re: the Great Leap Forward. Did you mean the Cultural Revolution? The Great Leap Forward had been over for a few years before American involvement in Vietnam really got going.
US Victory in Vietnam
- Thread starter Fulton 44
- Start date
re: the Great Leap Forward. Did you mean the Cultural Revolution? The Great Leap Forward had been over for a few years before American involvement in Vietnam really got going.
RousseauX
Donor
This was basically tried in OTL Laos and Cambodia invasions I think.
The problem is that this probably involves a significantly bigger US force. The ARVN was not reliable at holding objectives.
RousseauX
Donor
It would probably be easier to peel off the Chinese rather than the Soviets
Ironically enough, in many ways the Vietnam war became pointless once the Chinese flipped over to the US side of the Cold war during the Nixon administration. The strategic and political rational of keeping South Vietnam afloat to contain Communism stopped making sense once the main Asian Communist countries allied itself with the US against the USSR. Especially later on when China actively fought the Soviet oriented Vietnamese both directly and through a Cambodian proxy war.
Last edited:
SwampTiger
Banned
Back to a US victory. The US government, would need to accept the threat of open fighting with the Russians and Chinese. Declare war on North Vietnam, declare a blockade of the north, send China notice that US troops would stop 25 to 35 miles from the Chinese border and invade the north. This would require a competent, non-Catholic South Vietnamese government, a competent ARVN and starting from the first incursions by the North. Will any US President or will Congress agree to this level of force? Doubtful. Once the US agreed to militarily support South Vietnam, but took offensive action on the ground off the list of possible actions, the entire strategy was doomed.
Perhaps sending a Marine Brigade and an airborne division to Vietnam in the early 50's may have saved the French effort in the north. Or an organized, systemic elimination of Communist leaders. However, the tide had surely turned against France and toward independence. The failure of South Vietnam to form a representative government capable of forming a national identity and consensus, and willing to enact true land reform allowed the Communist minority in the South to reorganize and begin building an insurgency. The lack of public support of the government in a large majority of the population exacerbated the situation. North Vietnam assisted the southern insurgency as part of a long ranged program to take power throughout the country. The US and RSV failed to implement a long term coherent strategy. They had finally found a solution, partly because the southern communist leadership grew impatient.Without Tet, later US efforts would have been less successful and much costlier.
Do note, Nixon won at least partly because of his promise to get the US out of the war. The US public was tired of the long, unsuccessful,as viewed from TV, effort to save the South Vietnamese government from itself. Any change in the outcome would have to come much earlier.
Perhaps sending a Marine Brigade and an airborne division to Vietnam in the early 50's may have saved the French effort in the north. Or an organized, systemic elimination of Communist leaders. However, the tide had surely turned against France and toward independence. The failure of South Vietnam to form a representative government capable of forming a national identity and consensus, and willing to enact true land reform allowed the Communist minority in the South to reorganize and begin building an insurgency. The lack of public support of the government in a large majority of the population exacerbated the situation. North Vietnam assisted the southern insurgency as part of a long ranged program to take power throughout the country. The US and RSV failed to implement a long term coherent strategy. They had finally found a solution, partly because the southern communist leadership grew impatient.Without Tet, later US efforts would have been less successful and much costlier.
Do note, Nixon won at least partly because of his promise to get the US out of the war. The US public was tired of the long, unsuccessful,as viewed from TV, effort to save the South Vietnamese government from itself. Any change in the outcome would have to come much earlier.
I'm not sure about getting rid of Sihanouk. Yes, he pretended to be a neutralist but allowed the communist Vietnamese forces to pass through his country without conflict. However, he still had legitimacy among the Cambodian people. In fact, after the coup when Lol Nol took power, Sihanouk threw his support behind the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot against the Khmer Republic. That's why the Khmer Rouge became popular, not because it was communist, but because it had the King's "legitimacy" and support.
"After Sihanouk showed his support for the Khmer Rouge by visiting them in the field, their ranks swelled from 6,000 to 50,000 fighters. Many of the new recruits for the Khmer Rouge were apolitical peasants who fought in support of the King, not for communism, of which they had little understanding."
However, that's exactly what the communist want since they know allied forces wouldn't enter their Cambodian sanctuary. The United States and South Vietnam should continued their incursions anyways and should have done so earlier with Sihanouk in power. I doubt Sihanouk can do much, just like how he let the Viet Cong stay in his country. At worst, it will look bad to the international community but that is just the reality of war.
Actually, Nixon was able to do both in real life. He managed to convince both the Chinese and the Soviets to reduce their aid to the North Vietnamese to abide by the Paris Peace Accords. That was the whole point of his détente talks with the Soviets. And most of you already know how the US moved closer in relationship with the C.C.P during this period. The Soviets also didn't approve the North starting another offensive again in 1975 and didn't know/hear about any plans of the North Vietnamese to do so.
In fact, Nixon and Kissinger wanted to give US aid to the North Vietnamese after the Paris Accords to keep North Vietnam reliant on US aid so that they won't continue to attack the South. However, Congress passed a law that prevented giving aid to the North Vietnamese after seeing how they treated US P.O.Ws so this option was off the table. This is talked about in Black April: The Fall of South Vietnam by George Veith. If there was one Vietnam War book people should read, it is this one.
Yes I believe there were a few tens of thousands of Confederates who fled the reunited US immediately after the war. Generally the die hards who refused (at least at the time) to live under the Star Spangled Banner. A signifigant chunk went to Mexico, more then a few went to Canada, a solid chunk went to Brazil or to other Latin American nations in smaller numbers, and a relative few of the wealthier sort fled to Europe (One of the Lincoln assassination conspirators ended up serving in the Papal Legion during the Italian unification wars). Most I think ended up eventually returning to the US after finally accepting the war was over and the Rebel Cause lost.
The Confederado's remain the most coherent example of the descendants of these exiles. Their ancestors were the most die hard of die hard Confederate fanatics who partially moved to Brazil because it held onto slavery for so long. Ironically enough in the end their descendants have largely become a multi racial multi ethnic group with lots of intermarriage to mixed race, black, Indian, and other groups. They still apparently fly their old Confederate flag at festivals (that have lost their original meaning) but the hand waving the Rebel flag is as often as not black or brown.
I believe some thousands of Mormons (mostly die hards that refused to accept the ban on Polygamy. Not sure what the divide was in that group between members of the main LDS church and the more radical offshoot churches) fled to Mexico in the second half of the 1800's.
Yeah the Irony of the Khmer Rouge gaining power largely thanks to the initial support and political maneuvering of a literal King (or former King I suppose) still strikes me in awe.
What's even more ironic was that the United States and most of the "free" world supported the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese communists even when knowing how evil the Khmer Rouge were with their killing fields. I'm no fan of the Vietnamese communists, but what they did in Cambodia was necessary and may be argued as a good thing. In fact, the whole thing started when the Khmer Rouge started to invade reunified Vietnam and slaughtered Vietnamese people in the thousands. Yet, people only seem to care when Vietnam decided enough was enough and retaliated against these attacks.
marathag
Banned
And the only King ever to be an honored guest in both Red China and North Korea. He spent most of his life away from Cambodia, and when there, schemes that he would be with the elite holding power, no matter if it was the K.R. or not.
His name should be spoken with the same Contempt as Quisling, Petain and Laval.
It was a little more complicated then that. The Khmer rouge were obviously monsters who caused literally unimaginable horrors and were rightfully pushed from power after attacking Vietnam. The Vietnamese then effectively established a colonial regime of their own in Cambodia. Admittedly said colonial structure was far superior to what the Khmer Rouge had done in power (That's a pretty low standard). At least officially the US's strongest support of the Khmer Rouge (after their overthrow not during the Killing Fields period) was to use their veto to prevent the Vietnamese colonial government of Cambodia from being seated at the UN. The Chinese were more the ones providing support and aid to the KR (including invading Northern Vietnam after the Vietnamese retaliated against the KR raids into Vietnamese territory). The KR after losing power kind of did a very weird political 180 and went from genocidal tyrants to forming a coalition with other anti Vietnamese resistance/guerilla groups during the Vietnamese occupation. Then after the Vietnamese withdrew their support for their puppet government and the first democratic elections were held in Cambodia the KR (or at least it's descendant group) ended up emerging as one of the member parties of a coalition government formed largely from the anti Vietnamese guerrilla groups.
I'm kind of underscoring the sheer weirdness of the political maneuvering and evolution involved. I barely understand it myself. The Cold War saw a lot of very strange and seemingly counter intuitive alliances, political maneuverings, and proxy wars but even by those standards it was weird.
Cuirassier
Banned
The Vietnamese communists were also responsible for the existence of the Khmer Rouge. North Vietnam only turned against Pol Pot once he attacked them.
The US was supporting the mad dog because it was biting the hand that once used to feed it.
Did you forget this great irony ?
Sihanouk has to be in the running for the pettiest and most disgustingly self centred man of the 20th century.
You might be right. And that's really really tough competition.
Besides the obvious unimaginably horrible atrocities and genocide the Khmer Rouge carried out the history of the KR's rise to power, actions (besides the genocide) the KR did while in power, and the actions and evolution of the organization after they got booted out of power by the Vietnamese is filled with sheer incredible weirdness. Like the actual leader of KR Cambodia being unknown publicly for the first couple years of it's reign. I think the KR officially just called him "Brother Number One". Which sounds like something literally taken from "1984".
I think the only way to “win” was to pull out all the stops in the south when Diem was removed. If the US had really cleaned house, crushing any corruption, and really proved to the population that their interests and way of life were paramount, then the south would have developed their own nationalism. Unfortunately the US had a bad habit of propping up any regime, no matter how it stank, as long as it professed anti communism. Look at Cuba and Iran. South Korea under Rhee is another example that almost blew up in our faces as well.
ric350
ric350
I think you bring up a very interesting point. I'll put a disclaimer that I am Vietnamese, so this may cloud my judgement.
I'm not sure if calling the government Vietnam put in place a colonial regime is accurate. No doubt, the actions of the newly installed Cambodian regime was placed under heavy scrutiny by the Vietnamese communist. However, I think this is no different than what the Soviets did to other nations in the Warsaw Pact. At best, you can say the Vietnamese attempted nation building similar to what the Americans did in Iraq. At worse, you can say it was a satellite state of Vietnam. I feel like calling it a colonial regime means that the Vietnamese were trying to exploit Cambodia for economical gains which isn't true. The war in Cambodia was costly and made the already dire economy in Vietnam worse. From my point of view, the Vietnamese wanted to put a friendly and stable regime to prevent the Khmer Rouge from returning to power and continue their attacks against the Vietnamese.
Now, I will try to explain this "colonial state" perception. To be honest, Vietnamese and Cambodian people have traditionally been enemies going back centuries. There is great distrust between our people. In fact, Southern Vietnam (Saigon and the Mekong Delta) originally belonged to the Khmer Empire and the Khmer people originally. Around the 11th century, the Vietnamese kings in the north decided to expand their lands through Nam Tien (Southern Advance). The Vietnamese moved south and conquered the Champa people and parts of the Khmer Empire. Along the process, we "Vietnamized" the region by bringing in Vietnamese settlers and often times massacring the local people. This is a dark event in history, but it happened in many other places around the world. In the 1800s, the Vietnam Empire under the Nguyen Dynasty invaded and conquered almost all of Cambodia. The Cambodian King sought help from Siam, but the Vietnamese also defeated the Siamese Empire. However, the Vietnamese decided to decide up Cambodia and give half of it to Siam to ensure future peace. The Cambodia/Khmer King decided to turn to France for assistance which was the first step of French colonization of all of Indochina. You can see why Cambodians distrust Vietnamese people, which leads to this colonial state idea.
There were many Vietnamese people who settled in Cambodia lands when the Vietnamese Empire existed. When the French took over, the migration of Vietnamese people to Cambodian lands continued. This led to a sizable Vietnamese population in Cambodia. The Vietnamese people who were already there in Cambodia (some are now many generation old) were treated as second-class citizens by newly independent Cambodia. Despite the ideological differences between the Khmer Republic (Lol Nol) and the Khmer Rouge (Pol Pot), they both believed in Khmer nationalism. Both were distrustful of the Vietnamese (the South Vietnamese for Lol Nol and the North Vietnamese for Pol Pot). Lol Nol actually massacred Vietnamese-Cambodian people during the Vietnam War and planned to invade South Vietnam to regain formerly Khmer lands. Pol Pot equally distrusted the communist Vietnamese and their cooperation soon ended before the fall of Saigon. Later, Pol Pot would also carry out violence against Vietnamese-Cambodians.
*Before posting this, I looked up the Wikipedia page on Vietnamese-Cambodians and found out there were some later Vietnamese migrants waves during the Vietnamese occupation. I guess this does give credit to the "colonial state" claim. However, I posted this anyways cause I've already talked about the history of Vietnamese and Cambodian people and I thought it would be cool for you guys to know.
No, while it might be deemed 'unlikely' it was no "extremely" so anymore than the US going to war over the Soviets or Chinese sinking American ships going to a Korean harbor. In fact that would be exactly the same because the "war" in Korea has never officially ended and the "war" in Vietnam was never officially declared to be such.
The US, China and USSR ALL 'feared' WW3 but that made them no less prepared to enter just such a self-immolation of a conflict just the same. Want to 'sink' the guiding light of the Revolution? Have it not respond to direct and obvious provication because that means it is weak, powerless and of no conseqence to the world. Harsh words WOULD come first followed by an escort of Soviet Warships with orders to engage and drive off if they can, sink if they must. Ball back in the US court.
If Vietnam had ever been declared or treated like a 'real' war the yes, the US could have declared a blockade and legally interdicted ships headed to North Vietnam ports. But doing so outside a declared war, (cough Cuban Missile Crisis cough) is in fact an ACT of war. Likewise is sinking unarmed merchantman.
Tough choice? Yep but that's why those in power and the military THINK THROUGH each and every possible scenerio and prepare, game and modify responses.
Oddly enough you have the US "projecting" itself onto the USSR 'rather' thank looking at what they say.
"We will bury you"
"We are turning Missile out like sausges"
"Exporting the Revolution will always be the basis of the Revolution" and so on.
The US was actually aware that we had an advantage through the early 70s over the Soviets but as Europe, not Asia was the priority the conflict in Vietnam was always treated as the 'sideshow' it was. When it became clear that it could not be won short of committing forces and resources that the US was unwilling to commit, (which would have involved commiting more forces and resources that were already dangerously low in Europe) the conflict ended.
As others have stated the goals in Vietnam were never clear or firm nor was US commitment to 'winning' even if that HAD been defined politically. We were, in the end, there to prop up the South in the hopes of it at least becoming another South Korea but that would have taken a government and population more commited to becominig such and the US was just never going to be able to impose that from the outside.
The US learned a lot of valuable lessons in Vietnam just as we did in Korea but almost none of them actually applied outside technical areas to the main focus of Europe. Probably the biggest issue of the aftermath of the Vietnam war has been that while the US military learned some lessons from Vietnam not so much the public and polticians... Which is arguably the worst outcome...
Randy
Unfortunatly that was litterally on North Vietnam as they'd been warned quite often by outside governments and both China and Russia, (especaily China who were still dealing with ill-feelings from the US over the Korean war) that mistreating the US prisoners systmatically as they did would have negative consequences for any post-war normaiization with the US. But they needed to do something internally due to the US Air Raids and that was seen as the most effective way to 'solve' the problems of civilian morale. (It appears there was more than a 'little-bit' of a thumbing their noses at the Chinese in the matter as well since the US was being extremely careful around the border with China but no where else and how 'freindly' the US and China were getting as time went on) It in no way helped that there was no declared 'war' between the US and North Vietnam which in essence "legally" removed the POW status of US prisoners anyway but in this case it would have helped a huge amount externally to go above and beyond in the treatment of the US prisoners but that was always unlikely to happen.
It's arguable that it didn't work in either case but it especaily hurt any possible near-term reprochment with the US and arguably set up the decades of US oppostion 'on principle' that followed.
Have to check that one out, thanks.
The problem was/is that back then "regime change" wasn't acceptable to the majority of the American public and being that heavy handed would likely have finished any local support from the population. And while that's pretty much what ended up happening anyway they US simply wasn't in a postion where they could have pulled something like that off. It's pretty much the whole reason we went in for 'support' instead of trying to find an actual 'solution' to other nations problems. It became fixed in the US political landscape and hasn't grown any smaller or been handled any better since. And in the end it's US domestic issues and policy that will always be the primary driver for US interest or intervention in other nations and their conflicts.
The US does pretty well in a straight, pretty mucy "black-and-white" conflict... Introduce the slightist hint of gray and we flounder...
Randy
I didn't forget this great irony. Simply put, I was trying to justify the Vietnamese intervention into Cambodia in the late 70s. It is true that the North Vietnamese was responsible for the existence for the Khmer Rouge since they allowed the Khmer communists to reside in their Cambodian sanctuaries. There was a logical reason for this since they need someone to cause trouble for the new Khmer Republic that was more diligently ant-communist and US- friendly which had also just deposed Sihanouk. However, by 1973, the Vietnamese were no longer supporting the Khmer Rouge. In fact, now it was China who was supplying the most help to the Khmer Rouge against the Khmer Republic.
Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia
I hope you don't take offense from me saying this. However, a lot of people make general claims like getting rid of corruption, installing efficient leaders, and hearts and mind like it is easy. However, where are you getting these magical incorruptible officials without flaws? The CIA certainly didn't find them and was a bad judge of character. It should be said that the Vietnamese population was largely rural and illiterate, which limits the pool of possible government servants. In addition, for a poor country crippled by war that couldn't pay its own soldiers and officials, is it a surprise that there is corruption?
I would argue the biggest mistake was deposing Diem. Diem in fact was criticized for his "oppression and lack of freedoms", not because of the military situation. In fact, from 1955-1963, the South Vietnamese military were fighting and winning against the small communist insurgency at the time in the country side. This is documented in "Triumph Forsaken" by Mark Moyar. The United States sent a Secretary of State (I think) and a general to assess the situation in South Vietnam and to judge the Diem government. The general went to the countryside and assessed the security and the armed forces. He gave a very positive review. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State stayed in Saigon and talked to "intellectuals" and political rivals who would say that Diem was an evil oppressive man. When they returned to Washington, Kennedy famously asked if they went to two different countries.
Diem had flaws surely. No doubt was there that he was a nepotist and he favored Catholics. However, his favoring of Catholics and Buddhist oppression is largely overblown. He constructed many pagodas for Buddhist and many cathedrals and churches for Catholics. He allowed greater religious freedom than the French ever did. While there were many Catholic officials, that is more due to the previous French regime. The French would hire and prefer Catholics who were educated to work for them as government administrators. When the French left, Diem would hire people with experience which would be these Catholic officials. Even then, there were many Buddhist officials in the country. I will pull up the numbers sometime soon.
Someone said something about creating a Buddhist government. They did try to do that. There was a period of time where a man named Pham Huy Quat (a Buddhist) was in power, but the Buddhist militant faction didn't stop their demands even after the government caved in. Under his government, South Vietnamese was extremely inefficient and weak from the political conflicts that rose. Finally, Generals Thieu and Ky lead a coup and also crushed the militant Buddhist faction in 1966. Until the end of the war, the Buddhist faction lost all their political power and had little effect on the popularity of the war among the Vietnamese people. This isn't to say that this regime was a Catholic-dominated state. Essentially, it got rid of religion from the consideration of being a government official. This is what the government should have been. A secular government, not one dominated by Buddhists or Catholics like many of you suggested. There were many popular high ranking and influential Buddhists in the government. One was General Ngo Quang Truong who commanded the I Corp, stopped the 1972 Easter Offensive, and was ranked as the best Vietnamese general by fellow American military officers. In fact, he was a teacher of Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., who later led the US in the Gulf War in the 1990s.
Who did the CIA/US put in place? They decided to put those "political rivals" and the generals who participated in the coup into power. The results were disastrous because these people didn't know how to govern at all. This time was characterized by political infighting and multiple more coups. Meanwhile, the situation in the countryside deteriorated and support for the Viet Cong rose because the government failed in providing basic security to the people. It wasn't until General Thieu led the final coup and seized power for himself that the South gained stability and focused more on fighting the communist than itself.