Can the US win the Vietnam War

That's what I was asking about, because I don't know anything about it.

Were these ad hoc, hot pursuit incursions or planned operations?

As we know historically, US strategy in RVN was bunk. These were primarily Special forces ("Kennedy men") with highland tribal enlistees, and the occasional "map reading errors."

I don't know if "operational" covers the conceits of US independent behaviour in RVN and surrounding states, but we can appraise that they were not sufficient historically and were initiative.

However, as Wilfred Burchett demonstrates in his journalistic book about his smuggling into the RVN by DRVN aligned NFL operatives, the "Ho Chi Minh" trail to 1968 was a complex logistics network which relied upon local, river and naval dominance by NFL aligned forces. Most NFL PLAF forces were supplied by capture of ARVN stock well into 1966 with DRVN provision being secondary.

I am strongly suspicious that the RVN cannot win, in part not due to the availability of "anti-communists," but to the availability of competent bureaucratic "anti-communists." Incompetence is the key.

yours,
Sam R.
 
The answer is a US government that was pro Viet Minh and anti French colonialism in 1945.
This, and/or a Woodrow Wilson who wasn't a massive racist.

I certainly think it's possible for the US to defeat North Vietnam with a direct invasion ASAP, but that would almost certainly draw Chinese intervention. The more savvy option IMO--though of course this option would not be politically feasible in a USA still dominated by anti-communist forces--would be to go to Ho Chi Minh, say "Diem's a dictatorial thug but you better not go the same way or Bad Things will happen", and offer him support and a defense treaty against China if he sets up a democratic republic. Doesn't matter how commie he is if there are elections that pass the sniff test. Ho would be insane to not at least consider having the USA's protection against China, given how poor China's relationship with Vietnam has historically been, so it's plausible he might accept.

Getting this to fly in the American political scene would be a fuck of a lot harder, though.
 
This, and/or a Woodrow Wilson who wasn't a massive racist.

True...

Ho would be insane to not at least consider having the USA's protection against China, given how poor China's relationship with Vietnam has historically been, so it's plausible he might accept.

Which, ironically enough, is what’s been happening anyway IRL - Vietnam and the US have been growing quite a bit closer since the whole China artificial island thing...
 

longsword14

Banned
This, and/or a Woodrow Wilson who wasn't a massive racist.
Racism is besides the point. Who was Ho Chi Minh around 1920 ? Probably a waiter.
The more savvy option IMO--though of course this option would not be politically feasible in a USA still dominated by anti-communist forces--would be to go to Ho Chi Minh, say "Diem's a dictatorial thug but you better not go the same way or Bad Things will happen", and offer him support and a defense treaty against China if he sets up a democratic republic.
1. Why would the US get involved in that area had it been not to oppose communists ?
2. Speaking of dictators, what gave you the idea that Uncle Ho was better than Diem ?
3. Why do you believe that he ever wanted to create a "democratic republic" ?
Doesn't matter how commie he is if there are elections that pass the sniff test.
Never happened once in a communist country.
 
When the U.S. pulled out, victory along these conditions had been achieved. The Viet Cong were no longer a serious threat and the ARVN, with continued American support, was capable of standing up to and defeating the NVA. The problem came when Congress began to handicap the President's ability to continue this aid, and led directly to 1975.

I think that's kind of like mistaking a snapshot for a movie.

The argument that the Viet Cong were no longer a serious threat ignores the likelihood of the Viet Cong regenerating.

There was simply no meaningful way to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail. At least, not by South Vietnam. Even the United States using massive air power for bombing and chemical defoliants found itself hard pressed, and the effort destabilized and destroyed two neighboring countries. I don't think that the Trail was ever cut completely by the United States. Certainly interdicting it was out of the question for South Vietnam.

So, with literally an open highway, the Viet Cong could simply continue to access money, supplies, weapons and ammunition indefinitely in open ended quantities, so long as the Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam and other states chose to do so. There's no reason that any of them would just walk away.

So what were the limiting factors for the Viet Cong? Recruitment. Recruitment was in turn driven by corruption and incompetence, both of which the South Vietnamese state had in abundance.

I'm not talking Tyranny, history is full of effective Dictatorships. But the reality was that the South Vietnamese regime under Diem was not effective, nor were its successors. It was an urbanized kleptocracy, Diem was replaced, but that didn't actually change. The South Vietnamese state was unrepresentative, corrupt and rotten to the core. To suggest that the SV military might be competent is very nice. But that alleged competence didn't filter upwards to the state or ruling elite, and without that, the whole house is built on sand.

The likelihood is that even if you butterfly the fall, the odds are that within a few more years, you'd be back to the pre-Tet offensive situation of the South Vietnamese government steadily losing control of the countryside.

By the way, I like the quote - the ARVN "with continued American support" was capable of standing up to and defeating the NVA. Certainly, after a decade of massive support and investment and the expenditure of vast wealth and resources in trying to prop it up and train it, the ARVN was capable of fighting "with continued American support." That's pretty much a blanket admission that after a decade of investment and support, it still couldn't handle the job on its own.

So we're seem to stuck with permanent or at least indefinite American support. We're not talking tripwire forces as in South Korea. No, we're talking continuing American support... basically fighting, or bombing indefinitely. Continuing American support until such time as....

And by the way, we're still back at the snapshot vs the movie. In 1972 the ARVN after a decade of hard work could almost stand up all by itself. Could they sustain that high water mark without ongoing, continuous, massive infusions of American money or help? Or were they going to slowly or rapidly degrade? The real question is just how stable was the ARVN and how effective was it at sustaining its level of competence?

I would argue that to sustain its levels of competence, the underlying government and social structure would require substantial reform, and that simply wasn't in evidence. Degradation would be inevitable, and with that you'd once again require increasing levels of American support.

It's possible for the United States to win in Vietnam, but not easy. As weak and battered as the NV were, the perpetual problem was the weakness of the SV, and that was a problem that the United States recognized from the outset but was never able to solve.
 

longsword14

Banned
To suggest that the SV military might be competent is very nice. But that alleged competence didn't filter upwards to the state or ruling elite, and without that, the whole house is built on sand.
How did South Korea survive then ?
The argument that the Viet Cong were no longer a serious threat ignores the likelihood of the Viet Cong regenerating.
Irregulars have a terrible record of making entire states collapse.
The likelihood is that even if you butterfly the fall, the odds are that within a few more years, you'd be back to the pre-Tet offensive situation of the South Vietnamese government steadily losing control of the countryside.
Ad you support this by ?
By the way, I like the quote - the ARVN "with continued American support" was capable of standing up to and defeating the NVA.
Shifting the time line by a few years so that SV is in effect holding the countrysides by 1969/70 would mean that the Americans are most likely still ready to send the heavy support in.
Could they sustain that high water mark without ongoing, continuous, massive infusions of American money or help?
By the time the final offensives rolled around this abundance of material was not seen a lot. So the odds are good that a decently supplied SV could hold their end.
As weak and battered as the NV were, the perpetual problem was the weakness of the SV, and that was a problem that the United States recognized from the outset but was never able to solve.
Explain Korea then. Ineptly run states can stand for a long, long time. Having anybody gather power before too much time is wasted only going to help in killing any irregular forces.
OTL was about the best that NV got, most other things done to centralise power in the South would only help Saigon.
 
How did South Korea survive then ?

1) South Korea was never a corrupt systemic kleptocracy, although it was a tyranny. The South Vietnamese and South Korean elites and states were quite different.
2) South Korea actually had a hard border in the form of a heavily militarized DMZ. This is about a million miles difference from the porous South Vietnamese border.
3) There was never a significant insurgency in South Korea.
4) The actual history and outcomes of colonialism leading up to South Korea and South Vietnam were quite different. Just because the two states had south in their name doesn't mean that they're like, any more than South Carolina and South Dakota are identical.

Irregulars have a terrible record of making entire states collapse.

In this case, well supported and well funded irregulars, so their odds were better. The larger issue was that the SV state apparatus was rotten to the core.


Shifting the time line by a few years so that SV is in effect holding the countrysides by 1969/70 would mean that the Americans are most likely still ready to send the heavy support in.

How do you get that result?

By the time the final offensives rolled around this abundance of material was not seen a lot. So the odds are good that a decently supplied SV could hold their end.

"With Continuing American support." Yes, the 'propping up indefinitely' argument is viable. But again, you're arguing a snapshot rather than a movie. You are arguing that the situation in 1972 was an eternal snapshot that foretold the future of the forces in perpetuity, when the reality was that this is just a point on an evolving process. You've made the assumption that the ARVN would maintain itself at those levels of competence and ability. But you haven't supported that, and odds are that they wouldn't. You make the assumption that the VC would not change, when in fact the circumstances would argue the opposite.


Explain Korea then. Ineptly run states can stand for a long, long time. Having anybody gather power before too much time is wasted only going to help in killing any irregular forces.
OTL was about the best that NV got, most other things done to centralise power in the South would only help Saigon.

You're correct in the assertion that ineptly run states can last for a long, long time. But only as long as nobody is pushing them over.

It's possible to develop scenarios where the US wins the Vietnam war. But it's not an easy task.
 
Racism is besides the point. Who was Ho Chi Minh around 1920 ? Probably a waiter.

1. Why would the US get involved in that area had it been not to oppose communists ?
2. Speaking of dictators, what gave you the idea that Uncle Ho was better than Diem ?
3. Why do you believe that he ever wanted to create a "democratic republic" ?

Never happened once in a communist country.
--You do realize that Ho was part of a Vietnamese delegation who tried to get Wilson to respect their national sovereignty as well as whitey's but weren't even allowed in the door, right?

--Who cares about opposing communism? Let's get real, the Cold War was first and foremost about American vs. Russian political interests, and as time went on that became considerably more apparent. It doesn't matter what ideology the Soviets held and encouraged, but that they were snapping up the planet into an alliance network. We got into Vietnam because Ho was chummy with the Soviets and we didn't want another Korea disaster, so we supported a dictatorship run by thieves instead.

--Ho wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of a gang of thieves. He and North Vietnam also had considerable support from the Vietnamese people. Boom, better than Diem right there, and a better pal for the US if we had tried subversion rather than supporting a rival state.

--No, I mean the US could say "If you have elections where we can pretend that they're legitimate, and pretend to let capitalist parties run, and listen to us instead of the USSR, we can be friends. We're already supporting berserk dictators, we can support you if you pretend that this isn't a communist state." DRVN cares about two things: Keeping China out, and running their own house. US says "we'll support you if you do this but otherwise do your own thing", they're a player the Vietnamese can play ball with. Plus, the Soviets kept trying to push more influence over Vietnam pre- and post-war, the Vietnamese aren't stupid, they'd see that creeping influence coming and might consider, before the US intervention anyway, switching sides to keep their own house independent. And it's not like the US actually cared about truly free elections--look at South Vietnam, South Korea, Pinochet, et cetera. We only cared about keeping the Russians out. Well, except in Angola, but that was because the Portuguese were fucking fascists and the Angolans were buying guns from anyone who was selling cheap.

--Chile democratically elected a socialist leader, he refused to fuck with the democratic process, and that fuckhead Nixon decided that replacing him with a thieving thuggish dictator was a good idea. Soviets had a free and fair election, granted that ended in the breakup of the USSR due to the fact that it was a corrupt edifice that ran on nepotism at that point. Soviets had a couple elections at the start before Lenin decided he didn't like the support shown to the Left-SRs and threw out the results. Besides, it's the Cold War. Actual free elections aren't the goal, the goal is pretending they're free when they're really not so that 'Murica can have a reliable ally.
 
The argument that the Viet Cong were no longer a serious threat ignores the likelihood of the Viet Cong regenerating.

Between the day to day attrition since 1963, with many thousands dying everymonth, the culling of Tet, and the final bit of Phoenix whacking anyone with any hints of subversive thought or connections, the VC had nothing to regenerate from, they were out of 'fighting age Males' in the South, which is why the North kept sending more fighters in each year
There wouldn't be any more VC locals for a Generation, and the North didn't feel like waiting that long
 
Between the day to day attrition since 1963, with many thousands dying everymonth, the culling of Tet, and the final bit of Phoenix whacking anyone with any hints of subversive thought or connections, the VC had nothing to regenerate from, they were out of 'fighting age Males' in the South, which is why the North kept sending more fighters in each year
There wouldn't be any more VC locals for a Generation, and the North didn't feel like waiting that long

So, you're arguing that genocide was sufficiently effective?

That's a testable proposition.
 
--Who cares about opposing communism? Let's get real, the Cold War was first and foremost about American vs. Russian political interests, and as time went on that became considerably more apparent. It doesn't matter what ideology the Soviets held and encouraged, but that they were snapping up the planet into an alliance network. We got into Vietnam because Ho was chummy with the Soviets and we didn't want another Korea disaster, so we supported a dictatorship run by thieves instead.

True... see Nixon going to Mao’s China, or America recognising the Khmer Rouge, both of which followed an even more extreme version of Communism than the USSR or Ho Chi Minh.

If Ho had been anti-Soviet, I can imagine the US at least being willing to talk.
 
But that ideology was anti-capitalist Communism, wasn't it? And that Communism, between Stalin and Mao, killed a hundred million of their own people

So yeah, it did matter.

And yet, America was entirely willing to chat to Mao - whose China was just as bad if not arguably worse than the USSR under Khrushchev and Breheznev - if it involved a potential friend against the USSR.
 
And yet, America was entirely willing to chat to Mao - whose China was just as bad if not arguably worse than the USSR under Khrushchev and Breheznev - if it involved a potential friend against the USSR.

For all his Zealotry, Mao was unable to project power beyond China's borders, as shown against India, and shown by this warhead count for 1971, not a player on the Nuclear Front
US 26,602
USSR 13,092
China 100

China didn't have the chips for the Nuclear Poker game going on, but had a huge border with the USSR, and given the breakdown in Sino-Soviet relations, would have been a mistake not to do realpolitik to make the Soviet waste effort on that border, that's a help to the USA

They also weren't players in the insurgent game around the Globe, unlike the USSR.
 
For all his Zealotry, Mao was unable to project power beyond China's borders, as shown against India, and shown by this warhead count for 1971, not a player on the Nuclear Front
US 26,602
USSR 13,092
China 100

China didn't have the chips for the Nuclear Poker game going on, but had a huge border with the USSR, and given the breakdown in Sino-Soviet relations, would have been a mistake not to do realpolitik to make the Soviet waste effort on that border, that's a help to the USA

They also weren't players in the insurgent game around the Globe, unlike the USSR.

Agree completely, but that’s my - and I think @Worffan101 ’s - point. The US was willing to work with non-Soviet Communists to contain the USSR. So they could have tried to work some deal out with Ho.
 
But that ideology was anti-capitalist Communism, wasn't it? And that Communism, between Stalin and Mao, killed a hundred million of their own people

So yeah, it did matter.
Buddy, we recognized the Khmer Rouge, who actively intended to wipe out most of their own country. Who gives a fuck about ideology when you can dick with the Ruskies? We made pals with Mao when he was in the middle of starving his own people and purging people for criticizing his complete lack of care for human life.

Leonid Brezhnev, a man who actively gave no shits about anything other than his own self-aggrandizement and who gave himself a Hero of Socialist Labor for turning 60, was a better person and leader than Mao, and we still palled around with Mao to dick with the Russians. It wasn't about fucking ideology once world power came into the picture.
 
Buddy, we recognized the Khmer Rouge, who actively intended to wipe out most of their own country. Who gives a fuck about ideology when you can dick with the Ruskies? We made pals with Mao when he was in the middle of starving his own people and purging people for criticizing his complete lack of care for human life.
Pol Pot was a way to screw with Vietnam, not the USSR
 
Top