Vietnam, a unwinnable war?

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Until Tet.
The mass graves at Hue got their attention. After that point, ARVN recruitment went up, as did with the RF/PF Militia.
But even before that, there were plenty of Refugees from the North, who knew exactly what Ho had innthe works.

True.

Tet is far too late to really fix the problem though. The US will be well into 'get out' mode, and even if Nixon drags his feet on pulling men out, he's not about to invade Laos with hundreds of thousands of men - be political suicide if he did. Hell, they got a huge backlash from just launching a few small raids across the border.
1972 and 1975 are proof enough that even Tet didn't galvanise enough support for SV. Some? Sure. Not enough to save the situation.

- BNC

 

[Smokey2018]

As Nixon in the spring of 1970 anticipated that he was really going to get political heat for the Cambodian Excursion that he launched and was braced for high U.S. casualties at that point ( in fact U.S. hostile deaths for May 1970 were the highest since August 1969) could he at that point go for broke and launch at the same time limited excursions in Laos using U.S. ground forces as the Cooper-Church amendment prohibiting the use of U.S. ground forces outside of the borders of South Vietnam was not in place yet?

 

[Raferty]

I disagree certainly they become that but it was not inevitable. There were opportunities for the west to be the helping hand and we squandered them (generally in favour of maintaining colonialism),

Also socialism =/= communism. (certainly not as in we must fall under International communism's umbrella of influence). However I do agree that many in the west say any ideas along the lines of socialism as having to be red blooded communism and drew lines accordingly, but that was half the problem, we drew lines and forced some groups to be on one side of them or teh other. Unsurprisingly those groups given few other options end up making teh most of the options they are left with on the side of the line they were on. Plus of course the USSR and Chinese were more than happy to step into the gap we left!

Because yes if you have been a colonised people, the basic ideas of socialism do sound kind of attractive, but frankly the "OMG reds under the bed" attitude drove a lot of people who really just wanted a fairer society than the colonial one they had started off with (and ironically they often saw the US model as the goal) to say OK fuck in then I'll have an AK not an M14 because if I'm going to be hung I might as well be hung for a wolf as a sheep, and at least if I have the AK I might not get hung at all.

This utterly ignores the agency of the group in question. The "land reform" campaign, which involved systematic dispossession of landowners and richer peasants, was a dogmatic Communist approach to the issue. The bait and switch, of land distribution followed by collectivization, was part and parcel of governance. The Viet Minh had planned to do this since the 1930s, and once they took power, they carried it out. This wasn't just land theft, either. It involved executions and repression. The attempts later on in the 50s at mitigating the initial damage were minor at best, as they had already ruptured village life irrevocably. This was not simply a government that padded out its welfare expenditure, they were active and committed to Maoist practice on the collectivization of land. Neither was the active persecution of Catholic priests, again, which was ideological in nature and not merely from a nationalistic association of Catholicism with France.

 

[TDM]

Except where were they born? The Southern Cadres were near eliminated by 1971, from both Tet and then Phoenix.
Numbers then made up by Northerners.

there was always a pretty hefty number of Northern VC early on as well. And VC had been dying for a while

The North like to claim the VC spontaneously created itself in the south in a burst of anti western / pro-Ho fervour, but the reality was the accents tended to give them away a lot (especially to other Vietnamese)

Don't get me wrong there were obviously southern Vietnamese there, and yes a lot of VC died in Tet (but a lot of those who died in Tet were plan clothes NVA as well, but like I said the distinction between VC and plain-clothes NVA was fuzzy).

Hell it's not like there wasn't Vietnamese born in the south who didn't end up in the NVA anyway!

You have to remember it really wasn't two different countries even after the division

 

[TDM]

This utterly ignores the agency of the group in question. The "land reform" campaign, which involved systematic dispossession of landowners and richer peasants, was a dogmatic Communist approach to the issue. The bait and switch, of land distribution followed by collectivization, was part and parcel of governance. The Viet Minh had planned to do this since the 1930s, and once they took power, they carried it out. This wasn't just land theft, either. It involved executions and repression. The attempts later on in the 50s at mitigating the initial damage were minor at best, as they had already ruptured village life irrevocably. This was not simply a government that padded out its welfare expenditure, they were active and committed to Maoist practice on the collectivization of land. Neither was the active persecution of Catholic priests, again, which was ideological in nature and not merely from a nationalistic association of Catholicism with France.

You seem to have confused me with someone who thinks the Viet Minh were a nice group of people !

But it's really not like land thefts and executions and repression are a solely communist thing anyway. Plenty of that stuff happened under the regimes we supported in order to prevent communism. Hell you just described a lot of post colonial revolutionary action full stop because land rights was often a key issue in colonial and post colonial contexts because a lot of colonial wealth and exploitation was land based.


Basically not every violent land reform is proof of that the people "righting a history of colonial injustices" were or could only ever have been dyed in the wool red communists.

Land ownership was a massive issue in colonial Indochina and it was very high on the list of things to tackle both north and south, the Viet Minh's initial actions post WW2 was one of the driving factor of their popularity post war. So you damn right they planned land reform in the 30's but given the situation in the 30's was:

By the 1930s, one result of French economic exploitation was a serious problem of unequal land distribution.[3] Approximately 80 percent of the population of Vietnam was rural and depended upon agriculture for a livelihood. About one million families—40 percent of the rural population of southern Vietnam—were landless tenants.[4] In Northern Vietnam about 21 percent of the rural population was landless and another 35 percent owned only very small parcels of land.[5] Out of a total population of Vietnam of around 25 million in 1940, 7 or 8 million people were probably landless peasants.[6] The country's richest agriculture region, the Mekong delta, was considered one of the five worst areas in the world for the prevalence of landlessness and tenancy among its inhabitants.[7]
For the more than 70 percent of the population in the Mekong Delta who were landless or rented land to supplement their small holding, "Rentals were as heavy as any to be found in Asia -- 50 percent of the crop. The tenant had to provide his own hut, tools, and livestock, and hire supplementary labor at the height of the season....By the time the tenant had discharged all his obligations, his share of the crop was roughly a third of the total."[8]

So that's not really much of a surprise nor does the mere fact they were planning land reform make them hardened Marxists at that point.

Your time line is also the wrong way round the Viet Minhs started with a more softer approach post war , and then rectification stated mid 50's onwards. i.e. it got heavier handed later.

The irony is in the south after 1954 Diem introduced Ordinance No. 57 which involved the government taking a lot of land and redistributing substantially less than it took and was unpopular with many because it undid the Viet Minh's work when they had been there prior!

Ordinance 57 resulted in the reverse of what was the objective of land reform advocates: large landowners and landlords increased their influence, especially in the important rice-growing area of the Mekong Delta.[18] The ordinance remained in effect until 1970, but was largely unutilized after 1960 as the Viet Cong insurgents took control or disputed government control of most of the rural areas of South Vietnam.[19]

Then there's also the point that even by 1967 and the hand to the Tiller programme was motivated by the continued popularity of the Viet Minh and land reform with the South Vietnamese peasants.



P.S. Persecution of catholic priests was partly ideological in nature but that could easily be the ideology of Vietnamese nationalism not hardcore communist 'opium of the people' stuff (i.e. Buddhism over Catholicism), and also later in the context of Diem's attitude to Catholicism vs. Buddhism. However this gets further complicated by groups like the Hoa Hao / Cao Dai almost as a third grouping opposed to both the Viet Minh and Diem for awhile

 

[marathag]

You have to remember it really wasn't two different countries even after the division

I like to compare Vietnam's unification, to the English making the UK.
A lot of different groups, with little in common, differences in language and religion, and disputes going back centuries.

Like Hadrian's Wall, and Annam Gate, for the Scotland/England divide and Wales to the Champa of the Central Highlands, and Ireland as the Khmer.

 

[TDM]

I like to compare Vietnam's unification, to the English making the UK.
A lot of different groups, with little in common, differences in language and religion, and disputes going back centuries.

Like Hadrian's Wall, and Annam Gate, for the Scotland/England divide and Wales to the Champa of the Central Highlands, and Ireland as the Khmer.

With the added complexity of colonial times.

 

[FesteringSpore]

I like to compare Vietnam's unification, to the English making the UK.
A lot of different groups, with little in common, differences in language and religion, and disputes going back centuries.

Like Hadrian's Wall, and Annam Gate, for the Scotland/England divide and Wales to the Champa of the Central Highlands, and Ireland as the Khmer.

Yes but no

The sheer amount of Vietnamese in comparison to the minorities makes it so that Vietnamese minorities can’t just break off a la Scotland, and besides Vietnam had been united by various dynasties for more than a thousand years anyways. The North/South division was, to be honest, an artificial division imposed by outsiders. It’s (kind of) like Korea. (Yes I know comparing the Korean War to the Vietnam war is a big no no but still) Sure, the two Koreas may be separated by two different governments and 70 years’ worth of diverging culture, but at the end of the day they both think of themselves as Koreans, not different ethnicities. It’s the same with Vietnam; even in a world where SV survives the people and government will think of the north “They’re scary and crazy but they’re still Vietnamese”, and vice versa.

I disagree that he was a communist through and through, at least not for long periods of time or that he could only have been a communist given other options. The problem is with the whole HCM and Co. were inevitably going to bring about a violent communist regime, is it's working backwards through history.

I disagree with your disagreeing

But more seriously the core cadre of the Politburo had been deeply affiliated with the Vietnamese and then Indochinese Communist Party for decades. Uncle Hồ, Lê Duẫn, Trường Chinh, Phạm Văn Đồng and the rest had been thinking of revolution and hiding out in caves and plotting their ideas for a very long time. Just because Hồ was willing to broach the prospect of negotiating with the United States doesn’t mean he automatically becomes a friend of the US. He was just willing to do whatever it took to get Vietnamese independence, but once he gets it, he’s going to turn it Communist faster than you can blink. It’s just how it is. Man was a Communist through and through, he was just more willing to explore more options abroad before committing to war.

 

[FesteringSpore]

There was a poster above who argued that a communist united Vietnam in 1945 would be like Tito’s Yugoslavia and I tend to agree, although not fully- Vietnam has China always to worry about. If anything, it would be pro-Soviet enough to ensure Soviet protection from China, but otherwise they wouldn’t do much and mostly keep to themselves

 

[TDM]

I disagree with your disagreeing

But more seriously the core cadre of the Politburo had been deeply affiliated with the Vietnamese and then Indochinese Communist Party for decades. Uncle Hồ, Lê Duẫn, Trường Chinh, Phạm Văn Đồng and the rest had been thinking of revolution and hiding out in caves and plotting their ideas for a very long time.

Yes, they had most certainly be thinking of revolution see me previous post about why. And communism was a the pretty leading brand of anti colonial revolution in the area. (especially given China)

Just because Hồ was willing to broach the prospect of negotiating with the United States doesn’t mean he automatically becomes a friend of the US. He was just willing to do whatever it took to get Vietnamese independence, but once he gets it, he’s going to turn it Communist faster than you can blink. It’s just how it is. Man was a Communist through and through, he was just more willing to explore more options abroad before committing to war.

You going to have to support your claim that his innate dedication to communism is going to trump the line in bold if the west gave him the option.

A common theme that ran through independence movement in SEA and elsewhere was this perhaps naïve assumption that the US particularly given it's own foundation and cherished and espoused values of freedom and self determination would support their claims for independence from European colonialism. Now obviously we know the world was always going to be more complicated than that* and the US had several priorities in the post-WW2 world going on at once here. But what is not top priority for the US is still top priority for independence movements who aren't going to wait patiently while the US concentrates on making European colonial powers feel better about themselves. Especially as many of those independence movements in this area had just spent years fighting the Japanese!

Sorry I'm not saying it was the US's fault (they can't be all things to all peoples after all), but post war the winners and thus the powers who got things done were in no particular order (except China, sorry China):

1) colonial European powers GB and France(-ish), well they're not going to be promoting colonial independence anytime soon

2). The US

3), The USSR

4). China (on a more regional level than the others)

So in this context it's the US or the USSR or China depending on how close you are, and so if it not the US....


*of course if they asked a Filipino about the US and anti-colonialism...

 

[FesteringSpore]

Yes, they had most certainly be thinking of revolution see me previous post about why. And communism was a the pretty leading brand of anti colonial revolution in the area. (especially given China)



You going to have to support your claim that hi innate dedication to communism is going to trump teh line in bold if teh west gave him the option.

I will

do that

It's just that I have a hard time believing your counterclaim, that HCM would just give up Communism if the West gave him a blank check to do what he wanted

It would be more like a somewhat more pro-Soviet Tito's Yugoslavia, in my opinion.

But I am going to go research trawling

A common theme that ran through independence movement in SEA and elsewhere was this perhaps naïve assumption the the US particularly given it's own foundation and cherished and espouse values would support their claims for independence from European colonialism. Now obviously we know the world was always going to be more complicated than that* and the US had several priorities in teh pstWW2 world going at once here. But what not top priority for the US is still top priority for independence movements who aren't going to wait patiently while the US concentrates on making European colonial powers feel better about themselves, especially as many of those independence movements in this area had just spent years fighting the Japanese!

Yes. I agree here that people won't just sit around waiting for someone to give them independence, they will do anything they can to take it.

 

[marathag]

besides Vietnam had been united by various dynasties for more than a thousand years anyways.

They were only really united after 1800.
Germany had been united under various dynasties too since Charlemagne, but not real unification till 1871.
Vietnam was only united for a short time before the French bill for 'Help' in the last North/South Civil War, came due.
And then promptly took over everything that wasn't China or Thailand.

 

[FesteringSpore]

They were only really united after 1800.
Germany had been united under various dynasties too since Charlemagne, but not real unification till 1871.
Vietnam was only united for a short time before the French bill for 'Help' in the last North/South Civil War, came due.
And then promptly took over everything that wasn't China or Thailand.

No?

Vietnam was a unitary political unit from Ngô Quyền up until Mạc Đăng Dung did a stupid, and even after the Trịnh and Nguyễn lords divided the nation the division was largely political, culturally they were still quite similar.

It's just that back then Vietnam was only in the north, and slowly expanded southwards by extirpating the Cham. But it was one country, unlike Germany which spent hundreds of years as the decentralized Holy Roman Empire.

 

[TDM]

I will

do that

It's just that I have a hard time believing your counterclaim, that HCM would just give up Communism if the West gave him a blank check to do what he wanted

It would be more like a somewhat more pro-Soviet Tito's Yugoslavia, in my opinion.

But I am going to go research trawling

I think it's because while he did become communist he didn't start out as that instead starting out being pretty enamoured of the US. And while he doe go communist in teh 20's IMO it still communism in service to the Vietnamese nationalism (he'd been knocked back by the US post WW1 as well after all)

Don't get me wrong he's not going to build a model society or anything even with US aid, and I suspect he's always going to end up on the dictatorial scale anyway (he's a man with dreams of how things should be). But well that not going to stand him out from the crowd of those we supported.

So i think communist ticks three big boxes for Ho,

1). its route to Vietnamese Independence

2). it's a system that will allow him to be drive what happens next

3).Post WW1 Communism is looking a bit more shiny and new than we see it today, it's (and I realise it's weird word to use with todays hindsight) aspirational depending on where you standing in a post WW1 world. Like I said the big question was land reform and basically redistribution, well communism stalks good game in that regard. And well WW2 comes round and it looks like Communism can effectively deliver on the world stage*.

I don't think Tito's Yugoslavia is a very good comparison given the difference between the red army and USSR/Warsaw pact for Yugoslavia immediate post war compared to China and teh Viet Minh immediate post war


*but this is a matter of perspective, positioning and lack of hindsight, its kind why we boggle at Hitler's sort fo vague popularity in India, a lot come down to different perspectives, and well Uncle Ho was talking to a lot of newly "liberated" by communism eastern Europeans!

Yes. I agree here that people won't just sit around waiting for someone to give them independence, they will do anything they can to take it.

And they'll take the help they can get


P.S. I think there is a temptation at times to view communism as either some kind of taxonomic classification that you inherently are, or some kid of irreversible brainwashing cult that once your in your in you in for life (especially by those who have a more "better dead than red" background) but reality is more fluid than that especially revolutionary reality which is often full of less than ideal options. And while we kind of know now communism is pretty much a dead end so it's easy to assume those who follow it can only do so out of blind ideology. For a lot of the C20th it was seen as a practical alternative and so there were practical reasons for following it.

 

[FesteringSpore]

I don't think Tito's Yugoslavia is a very good comparison given the difference between the red army and USSR/Warsaw pact for Yugoslavia immediate post war compared to China and teh Viet Minh immediate post war

I'm still trawling Vietnamese-language sources for evidence but I will say that I used Tito's Yugoslavia as an example because Yugoslavia (from what I'v read, at least) was relatively not so much in the Soviet sphere as its fellow Warsaw Pact members, and indeed even Vietnam itself post-1975.

I used Yugoslavia as an example because I suspected that in the event of a 1945 US blank check to Vietnam (gosh I do love using that sentence) it would something like that- not exactly as subservient to Moscow as it was in real life but leaning on Moscow to balance the juggernaut of China next door

 

[Anglocalvinist67]

From a purely military perspective I think the US could have won the war with bloody minded enough tactics such as, for example, bombing the dikes and flooding much of North Vietnam, and committing to a ruthless bombing campaign against Ho-Chi-Minh City.

HOWEVER, given that we were misled into the war and never actually declared war, I don't see how total war tactics could be justified politically or morally. That's been the big problem for U.S. policy since the Korean War, IMO.

 

[FesteringSpore]

Ho-Chi-Minh City.

that used to be Sài Gòn, or Saigon in English

Imagine bombing your own ally's capital, I think you mean Hà Nội.

 

[Emperor of Pennsylvania]

Having the French military take Vietnam back from the Japanese before the surrender of Japan would prevent the August Revolution, which would end the Indochina War in a capitalist victory before it could even begin.


But, I don't think that's what you mean by "winning the Vietnam War." Realistically speaking, the only way to have an American victory in the Second Indochina War/Vietnam War is to prevent the demoralization of the USA and widespread domestic opposition to the war from occurring.

I don't know how exactly to achieve that, but some things that would help are a) having a more stable South Vietnamese government (possibly by having Ngo Dinh Diem not persecuting Buddhists and generally being more sane), b) preventing the My Lai massacre, and c) somehow turning media focus on the Tet Offensive away from "oh my god, we're losing the war" and towards "oh my god, the Viet Cong is killing civilians in Hue."

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Did the VNQDD ever have enough popular support to potentially be the capitalist anti-communist nationalist movement that could have supplanted the Viet Minh?

 

[Belisarius II]

This is good example of the law of unintended consequences. Because why its certainly physically possible for the US to do that, you basically talking about boarding international ships (possible in international waters) and threating Cambodia a county you are ostensibly trying to support in ist own post colonial civil war . It's false threat anyway the US wants to supply Cambodia with aid so it can keep Cambodia on it's side of the line.

Stopping ships in international waters would be unnecessary, unless the Cambodians refused to cooperate. Having American officials monitor customs inspections of suspect ships would be enough to get the job done. You can't say you want to be a U.S. Ally, while saying we reserve the right to smuggle in arms to be used against you in a war. The United States had more leverage over Cambodia, then Cambodia had over the United States.