How well did the Soviets perform in Afghanistan compared to the US in Vietnam?

How well did the Soviets perform in Afghanistan compared to the US in Vietnam?

  • Worse

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • Better

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • Equal to

    Votes: 12 20.0%

  • Total voters
    60
How well did the Soviets perform in Afghanistan compared to the US in Vietnam in military terms (how effective their troops were)?
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, the fallout in Afghanistan is more terrible than in Vietnam (new bands of terrorism, complete chaos...)
 
This is the population of Afghanistan from 1960 -

Screenshot 2017-04-02 at 09.58.35.png

And this of Vietnam for the same period -

Screenshot 2017-04-02 at 10.00.39.png


Notice the difference? The Soviets killed so many people that the population decline is obvious on the graph (that big dip from 1980 onwards that doesn't recover until the early 1990's) whereas the Vietnam war has negligible impact comparatively speaking. YMMV as to whether this counts as "better" or "worse" of course.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Interesting graph for Afghanistan; interesting but sad.

I didn't know that there was such a huge population increase since 2001, would have never thought that.

I guess when I picture countries with decades lasting civil war, I think of Germany 1618-1648...
 
It depends by how you are measuring things. For Vietnam, there were apparently not enough clear objectives and there was no actuall attempt that I know of to actually invade the North (maybe they thought the Chinese would invade like in the Korean War?). Instead, the Americans got blamed for escalating the war by bombing areas the Viet Cong invaded in Cambodia to attack South Vietnam from. I would say the Soviets crushed a lot of people and, perhaps due to a less-than-free-press at home, didn't have to much civil disorder about it. It seemed to work out well enough for the Americans in the end though, so long as you don't count the Americans supporting Pol Pot out or spite. and of course there is the issue of hundreds of thousands being violently killed. Unless you are dealing with card carrying members of the Nazi Party or the Secret Police of various dictatorships, I would say it is hard to call that a success in our books.
 
I didn't know that there was such a huge population increase since 2001, would have never thought that.

Why? Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) have a level of economic wellbeing today that they never had before so you see a huge population boom and the West isn't waging brutal wars there contrary to popular belief even by post WW2 Western standards.

It's all in prospective compared to say the Russian war in Afghanistan or the Iran/Iraq War which were by Middle Eastern standards somewhat brutal wars.
 

missouribob

Banned
By about a few months.
The point is that if the USSR had survived into 1993 it is likely Soviet Afghanistan would as well. South Vietnam didn't exist as of 1975 and the United States still exists. And before you say it no the Afghan War had little to nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
 
Well, the Soviet military were actually achieving their aims.

When the Soviet Union fell, the Soviet military had plenty of dead or live but traumatized young men courtesy of their Afghan enemies, but less than the Americans suffered due to Vietnam - the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was never as heavy as that of the US in Vietnam. (The US lost 4 times as many KIA as the Soviets did mainly because they sent 3 times as many men into Indochina in the course of their involvement.)

I'm not sure how economic losses would compare.

The Afghan Communists controlled all the major cities by the end of the 80s, and once the Soviets pulled their own troops out, showed they had the morale and organizational grip to keep winning their civil war. The indications were that so long as the Soviets maintained subsidies and political comfort, the Afghan regime could win.

So it is quite likely (though not completely certain) that the Soviet Union had won the battle for Afghanistan and then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when they lost the war for the hearts of their own people.


It is unlikely that the Soviets actually killed more Afghans than the US killed Vietnamese, but it is possible.

Estimates of Afghan civilian deaths range between 562,000 and 2 million. Mujahideen deaths were between 75-90 thousand. Estimates of total Indochinese deaths (differentiating between military and civilian was harder in the American wars in Indochina) range from 1,450,000-3,595,000 deaths. So it is possible that the Soviet-Afghan violence killed half a million more than the American-Indochinese violence did. Alternatively, the Americans may be directly or indirectly responsible for 3,000,000 more deaths than the Soviets.

Almost certainly the reason for the large dip in the Afghan population graph is due to a combination of people fleeing the country and people dying. (The Soviet-Afghan war resulted in 5 million fleeing Afghanistan and a further 2 million being internal refugees.)

EDIT: Also, the Russian military did a pretty good job of learning from their mistakes in Afghanistan, even considering the institutional disruption of the collapse of the USSR - better, IMO, than the US learned from Vietnam. Most of the reasons why we worry about Putin's reformed military today are rooted in changes that began in the aftermath of Afghanistan.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
The point is that if the USSR had survived into 1993 it is likely Soviet Afghanistan would as well. South Vietnam didn't exist as of 1975 and the United States still exists. And before you say it no the Afghan War had little to nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Technically, "Soviet" Afghanistan lasted until 1990. Under Najibullah's government, the reformed DRA tried to portray themselves as an "Islamic" government and removed communism from their political program.

Obviously, it didn't help them win hearts and minds in the end. Too much bad will from a decade of war.

It's also worth noting that the aid given from the USSR wasn't just used for purely military purposes. It was also used to bribe various factions to not fight the government. The loyalty of said factions was always nebulous.

Basically, once the "original sin" of the 1978/1979 Saur Revolution was committed, the Afghan Communists were living on borrowed time.

To their credit (for lack of a better phrase), the Soviets borrowed a lot of time for them.
 
Well, the Soviet military were actually achieving their aims.


EDIT: Also, the Russian military did a pretty good job of learning from their mistakes in Afghanistan, even considering the institutional disruption of the collapse of the USSR - better, IMO, than the US learned from Vietnam. Most of the reasons why we worry about Putin's reformed military today are rooted in changes that began in the aftermath of Afghanistan.

fasquardon

I'm curious to hear more about this. The Soviet-Afghan War's effect on modern Russia is something that I've always been interested in, but haven't heard too much about.
 
I'm curious to hear more about this. The Soviet-Afghan War's effect on modern Russia is something that I've always been interested in, but haven't heard too much about.

It's still a thing I am learning about myself. There were big improvements to the rations however (see here for an example of the "mountain rations" invented for Afghanistan) and they reformed their force structure to emphasize smaller and more flexible formations (the Battalion Tactical Groups or BTGs) that would be better able to fight in small wars but not as good for a full-on slugging match in the North European plain as the old inflexible Soviet formations.

Also, the Soviets and the Russian successor state was working on professionalizing the army and trying ways to improve relations between conscripts, the professional officer corps and the contract soldiers. (That end of the reforms has gone worse than America's post-Vietnam efforts to professionalize their forces and clean up problems like homosexual abuse and drug abuse, but it seems real progress has been made.)

Basically, once the "original sin" of the 1978/1979 Saur Revolution was committed, the Afghan Communists were living on borrowed time.

I wouldn't call the Saur revolution the "original sin". More like the breaking point of the slow-motion train wreck that was 70s Afghan history.

And from what I can tell, in the 80s the Communists had the support, or at least acceptance of urban Afghans. A minority of the country, to be sure, but a minority that included everywhere of any economic importance in Afghanistan.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:

niky12345

Banned
Notice the difference? The Soviets killed so many people that the population decline is obvious on the graph
Why Soviets and why killed?
80 percent of the fighting was conducted by government troops.Soviet troops lost only 10,000 soldiers in combat.The Afghan government has lost 50000.

The decline in the population of Afghanistan was caused by the emigration of millions of people and famine
The rebels killed a lot too
 
Last edited:

niky12345

Banned
A social catastrophe is unfolding in Afghanistan. 2008 was the seventh consecutive year of drought and poor harvests and as many as 8 to 10 million people face starvation as the harsh winter sets in and snow falls isolate rural communities. The worst affected provinces are in central and northern Afghanistan where US and NATO forces have exerted almost unchallenged control since the 2001 invasion and claim to have spent billions of dollars on reconstruction and development.

A minimum of 6 million tonnes of wheat and other cereals are needed to feed the country's population, which has swollen to nearly 30 million after the return of refugees from Pakistan and Iran. Last year just 3.5 million tonnes of cereal were produced with the entire crop being lost in some areas

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/01/afgh-j09.html

Is it the fault of the American troops?
 
Is it the fault of the American troops?

The troops? No. But I think it is the responsibility of the American coalition to care for the country they are occupying.

Just like the Soviets were responsible for the country while they were the ones calling the shots there and just the way both states were/are responsible for their own populations.

Claiming the power of the gun over a population should (and increasingly does) come with certain responsibilities.

fasquardon
 
Top