A good question to ask first is "what is meant by winning the war". A big reason why the US failed in Vietnam and a big reason why it withdrew was that they had no real idea what a victory in Vietnam would look like. I mean the sheer cost of men and material that went into Nam is staggering when compared to what was actually accomplished during that time. Any long term victory would either end much the same as it did in our timeline, just later or require an essentially endless occupation that would cost millions of lives and in the end mean very little.
Vietnam, a unwinnable war?
- Thread starter Luciano7477
- Start date
I think people thought that defending South Vietnam would be the same as defending South Korea. At some point the North would have to accept a stalemate and then the South could use the peace to develop and become democratic.
Such a goal is achievable considering the Paris Peace Accords were a thing. People forget that after the accords were signed, the North only tried to take the South AFTER the US had completed withdrawn.
The issue is that much of the South didn't particularly like or want the people they had in power. Even if the North didn't invade the South would likely fall into discord very quickly and result in either more intervention from the West or more likely the North being invited in to take over.
People could say the same thing about South Korea's dictatorship.
marathag
Banned
given the 1975 refugee streams away from advancing PAVN troops, what ever makes you think they would ever get invited in?
There is no way the US could have won the war in Vietnam without using nuclear weapons, commiting genocide on a massive scale, invading and conquering North Vietnam, or basically occupying South Vietnam forever.
80% of the Vietnamese people supported the communists. And this fact doesn't change just because the US uses even more violent tactics and commits mass murder on an even larger scale than they allready did in OTL.
Cutting of the Ho-Chi-Minh trail basically means occupying Cambodia and Laos. And it has to be noted that the King of Cambodia allowed North Vietnamese forces to pass through the country (North Vietnam never invaded Cambodia). As for Laos, the NVA occupied the nations' eastern territories with the help of local guerilos. And, as was allready noted by other people on this thread, occupying Cambodia and Laos will cause even more people in Indochina (if that's even possible) to hate the US.
South Vietnam was an artifical pupet state, a state that never had popular support and was kept alive only through american arms. And the more violence the US uses, the more vigorously the people will hate them.
It's also basically the american version of the Dolchstoßlegende. What many americans fail to realize, is that the US didn't loose because "weak politicians", "leftist media", or "stupid hippies that didn't understand the Domino Effect" ostensibly stabbed them in the back. They lost because they were foreign occupiers that oppressed a free born people with utmost brutality.
80% of the Vietnamese people supported the communists. And this fact doesn't change just because the US uses even more violent tactics and commits mass murder on an even larger scale than they allready did in OTL.
Cutting of the Ho-Chi-Minh trail basically means occupying Cambodia and Laos. And it has to be noted that the King of Cambodia allowed North Vietnamese forces to pass through the country (North Vietnam never invaded Cambodia). As for Laos, the NVA occupied the nations' eastern territories with the help of local guerilos. And, as was allready noted by other people on this thread, occupying Cambodia and Laos will cause even more people in Indochina (if that's even possible) to hate the US.
South Vietnam was an artifical pupet state, a state that never had popular support and was kept alive only through american arms. And the more violence the US uses, the more vigorously the people will hate them.
Would you mind providing a source? Furthermore, as a german, I'm very hesitant to use the word "concentration camp" in another context than that if the Third Reich. Equating Vietnamese labour camps with Treblinka or Auschwitz is simply wrong.
That's dehumanizing. Every sane human beeing has to agree that "just killing Vietnamese people untill there are non left to fight back" is no solution.
It's also basically the american version of the Dolchstoßlegende. What many americans fail to realize, is that the US didn't loose because "weak politicians", "leftist media", or "stupid hippies that didn't understand the Domino Effect" ostensibly stabbed them in the back. They lost because they were foreign occupiers that oppressed a free born people with utmost brutality.
Last edited:
Republic of Vietnam had to reconcile and ally with the Buddhists from Day One..
When settling refugees from the north after population exchange, Catholics shouldn’t be given privileges.
The political-military strategy in Vietnam copied that of Malaya, which was by all means successful. But would the Malayan Counter-insurgency go well if the Malay sultans were replaced with, say, a small group of Protestants from northern Borneo?
Speaking of Malaya, despite all its failures, Malaya (and later, Malaysia) has always had a parliamentary democratic system. If a similar system could be established in South Vietnam, we wouldn’t have a lack of legitimacy problem in Vietnam.
When settling refugees from the north after population exchange, Catholics shouldn’t be given privileges.
The political-military strategy in Vietnam copied that of Malaya, which was by all means successful. But would the Malayan Counter-insurgency go well if the Malay sultans were replaced with, say, a small group of Protestants from northern Borneo?
Speaking of Malaya, despite all its failures, Malaya (and later, Malaysia) has always had a parliamentary democratic system. If a similar system could be established in South Vietnam, we wouldn’t have a lack of legitimacy problem in Vietnam.
marathag
Banned
And had no adjacent countries hosting hostile military forces that were directly aiding and controlling guerrillas, let alone active Military Units doing active combat
Prevent Watergate from leaking out, 1975 Offensive is halted on its tracks, and RV may last until North musters enough forces again in 1980 or 1981. And then there would be a Reagan Admin.
It’s a French Colony.I don’t see how Wilson could get the French to leave.
If the goal is to have Korean style divided Vietnam then Chinese could do the job if China-North Vietnam relations spoils earlier than IOTL. That would make conquest of the South too risky for North Vietnam if China could backstab them.
They lost due to a combination of all the factors mentioned by both you and the poster you replied to.If they had done well in one department, they could have reasonably won.I’d argue that as a dictatorship today, the Vietnamese were no more free than they were before the US intervention.Let’s not forget the massive purges and refugee crisis following the fall of South Vietnam.Huge numbers of South Vietnamese clearly did not welcome Northern ‘liberation’.I would also argue that American lost precisely because it became a more civilized country.If the Americans were really fighting with utmost brutality, like the way they treat the native Americans, the Vietnamese are fucked.None of the parties in the war fought clean.I think we should all be reminded that the North Vietnamese had quite a lot of dirt as well,but a lot of people are somehow willing to give them a free pass.
Last edited:
Quoting a source from the early 1950s doesn't represents the beliefs of the Vietnamese people in the 1970s. Would also like to point out that 80% probably means 100% in North Vietnam and below 50% in South Vietnam (and as stated, this is a old source for the time).
And your argument doesn't support the otl situation on the ground. By 1972, the Vietcong had been exterminated, the southern terminus of the Ho Chi Minh Trail mostly disassembled, the Communists had lost the support of the farmers, Ho Chi Minh was dead, and the South Vietnamese military had the military capabilities to stop a conventional NVA invasion without the help of US ground forces(Which they did).
There is a reason why North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords. They new they couldn't win and hoped by making "peace" the US would leave permanently. Had Watergate never happened OR had the US changed its Strategy early on, the US would have continued to provide air support, and the conflict would enter a permanent stalemate, Which like South Korea, gives South Vietnam the time to stabilize, industrialize, and democratize.
The tactical realities on the ground clearly show that the NVA can't win if the US doesn't give up and the Easter Offensive clearly shows the US doesn't even need troops on the ground to beat the NVA.
Would also like to point out that in about 10 years, China will be North Vietnam's biggest enemy, and in 15 years the USSR will collapse.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
In 1973, Eric Sevareid of CBS criticized Solzhenitsyn over his statement that Western media ignored major Communist atrocities in South Vietnam while having more coverage of US misdeeds, like many times the coverage of My Lai over the mass graves at Hue.
Well, about that...
According to various estimates the PAVN/VC was responsible for the death of between 40.000 to 164.000 civilians (the last number comes from a dubious source and is likely way too high. For the sake of fairness I wanted to include it anyway)
Now look at the US/ARVN: The total amount of civilian deaths caused by them ranges between 410.000 (lowest estimates) and 730.000 (highest estimates). And this includes only Vietnam (i.e. not Cambodia or Laos), and it excludes non chemical bombing (which very likely has also resluted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths).
Yes, the PAVN/VC commited warcrimes aswell, however they are in no way comparable to those commited by the US/ARVN. It's as if one compared Allied warcrimes in WW2 to those of the Axis, and then said "well, none of the parties in the war fought clean". Yes it's true, however one sides incredibly horrible warcrimes can't be compared to those of the other.
Last edited:
Do you have a source that deals with the situation in the 1970s?
So obviously both sides did terrible things and we shouldn't whitewash the actions of either side:
However, I think there's a difference (still wrong, but difference nonetheless), of actively lining up civilians and murdering them, and civilian casualties caused by air strikes/bombing campaign.
Not on hand but that doesn't mean you're are right. I can look for one tonight in my library though 🙂