-the-back, not just have a couple of memoir published before they were OTL. Maybe if the rest of the 70s was more successful for America.

[Killer300]

Sarge, what about my options?

[Killer300]

Okay then, kill the Conservative Revolution, which is doable if you kill its rising star, Reagen, with an earlier Irangate controversy. It would be like what happened to Nixon.

Another option would be for Jimmy Carter to better prepare to deal with Reagan, which he didn't in OTL.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

You have to understand that fundamentally the stab-in-the-back myth is part of the entire conservative revolution after the 70s.

There is one line in American Hardcore which describes it perfectly "In the 80s, there was a sense of re-establishing -the- order, the Regan, white man order, you had that wimp Jimmy Carter talk about peace and human rights and all that shit, and the feminists and the Negros are getting uppity on us, that's why everyone started to act like it was the 50s."

It was about a general backlash against the entire progressive era of the 1960s/70s. America felt it was humiliated, first with the helicopters on the embassy rooftop in '75, then the oil crisis which provoked the most severe post-war economic crisis up to that point, and then you had the Iranian hostage crisis. America's silent majority desperately wanted to turn back the clock, back to when America would smash the world's evils, the economy would be back on an endless upward spiral and the minorities would know their place.

It made sense for everything to be blamed on one group of people, especially since they don't really exist anymore, plus they were the people most visible to Americans at home, and perceived as being responsible for much of the social chaos of the 60s. when your goal is to go back to the future (lol get it), that is the 50s, it make sense to attack the most visible transformer from the imaginary peace and prosperity of the 1950s to the world of the late 70s.

Vietnam of course, had to be rewritten, it can't be that Vietnamese peasants defeated the American military. The narrative have to be that the Americans were defeated by themselves, because only then can we expunge the humiliation, only then can we comfortably pretend once we get rid of the "bad" elements of American society in the form of the "hippies", America can go back to being the invincible, righteous force as it was remembered in popular memory to be before Vietnam.

I think you'd have to change the national mood at the time as a whole in order to avoid the stab-in-the-back, not just have a couple of memoir published before they were OTL.

Yes, I would tend to agree, there was an entire culture of counterfactual history and counter social society that was deliberetly created in the 1980's, we can see it's fighting it's last gasps as that self same generation rails against the "Uppity negro socialist" i nthe white house.

The problem is, I am at a loss to find a way to prevent an entire generation playing "Let's pretend it's 1956."

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Sarge, what about my options?

I am turning them over in my mind.

[Cash]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

This one is simple, how do we prevent the arising of the "Stabbed in the back" myth after the end of the war in Vietnam.

The so called "Doltchstosslegende" that created the myth that the U.S. in Vietnam was defeated because of the peace movement and acedemics and those who opposed the war.

I think I have to question your fundamental point. What's the source of your conclusion that the peace movement, academics, etc. have been blamed for the U.S. losing the war? That certainly hasn't been my experience in reading and discussing American involvement in Vietnam. The blame time and again in my experience has rested squarely on the politicians in Washington, both civilian and military. I realize there are a lot of knee-jerk reactions on this board when it comes to Vietnam, but the conventional wisdom in the larger society never really blamed the Left for the defeat. It blamed the politicians and the Pentagon.

Certainly the peace movement's leaders like to claim they had an effect, but the fact was that nobody in a position to make a difference paid much attention to them during the war. The movement itself was dissolving by 1971. Even Kent State and Cambodia were a flash in the pan, and a lot of activists drifted away as soon as the Weather Underground and the SLA started shooting people. We didn't want to be associated with that crap.

BTW, much the vigor in the antiwar movement began to leak away when the draft was converted into a lottery system in 1969/1970. As soon as most guys realized their chances of being called up were minimal, they lost interest in marching. Instituting the lottery really was a brilliant move to disarm the antiwar folks.

How do you make sure the the blame falls where it belongs, with the Washington leaders and strategists who mismaneged and then lost the war due to micromanegment mishandling and straight out incompatence.

(Not to mention the over the top comical incompatence and stupidity of the fechless kleptocracy in Saigon.)

How early do you have to go to prevent the misdriection of blame for American defeat in Vietnam?

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Cash

I think I have to question your fundamental point. What's the source of your conclusion that the peace movement, academics, etc. have been blamed for the U.S. losing the war? That certainly hasn't been my experience in reading and discussing American involvement in Vietnam. The blame time and again in my experience has rested squarely on the politicians in Washington, both civilian and military. I realize there are a lot of knee-jerk reactions on this board when it comes to Vietnam, but the conventional wisdom in the larger society never really blamed the Left for the defeat. It blamed the politicians and the Pentagon.

That certainly havn't being my experience.

In my experience the narrative have always being "we were kicking ass and then the war protesters made us retreat".

[Cash]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

That certainly havn't being my experience.

In my experience the narrative have always being "we were kicking ass and then the war protesters made us retreat".

Nope. We were kicking ass and then the politicians made us retreat has always been the narrative in my experience, especially among the people who were actively involved.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

That certainly havn't being my experience.

In my experience the narrative have always being "we were kicking ass and then the war protesters made us retreat".

Not my experience. The blame goes to Washington, not Hoffman.

[Cash]

Just to add a point: Even the Left doesn't buy the idea they stopped or altered the course of the war, aside from a few activists who thought it looked good on their curriculum vitae. After it was over, they capitalized on saying "We told you so" and used it to garner more political and social capital than ever before by blaming the Establishment in Washington for getting us into the war and then losing it. That would not have been the case if the larger society blamed them for losing the war.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Cash

Just to add a point: Even the Left doesn't buy the idea they stopped or altered the course of the war, aside from a few activists who thought it looked good on their curriculum vitae. After it was over, they capitalized on saying "We told you so" and used it to garner more political and social capital than ever before by blaming the Establishment in Washington for getting us into the war and then losing it. That would not have been the case if the larger society blamed them for losing the war.

Honestly, I think it cuts either way. It really depends on what people you are with, among other things.

It does appearing making it where blaming the Establishment is the norm all the more so shouldn't be too difficult.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

That certainly havn't being my experience.

In my experience the narrative have always being "we were kicking ass and then the war protesters made us retreat".

I almost never heard that said.

Mostly either LBJ, Westmoreland, or SecDef gets the blame. There is a good size group that saw it as unwinnable.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I almost never heard that said.

Mostly either LBJ, Westmoreland, or SecDef gets the blame. There is a good size group that saw it as unwinnable.

Yeah I think we just have different experiences then.

For me it was always 'We were winning and then Tet made American public oppose the war which in turn made America retreat".

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Most likely, mining in under LBJ (ATL) gets the same reaction as under Nixon (OTL). When fighting a war of choice, either fight the war full force or don't fight. We could have skip this war or we could have went all in. Both were better choices than OTL.

Agreed. The proper blame rests with the political leadership in D.C. who devised that war of attrition and "porportional" or "graduated response" BS. That means LBJ, MacNamara (and those under him who are political appointees-including the whole Whiz Kid franchise), SecState Rusk, and National Security Advisor Bundy. They gave the military their orders, and though it wasn't what the JCS wanted or reccommended, the JCS did as they were told. And it was the political leadership's micromanagement, mismanagement, and excessive fear/caution that ensured failure. I don't consider the "Going North" strategy a "stab in the back." It's more like a lost opportunity. If LBJ wants to win the war in SEA, and stop the spread of communism, he has to go all the way. Or don't even bother at all.

[Ninja Bear]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Agreed. The proper blame rests with the political leadership in D.C. who devised that war of attrition and "porportional" or "graduated response" BS. That means LBJ, MacNamara (and those under him who are political appointees-including the whole Whiz Kid franchise), SecState Rusk, and National Security Advisor Bundy. They gave the military their orders, and though it wasn't what the JCS wanted or reccommended, the JCS did as they were told. And it was the political leadership's micromanagement, mismanagement, and excessive fear/caution that ensured failure. I don't consider the "Going North" strategy a "stab in the back." It's more like a lost opportunity. If LBJ wants to win the war in SEA, and stop the spread of communism, he has to go all the way. Or don't even bother at all.

We don't care how the US could have prolonged the war or better kept Saigon on life support because that's not the topic of the thread, and has been beaten to death elsewhere.

There's an idea: the US does even half of what the Monday-morning-quarterback armchair generals wanted it to and touches off WWIII. Records of the Vietnam war are relegated to cave paintings, none of which show any of the figures stabbing the other ones in the back. Easy!

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Ninja Bear

We don't care how the US could have prolonged the war or better kept Saigon on life support because that's not the topic of the thread, and has been beaten to death elsewhere.

There's an idea: the US does even half of what the Monday-morning-quarterback armchair generals wanted it to and touches off WWIII. Records of the Vietnam war are relegated to cave paintings, none of which show any of the figures stabbing the other ones in the back. Easy!

It is actually the core of what is being asked. All "stabbed in back" beliefs come from the belief that the war could have been won, but was not because some additional means to win the war was not used. By not going big (max conventional effort), JFK/LBJ insured that any loss would have some "stabbed in the back" believers.

IMO, there is no way to do a "limited war" that results in a loss, and not have to deal with some "stabbed in back" efforts. Even when countries went all out (Germany in WW1), the "stabbed in the back" belief arose. The Germans and Austrians made some poor decisions, but they gave 100%. The USA was less than 3% of max effort (500K Vietnam versus 15,000K in WW2). It is understandable how the public looks for scapegoats/responsible-parties. Most people I know blame people in Washington, but others blame the peace movement/leftists/socialist/Fonda, etc.

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by Ninja Bear

We don't care how the US could have prolonged the war or better kept Saigon on life support because that's not the topic of the thread, and has been beaten to death elsewhere.

There's an idea: the US does even half of what the Monday-morning-quarterback armchair generals wanted it to and touches off WWIII. Records of the Vietnam war are relegated to cave paintings, none of which show any of the figures stabbing the other ones in the back. Easy!

You're assuming, of course, that the Soviets were willing to risk WW III over a SEA Client-State. They were not. Both sides still remembered October, 1962, and how about this? The Soviets still have a strategic inferority vs. the U.S. and they knew it. Khrushchev was sacked in Oct '64 for partially because he risked the Soviet Union's existence over Cuba when the Soviets were still strategically inferior to the U.S. There's no way that Brezhnev and Kosygin are going to repeat Khrushchev's mistake over Cuba in North Vietnam.