US Victory in Vietnam

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That was extremely unlikely. The fUSSR and even China were frightened of WW3 occurring. The problem was that the US projected it's own self onto the fUSSR rather than look at what the fUSSR leadership were doing/saying. WW3 which was likely to go nuclear was the fUSSR's greatest fear. They were the "guiding light" of Revolution, what better way to snuff out the "guiding light" than a few well placed nuclear bombs? A few missing ships? Unlikely to provoke much except a few harsh words.



Not from the Vietnamese viewpoint. The Chinese were interlopers, recent migrants to the country. The other minorities were minor groups of malcontents. Either they could shape up or ship out. The Chinese were expelled because of long standing tensions exacerbated by the PRC's invasion of 1979. Who are we to criticise their treatment of their minorities? Look at how the US treats it's Native American population and it's blacks. Look at how Australia treats it's native population. We are hypocrites according to the Vietnamese.
Whataboutism doesn't cut it as defense of ethnic cleansing.

Not even close. The U.S. actions toward the Native tribes/bands was deplorable. Take you pick of any similar event in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st Centuries and it is deplorable. Defending any of them is actionable.

Kicked for a week.
 
Ky and Thieu need to make nice. The Marshall turned liquor scholar had long term thinking. The Chiefs son, knew how to keep HK on side.
 
Pilger has a reputation of false claims, including claiming in his book Hidden Agendas that civilians died in the 'Highway of Death' during the Gulf War. This is despite no journalists ever claiming they saw civilian bodies and no photographs being published of such while there were hundreds of photos of dead soldiers.

Do you have a link I can read about that?
 
Nixon never had an intention to win the war.. his intention was to make a show of it, and conclude an "decent interval" peace with the North that ultimately sells out the South in a way he can blame the democrats for. The last appropriation from the congress for South Vietnam was half of what Nixon requested, but also roughly twice what the South requested.. Nixon could blame the democrats for the loss since they did not approve his inflated ask.. and they only did that because he was already paying for the war at that point with printing money which was driving inflation and putting us at odds with NATO allies.
Citation?
 
Tactics didn't bother JFK, he greenlit what the CIA was doing in Guatemala, after all.

He didn't like that he was getting bad press. Monks burning themselves up on film was very bad press.
JFK did not like bad press. That's why he had to go. He just didn't expect to coup to be so bloody and clownishly carried out.
though I liked the post I do not fully endorse it.. there is truth to it, but Kennedy still did care about tactics. Though he left the decision on the coup to a vote of his advisors in 63 he was dead in a few months so it might be a stretch to go to far in inferring blood thirstiness or an unwillingness to muzzle excesses.

sorry for the shortness of the post or any misspellings I am having a wicked seizure aura at the moment and can barely read the screen
 

Though I got the information from a different source this touches on it and cites their source: Nixon's own tapes, his own private words.
Your article is responding to the assertion, as I understand, that Congress cutting aid in 1975 was to blame for the fall of South Vietnam; my point is earlier cuts, starting in 1973, that lasted up until that point (i.e. 1975) were to blame.
 
Your article is responding to the assertion, as I understand, that Congress cutting aid in 1975 was to blame for the fall of South Vietnam; my point is earlier cuts, starting in 1973, that lasted up until that point (i.e. 1975) were to blame.
read it a bit more deeply.
The really damaging part is the exchange between Nixon and Kissinger wherein essentially Kissinger tells Nixon that he has signed Vietnams death warrant and the quotes about the decent interval peace he pursued.

there is a particularly insightful bit In the first comment of the comment section quoting an exchange during the last appropriation. that highlights how things were done to a degree in prior ones: The full amount might not be authorized but everything would be made whole later in a supplemental and they were always made whole.. always.. if they had receipts for expended ordinance
 
Last edited:
I return to my original concept and premise. The creation of a "McNamara Line" blocking the Ho Chi Minh trail and cutting off infiltration from the north may well have been the path - and the only path - to victory as I defined it.
Personally, the said line should be a part of a "grand scheme". As in a major McNamara Line. Below is a rough screenshot from google map
1590065423370.png

The red mark is Ben Hai River, the geographical (and temporary, later turn pernament) division of Vietnam (it effectively runs along the 17th parallel). For a line to be effective, you need the McNamara to go all the way through Laos, nearly reaching Laos - Thailand border. The line should not only consist of electronic sensors, but also firebase - and I mean firebases like the freaking Dien Bien Phu fortress in 1954. Sure, 16k French troops there were beseiged by 55k Viet Minh troops, and later loss, but if you apply "American know how" (read: air, material and money supremacy), it will work.

I reckon that you need around 50k troops for garrison and near-patrol, at minimum. And a good excuse to why do you also cut Laos in half.

***********************

Personally though, the most effective and throughout way for the US to "win" would be killing all Vietnamese (or at least, 70% of the population, if we use the benchmark as 80% would vote for Ho Chi Minh in the referrendum-to-be of 1956). The driving force for Vietnamese back then is the desire to see their Motherland united (spearheaded and proven by the Vietnam Communist Party or Vietnamese Worker Party back then) as well as the desired to avengne their fallens. The first would need a long-arse indoctrination of "US supremacy" (and preferably, apply the trick of the Brit on the Chinese Qing dynasty and the French on Vietnamese people: poison the populace with vices, opium, and such). The second would work, as long as some guy in the top command of the US flips the switch on genocidal.
 
Do you have a link I can read about that?
About the absence of civilian dead on the Highway of death? Here is Pilger's claim. I personally learned this from a forum post that briefly touches on Pilger and cites this article on military and civilian dead in the Gulf War that is a compilation and summary of reports from various journalists. You can look up the those specific journalists if you want more.

If you want pictures of the dead, here is a gallery by photojournalist Peter Turnley that was made in protest of the upcoming Iraq War. Note the captions and text that discuss what exactly Turnley witnessed.
 
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.
Veith is a great writer. Ky knew how to govern. I think some carrots to Hanoi would be helpful.
 
The really damaging part is the exchange between Nixon and Kissinger wherein essentially Kissinger tells Nixon that he has signed Vietnams death warrant and the quotes about the decent interval peace he pursued.
Hughes may claim that Nixon was letting S. Vietnam die after an interval, but others do not believe so.

See this post by David T:

Things would be cleared up if you could show Nixon's own words admitting to it.
 
Laos, might have survived, as the dispute was between brothers, without the nationalist tinge of Vietnam, or the madness of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
 
Personally, the said line should be a part of a "grand scheme". As in a major McNamara Line. Below is a rough screenshot from google map
View attachment 549869
The red mark is Ben Hai River, the geographical (and temporary, later turn pernament) division of Vietnam (it effectively runs along the 17th parallel). For a line to be effective, you need the McNamara to go all the way through Laos, nearly reaching Laos - Thailand border. The line should not only consist of electronic sensors, but also firebase - and I mean firebases like the freaking Dien Bien Phu fortress in 1954. Sure, 16k French troops there were beseiged by 55k Viet Minh troops, and later loss, but if you apply "American know how" (read: air, material and money supremacy), it will work.

I reckon that you need around 50k troops for garrison and near-patrol, at minimum. And a good excuse to why do you also cut Laos in half.

***********************

Personally though, the most effective and throughout way for the US to "win" would be killing all Vietnamese (or at least, 70% of the population, if we use the benchmark as 80% would vote for Ho Chi Minh in the referrendum-to-be of 1956). The driving force for Vietnamese back then is the desire to see their Motherland united (spearheaded and proven by the Vietnam Communist Party or Vietnamese Worker Party back then) as well as the desired to avengne their fallens. The first would need a long-arse indoctrination of "US supremacy" (and preferably, apply the trick of the Brit on the Chinese Qing dynasty and the French on Vietnamese people: poison the populace with vices, opium, and such). The second would work, as long as some guy in the top command of the US flips the switch on genocidal.
I have assumed 150,000 troops - with posts (30) every five miles including ferrocement blockhouses helicopter landing pads, roads linking everything up - every third post(10) is a major operation with a hospital, ammo dump, airport etc. Artillery all over the place. Tactical airbases nearby in the rear for quick deployment. Multiple layers of land mines, barbed wire, tank traps on level terrain. sensors, frequent patrols forward into enemy territory, etc. A really big deal.
 
Hughes may claim that Nixon was letting S. Vietnam die after an interval, but others do not believe so.

See this post by David T:

Things would be cleared up if you could show Nixon's own words admitting to it.
And a lot of people did not believe that he derailed the '68 talks.. but with the notes detailing the operation coming to light in the last few years they have been definitively proven wrong. As nice as it would be to have Nixon monologging his evil plan like a Bond villain it should be as necessary as a video of your parents putting the coins under your pillow to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.

He sold them out.
 
And a lot of people did not believe that he derailed the '68 talks.. but with the notes detailing the operation coming to light in the last few years they have been definitively proven wrong.
Stop erecting strawmen.

Nixon did not change Thieu's mind.
As nice as it would be to have Nixon monologging his evil plan like a Bond villain it should be as necessary as a video of your parents putting the coins under your pillow to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.
These are a lot of words to say nothing meaningful.

You posted an article by Hughes, who gave his opinion, so I posted a counterclaim.

If you believe Hughes is more reliable then surely you have the damning evidence about Nixon's "true" intentions ?
 
Stop erecting strawmen.

Nixon did not change Thieu's mind.

These are a lot of words to say nothing meaningful.

You posted an article by Hughes, who gave his opinion, so I posted a counterclaim.

If you believe Hughes is more reliable then surely you have the damning evidence about Nixon's "true" intentions ?

Still not Nixon saying it.. but Kissinger on his behalf. To quote from the link:

But a transcript prepared by Kissinger's own aides of his first meeting with Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai reveals how willing Nixon was to sacrifice America's credibility abroad to preserve his political credibility at home. As Kissinger explained it, the president would agree to complete withdrawal of American troops in return for Hanoi's release of American prisoners of war and a ceasefire ("say 18 months or some period").

"If the agreement breaks down, then it is quite possible that the people in Vietnam will fight it out," Kissinger said (as historian Jussi Hanhimaki found). "If the government is as unpopular as you seem to think, then the quicker our forces are withdrawn, the quicker it will be overthrown. And if it is overthrown after we withdraw, we will not intervene."

And a small section of Nixon's own words is in this segment: ...Nixon privately told Kissinger when a settlement first appeared within reach: "I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably is never gonna survive anyway. I’m just being perfectly candid." Not with the American people. He promised "peace with honor," but delivered delayed defeat. To avoid a South Vietnamese collapse before Election Day and for a "decent interval" after, Nixon sacrificed 20,000 American lives.

Last bit I am going to post from the link..Nixon shifted the blame for defeat in Vietnam onto Congress shortly after the last troops and POWs came home. On June 29, 1973, he informed Congress that he would accept a complete ban on U.S. military action in all of Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) even though (1) Republican, Democratic and neutral vote counters agreed he had enough support to sustain a veto of such a bill (2) earlier that week Congress had sustained his veto of a weaker bill covering just Laos and Cambodia. Nixon claimed Congress tied his hands, but he tied his own.

Nixon is also the one thru the pentagon leaning on the South Vietnamese to cut back on their ammunition usage, despite congress not putting up much of a fuss on funding replacement of every round fired.. IIRC it was Maither doing the leaning and that starts in 1973. It builds a positive feed back loop if complied with wherein the South's combat effectiveness drops off and they start looking passive and therefore a bad risk for further funding. Which leads us to the last $1.1 billion ask, which became a $700 million 60 day stabilization (half of which was for training US rangers), which Kissinger told the committee would be followed by a $1.3 billion ask.. in total near enough to double the amount for a casual conversation.

The price of the opening with China was South Vietnam, he paid it.
 
Top