Did US Soldiers that Died in Vietnam "Die in Vain?"

[Nickdfresh]

This question came up last night in the US Democratic Presidential debate...

What do you think?

[Nickdfresh]

The video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtSrmfBHkZQ).

[Panzerknacker]

I dont think so, they hold the comunist forces, not for many time but I dont think it could be called "in vain" , is very disrispectful with the heroes of that war.

The big issue would be to define the deaths of the todays conflict.

[32Bravo]

My belief is that the US could never have won in Vietnam, and it was folly to have become involved. However, the poltics of the time dictated the course and pace of events.

Strategically, one could argue that US troops died in vain (as did the Vietnamese of both sides), but the same could be said of troops fighting in many a lost cause. Tactically, many US soldiers gave their lives to support their comrades, and, in my opinion, they can only be judged by those that served with them.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Strategically, one could argue that US troops died in vain (as did the Vietnamese of both sides), but the same could be said of troops fighting in many a lost cause. Tactically, many US soldiers gave their lives to support their comrades, and, in my opinion, they can only be judged by those that served with them.

I agree here. This is a tough question. Personally I dont think they died in vain........more like a really bad misunderstanding that got alot of people killed. The people from both sides died in an important part of history. You have to remember is was not the job of the soldiers to question the validity of the conflict. They were sent there to fight. Even if they didnt believe in the cause they were at least fighting to save their friends.

[Rising Sun*]

First we need to define what we mean by 'in vain'

Some idiot candidate on the video, trying to be all things to all men and thus to himself was not true (the natural state of all politicians), said that they didn't die in vain because they followed the orders of their Commander in Chief (blah blah blah try to keep Middle America on side without upsetting anyone a bit further left blah blah blah because I want everyone to vote for me because in the end, like all politicians, I stand for nothing but me).

Following the commander in chief's orders wasn't a great defence at Nuremberg. All the Germans who did so, like the Japanese, died in vain. On my definition.

vain(vn)
adj. vain·er, vain·est
1. Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt.

Idiom:

in vain
1. To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+vain

The American deaths in Vietnam were, on that definition, in vain.

Doesn't matter what view you take, the least the American involvement in Vietnam was ever intended to do was ensure the survival of an anti-communist SVN government for various reasons.

It didn't.

Every one of the poor bastards who died and was wounded, on both sides and from various countries, was some mother's son.

The only side whose casualties, on the definition I've put up, weren't in vain were on the side opposed to the Americans.

[32Bravo]

First we need to define what we mean by 'in vain'

The only side whose casualties, on the definition I've put up, weren't in vain were on the side opposed to the Americans.

They didn't die in vain from the point of view that they were fighting, and succeeded in, their cause. However, having already demonstrated their ability to win, against the French, it was an unnecessary waste of lives which they had no option but to offer in order to further succeed against the US.

If anything was vain and futile, it was the anti-communist cause.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Would you say all those in that died in the cold war died in vain? The losing side in this case being the soviets. All those soviets died in vain? I dont think so and im sure the people that served with them didnt think so either. In both cases they died doing their duty.

[32Bravo]

Would you say all those in that died in the cold war died in vain? The losing side in this case being the soviets. All those soviets died in vain? I dont think so and im sure the people that served with them didnt think so either. In both cases they died doing their duty.

My comments were focussed entirely on French Indo-China/Vietnam. Could you please elaborate?

[Gen. Sandworm]

My comments were focussed entirely on French Indo-China/Vietnam. Could you please elaborate?

Actually that was directed at RS.........didnt see that you responded 1st.

[Rising Sun*]

In both cases they died doing their duty.

I think that's the same point that I derided when made by the candidate in the video.

If dying while doing one's duty means that one's life is not lost in vain, then it's about time that the Japanese stopped moaning about being nuked. It was their duty, military and civilians, to die for the Emperor. The people who were vaporised and who died of wounds and radiation sickness should be bloody proud that they didn’t die in vain, as should their current descendants, to bring to an end to a war they lost.

I may be out of step with you and others, because at heart I'm a pacifist.

I can't think of any war that made it worth the death of anyone in the long run.

Sure, we can argue that WWII was the good war to fight against Nazism and fascism and the brutal Japanese etc, and I'm not saying it wasn't at the time, but what was the result?

All sorts of corrupt geo-political and international trade shit that desecrates the memory of even one soldier who died in that war.

By 1960 Japan, run by a war criminal Prime Minister conveniently let off by the Allies, was exporting transistor radios and stereos and cars and a range of other goods to America which was secretly funding the war criminal’s election campaigns to prevent communists gaining control in Japan in democratic elections forced upon Japan by Macarthur / America / Allies after the war.

Was that worth John Doe from Wisconsin or Dakota or wherever dying for, so that his fatherless son could have a cheap Japanese transistor?

By 1960 the Germans were exporting Volkswagens around the world. They were the vehicle of choice for the anti-war, anti-Vietnam crew in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Meanwhile there were Jews, a few of whom I knew at the time, who would never have anything made in Germany. Many, perhaps most, well-off Jews here now drive Mercedes, BMW and Audis. It means they’ve arrived. Their parents and grandparents must be spinning in their graves.

As for Vietnam, what is it now?

A cheap holiday destination with interesting trips for the brave through the tunnels that housed soldiers who shot and mined and knifed the Americans who didn’t die in vain?

A country like China trying to combine the astonishing wealth of 19th century laissez faire capitalism with preservation of the ruling communist elite?

...

I would never deride the actions of individual soldiers, but one has to go beyond that to look at whether their actions were in a worthwhile cause.

So far as the individual soldiers, American or otherwise, in Vietnam were concerned, I don’t think their actions were in a worthwhile cause, primarily because SVN wasn’t worth the trouble to anyone except the corrupt crew who ran it and steadily destroyed it for years while sucking in external support to bolster their corrupt and doomed regime.

Cut through all the crap and Vietnam was just WWII China all over again with a different set of crooks to Chiang and his motley crew, as is Iraq now.

Same shit, different arseholes.

None of it worth one American, or any other external, soldier dying for.

[Rising Sun*]

Would you say all those in that died in the cold war died in vain? The losing side in this case being the soviets. All those soviets died in vain? I dont think so and im sure the people that served with them didnt think so either. In both cases they died doing their duty.

Not a lot of soldier deaths in the cold war and, leaving aside some accidents like Gary Powers, very few related to uniformed or acknowledged national enterprises.

Granada was probably hotter, although not as hot as Clint Eastwood tried to make it in the embarrassing "Heartbreak Ridge", which, although it seems impossible, was even more embarrassing that John Wayne pretenting to be a soldier on celluloid. :D

[Rising Sun*]

They didn't die in vain from the point of view that they were fighting, and succeeded in, their cause. However, having already demonstrated their ability to win, against the French, it was an unnecessary waste of lives which they had no option but to offer in order to further succeed against the US.

This is where it gets awkward.

After flogging the French, were they aggressors or defenders?

This gets into the whole border and election things that drift into SVN, not to mention Buddhist / Catholic and various other issues, including American support (or interference, depending upon one's view) for internal groups.

Sort of Ulster on the Mekong, but without the Apprentice Boys March.

[32Bravo]

This is where it gets awkward.

After flogging the French, were they aggressors or defenders?




It does, but to the Vietnamese, it's all a part of the same campaign.

After the defeat of the French, it could be foreseen that conventional forces and tactics would not succeed against them.

[Firefly]

The short answer is NO they didnt, their cause may have been in vain, but I dont think they thought they were giving their lives for a vain cause. Not in the beginning anyway.

It would take much too long and too much detail to cover the ins and outs of this conflict in anything other than the volumes of books that have been written about it.

[32Bravo]

The perception was that the Vietnamese were fighting a communist war, to spread the good word. In effect they were fighting an anti-colonialist war. The US ought to have empathised with them, but were tied up in the doctrine of the domino.

We can all apreciate that the majority of the US troops were doing their duty, and one can argue, therefore, that they did not die in vain.

As far as the mission is concerned, and whether that was in any way successful, and not a forlorn hope, one could ask: what would have happened if the US had not become involved after the departure of the French?

For example: the politics of China were somewhat different in 1954 as compared with 1974.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think if someone is going to make the assertion that people died in vain that this must imply that those that didnt die fought in vain. I only know a couple of Vietnam vets and I know they dont think that. On the otherhand.....let say the US and her allies won. Do you think the Vietnamese would say all their ppl died in vain. I dont think so. They died a rather honorable death in their eyes.

[32Bravo]

When it comes to perspective, the Vietnam War is like looking through a kaleidoscope.

'In the midnineties Vo Nguyen Giap participated in discussions held in Hanoi between an American delegation led by wartime U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and a group of Vietnamese historians, retired generals, and former diplomats. McNamara hoped to examine wartime "misunderstandings" between the two countries and identify possible "missed oportunites" for negotiating an earlier end to the war. An initial exchange between McNamara and Giap revealed a fundamental difference in their historical views of the war:

MacNamara: "We need to draw lessons which will allow us to avoid such tragedies in the future."

Giap: " Lessons are important. I agree. However, you are wrong to call the war a 'tragedy'. Maybe it was a tragedy for you, but for us the war was a noble sacrifice. We did not want to fight the United States, but you gave is no choice."

[SS-Master]

I don't think they died in vain, however the Vietnam war was a disaster.
They lost the war and many Americans died that's the only thing that counts.

[32Bravo]

I was watching 'Good Morning Vietnam'. I found the scene were he is among truckloads of GI's who are going to the war, particularly moving.

[Nickdfresh]

You know I was watching "Forrest Gump" the other night, and I think the scene of the ambush in which Forrest's platoon is wiped out is as powerful a war scene as any in cinema. I kept thinking about this thread. But I have a problem with these sorts of questions that seek to impose an absolutionist, black-and-white explanation for what is a massively complex, and painful, era.

I think one has to look at this question on two levels, the macro and the micro. Taking on the "micro" level first, I should have to say that yes, 58,000+ and several hundred thousand (if not millions) of Vietnamese perished in this conflict that was in many ways mutually destructive and has been described as the "war everybody won, and (paradoxically) everybody lost," died in vain. They were ultimately undermined by a cynical political establishment in Washington, DC (the Pentagon Papers clearly show that the war was unwinnable in any conventional sense), as we were undermined by a corrupt, unpopular Saigon regime(s) and a series of politicians that had been essentially the 'collaborators' with the French with little credibility. However, on the macro level, I think one can draw some silver linings out of the dark clouds of US war dead, along with the billions$ tossed away.

The United States would ultimately win the Cold War, or at least avoid a global nuclear exchange. Did Vietnam ultimately play a role in this? Perhaps. While many conservative US politicians seek to refight the war, and frame it as a national shame in which is almost characterized as a sports contest that we lost, Vietnam showed, the USSR & China, that the US was willing to sacrifice a good deal of its blood and treasure on even fruitless, lost causes. It showed that the US would never abandon more fertile allies such as the ones Europe and south Asia. I think the Soviet perspective, contrary to what many would believe, is that the US also had the genesis of combat hardened army (despite the enormous damage wrought on it by the war) and an experienced officer corp. The US also developed a new age of high tech. weaponry such as laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, and revised, more realistic tactics, which would again serve a a deterrent to potential aggression. So it's all a mixed bag I suppose. But that being said --the US should have extricated itself far sooner that it did...

[Chevan]

The US also developed a new age of high tech. weaponry such as laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, and revised, more realistic tactics, which would again serve a a deterrent to potential aggression. ..
i have to say this the developing of weaponry by the such way is irrational;)
In fact the USSR also developed its AAA-systems. In Vietnam were firstly succesfully appicated the Strela-1 - the soviet analog of the Stingers.
So the from the military sence this bloody war ( there were 2 millions of perished Nick , not one;)) was a deadline.You could modernize the wearpon as much as could but the political price were a very hight.
US loses was a great but not war sence- it was a political loses.

[32Bravo]

Off topic here, chaps, but surely the causes of the collapse of the former Soviet Union are at least as complex as the issues raised over Vietnam. To say that the US won the cold war, is a sweeping over simplification. Perhaps, an example of post-cold war propaganda? :D

[Rising Sun*]

the US should have extricated itself far sooner that it did...

If it had, the benefits you see in its engagement would have been reduced in proportion to however early it got out.

Anyway, when should the US (and Korea and Australia) have got out?

The best time to have got out was before any of us got in. 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

With hindsight, the worst time to get out was anywhere before Tet in '68, when it would have left strong VC and NVA forces to attack the SVN forces. As it was, the US, SVN and allied forces mauled the VC and blunted the NVA in and soon after Tet.

After Tet, the reasons for getting out were political rather than military.

Paradoxically, if the US etc had got serious after Tet they might have won. Assuming they rejected militarily suicidal ideas like not crossing the DMZ.

But they couldn't win, because they were fighting for a bunch of corrupt arseholes, just like supporting Chiang and the Nationalists in China in WWII was doomed to suck the guts out of the external forces in support of people not worth supporting who were playing their own internal games with their own and other peoples' lives and money.

I still think that the Americans who died in Vietnam died in vain.

This can be argued any number of ways, but here's a clear and simple argument.

The original and maintained American strategic aim was to maintain the status quo in SVN.

It, and the crooks and thugs who ran SVN, weren't a status quo worth maintaining.

To put it in different terms, a cop who dies stopping a crook to protect the community hasn't died in vain.

A cop who dies protecting a crook because his corrupt superiors have deceived him into doing it has died in vain.

The Americans who died in Vietnam were like the latter cop.

[Rising Sun*]

To put it in different terms, a cop who dies stopping a crook to protect the community hasn't died in vain.

A cop who dies protecting a crook because his corrupt superiors have deceived him into doing it has died in vain.

The Americans who died in Vietnam were like the latter cop.

Just to clarify that point.

I'm not trying to diminish the individual commitment to duty, the courage, or the sacrifice of the people who died in either case.

It's just that I think only one of those cases can be regarded as the loss of a life in defence of something good or worthwhile, which qualifies as not dying in vain.

[Nickdfresh]

i have to say this the developing of weaponry by the such way is irrational;)

Yes. But sometimes also inevitiable...

In fact the USSR also developed its AAA-systems. In Vietnam were firstly succesfully appicated the Strela-1 -...

True, there is little question that the USSR benefited from analysis to tactics and weapons systems on both sides...

However, the USAF finally discovered that making high-speed nuclear delivery aircraft that lacked maneuverability and versatility was a serious mistake (AKA The F-105 "Thud" Thunderchief). The F-15, F-16, F-14, & F-18 are all direct results of the realization of this sort of inflexibility and simplicity...

And in a real war, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces would not have benefit of a worldwide air-traffic control net that would inform them of inbound B-52 flights...;)

[Nickdfresh]

If it had, the benefits you see in its engagement would have been reduced in proportion to however early it got out.

Anyway, when should the US (and Korea and Australia) have got out?

The best time to have got out was before any of us got in. 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

With hindsight, the worst time to get out was anywhere before Tet in '68, when it would have left strong VC and NVA forces to attack the SVN forces. As it was, the US, SVN and allied forces mauled the VC and blunted the NVA in and soon after Tet.

After Tet, the reasons for getting out were political rather than military.

Paradoxically, if the US etc had got serious after Tet they might have won. Assuming they rejected militarily suicidal ideas like not crossing the DMZ.

But they couldn't win, because they were fighting for a bunch of corrupt arseholes, just like supporting Chiang and the Nationalists in China in WWII was doomed to suck the guts out of the external forces in support of people not worth supporting who were playing their own internal games with their own and other peoples' lives and money.

I still think that the Americans who died in Vietnam died in vain.

This can be argued any number of ways, but here's a clear and simple argument.

The original and maintained American strategic aim was to maintain the status quo in SVN.

It, and the crooks and thugs who ran SVN, weren't a status quo worth maintaining.

To put it in different terms, a cop who dies stopping a crook to protect the community hasn't died in vain.

A cop who dies protecting a crook because his corrupt superiors have deceived him into doing it has died in vain.

The Americans who died in Vietnam were like the latter cop.

You know, there is a theory (which plays into Garrison's JFK Assassination conspiracy theory) that John F. Kennedy was considering withdrawing any significant US support for the Saigon regime after "Pres." Ngo Diem was assassinated in the first of many coups. And that Johnson intensified the conflict only in order to push through his "Great Society" liberal reforms. This was so he couldn't be labeled a "pinko" or soft on communism effectively removing any real domestic political opposition which had been otherwise discredited as latently racist...

When should we have gotten out? I'd say about 1944-45, when we enabled a (reluctant) French command to reenter Indochina. Because you know, Ho Chi Minh worked for the OSS (CIA forerunner) and was first and foremost a nationalist...

Or Eisenhower could have just allowed free elections in 1958...

It is not hindsight, it was lack of foresight...

[Nickdfresh]

Off topic here, chaps, but surely the causes of the collapse of the former Soviet Union are at least as complex as the issues raised over Vietnam. To say that the US won the cold war, is a sweeping over simplification. Perhaps, an example of post-cold war propaganda? :D

I agree. But didn't the Soviet system really begin to feel its endemic failures by the mid-sixties?

And aggression was not an option in solving these problems...

[Rising Sun*]

You know, there is a theory (which plays into Garrison's JFK Assassination conspiracy theory) that John F. Kennedy was considering withdrawing any significant US support for the Saigon regime after "Pres." Ngo Diem was assassinated in the first of many coups.

Kennedy is usually presented as not understanding that he'd approved the assassination.

We'll never know.

We'll also never know how the Diem Catholic suppression of the Buddhists and the Catholic Kennedy's thoughts combined before JFK decided to cut them loose.

When should we have gotten out? I'd say about 1944-45, when we enabled a (reluctant) French command to reenter Indochina. Because you know, Ho Chi Minh worked for the OSS (CIA forerunner) and was first and foremost a nationalist...

Or the other Allies should have just treated the defeated Vichy French (as distinct from elements of the French people) from 1940 as the selfish frogs they were, trying to hang on to their navy and colonies while keeping a foot in both the Allied and Axis camps in the hope of coming out of the war intact.

The French surrender of Indo China to Japan was critical to the Japanese invasion of Malaya and, in turn, to the Japanese conquests of the Philippines etc.

I think the French have the distinction of being the only Allied nation to collaborate with the enemy; regain a colony they'd surrendered to the enemy; and then promptly lose it to the indigenous people who went on to defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

[ww2admin]

I didn't read all the respones here, so hope I'm not repeating something that was mentioned.

I think they did not die in vain because you have to look at Vietnam today and see that it's a very successful and prosperous country. The Vietnam war spurred globalization to that region and at the end of the day you have people more interested in their economy and business, not civil wars and war lords.

Maybe Iraq will be the same some day and the current war is just a catalyst.

[Rising Sun*]

I think they did not die in vain because you have to look at Vietnam today and see that it's a very successful and prosperous country. The Vietnam war spurred globalization to that region and at the end of the day you have people more interested in their economy and business, not civil wars and war lords.

That may be true, but it's not what America was fighting for and not what its men died for.

If anything, it's what the NVA and VC died for, not that that was what they were fighting and dying for in an earlier era of rigid communist theory and practice.

As usual, lots of little men die in droves so a few big men can profit. On both sides.

[Nickdfresh]

I would also like to that the communists never really stamped out American culture, nor the distinct South Vietnamese way of life...

Ho Chi Minh City? Who were they kidding?

[Nickdfresh]

Kennedy is usually presented as not understanding that he'd approved the assassination.

We'll never know.

We'll also never know how the Diem Catholic suppression of the Buddhists and the Catholic Kennedy's thoughts combined before JFK decided to cut them loose.


I think the overall perception was that Kennedy and Diem had some personal ties that belied politics and genuinely liked each other. I think what Kennedy hated his Imperious "court" of advisers such as the "Dragon Lady," Madame Nhu...

He wanted Diem out, alive. But the cold blooded, needless, murder only perhaps reinforced his notions that Diem wasn't the real problem in Saigon and that the whole system was rotten.

We'll never know for sure if this is just a romantic JFK-apologists take --since he was murdered not long after...

And make no mistake, JFK's Catholicism was purely symbolic. He was as horrified as anybody at the anti-Buddhist pogrom.

Or the other Allies should have just treated the defeated Vichy French (as distinct from elements of the French people) from 1940 as the selfish frogs they were, trying to hang on to their navy and colonies while keeping a foot in both the Allied and Axis camps in the hope of coming out of the war intact.

The French surrender of Indo China to Japan was critical to the Japanese invasion of Malaya and, in turn, to the Japanese conquests of the Philippines etc.

I think the French have the distinction of being the only Allied nation to collaborate with the enemy; regain a colony they'd surrendered to the enemy; and then promptly lose it to the indigenous people who went on to defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

The Vichy French actually attempted to resist Japanese demands, but they didn't have much choice...

I'm not going to solely blame the French for this. Even the French commander that 'retook' Vietnam in 1946, Gen. LeClerc, expressed serious reservations about reestablishing a colonial outpost, and his mandate also had the intent of negotiating with the Viet Minh after securing Vietnam rather than just reimposing French colonialism.

What happened after was a comedy of errors that the Viet Minh are not absolved from, and one that led to 30-years of bloodshed.

In any case, it was Washington, DC and London that allowed the French to attempt to feebly recapture the pre-War greater glory of France...

[32Bravo]

I agree. But didn't the Soviet system really begin to feel its endemic failures by the mid-sixties?

And aggression was not an option in solving these problems...


Tell me more, Nick.

[32Bravo]

I didn't read all the respones here, so hope I'm not repeating something that was mentioned.

I think they did not die in vain because you have to look at Vietnam today and see that it's a very successful and prosperous country. The Vietnam war spurred globalization to that region and at the end of the day you have people more interested in their economy and business, not civil wars and war lords.

Maybe Iraq will be the same some day and the current war is just a catalyst.


Ho Chi Minh had the same thoughts regarding warlords and mandarins.

What the war did promote in the south, was corruption on a huge scale - and about ten varients of syphlus.

As for justifying Iraq, that's absurd. If Iraq does emerge from the current quagmire in any form that is considered civilised, I doubt that it will be as a direct result of what we in the West are doing today. More likely it will be in spite of what is happening.

Globalisation, is ruining the natural habitats of most of the countries of South East Asia which have embraced it. It is also doing a pretty good job of destroying the planets ecosystems.

[Nickdfresh]

Tell me more, Nick.

I thought you already knew...

Off topic here, chaps, but surely the causes of the collapse of the former Soviet Union are at least as complex as the issues raised over Vietnam. To say that the US won the cold war, is a sweeping over simplification. Perhaps, an example of post-cold war propaganda? :D

Perhaps. but the US didn't lose the Cold War, either. Did they? Despite being tied up in major land combat for almost eight years (1965-1973)...

[32Bravo]

I thought you already knew...

Maybe, maybe not - would be interested in hearing your your opinions.


Perhaps. but the US didn't lose the Cold War, either. Did they? Despite being tied up in major land combat for almost eight years (1965-1973)...


No, they didn't lose the cold war, neither did they win it, in the usual sense of the term. More to the point, the Soviet Union lost it.

Egorka once accused me of habit. At first I misundertood his point, then I came to realize that he was speaking of cultural habit. Again, that is something that I rebel against, but I still find myself, at times, of being guilty of it. it's really about stepping back and taking a broader view.

[Chevan]

I agree. But didn't the Soviet system really begin to feel its endemic failures by the mid-sixties?

...
No Nick , may be it hard believe for you but the most progrees of USSR was in the 1970-yy. In this period the Soviets had a great political world influence.
The crisis come to the surface in beginning of the 1980 when the Soviets were tied with the unpopular war in Afganistan.
I personally think that there were no REAL crisis in USSR. It was simply political and informational provocation.
I think the market reforms that could get out the soviet economic from the hole - could be much effective if the ComParty could saved the power at least till the end of 1990-yy.

[Chevan]

However, the USAF finally discovered that making high-speed nuclear delivery aircraft that lacked maneuverability and versatility was a serious mistake (AKA The F-105 "Thud" Thunderchief). The F-15, F-16, F-14, & F-18 are all direct results of the realization of this sort of inflexibility and simplicity...

True he Vietnam obviously showed the unreability of such aircrafts like F-104 and Mig-21 , and later generation of fighters goes another way.

And in a real war, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces would not have benefit of a worldwide air-traffic control net that would inform them of inbound B-52 flights...;)
I've read in the mid of 1970 the Soviat Strategic Rocket Forces were rise to the giant sizes- the more then 1000 of strategical rockets.
This is mean the absolut paritet with USA ( who had the air quantity superiority a that time).
So B-52 really would not play any significant role in possible nuclear conflict.

[32Bravo]

The point is, chaps, the Soviet collapse was due to economic factors induced by over-extended foreign and domestic policy, which was exacerbated by the arms race.

[Nickdfresh]

No Nick , may be it hard believe for you but the most progrees of USSR was in the 1970-yy. In this period the Soviets had a great political world influence.
The crisis come to the surface in beginning of the 1980 when the Soviets were tied with the unpopular war in Afganistan.
I personally think that there were no REAL crisis in USSR. It was simply political and informational provocation.
I think the market reforms that could get out the soviet economic from the hole - could be much effective if the ComParty could saved the power at least till the end of 1990-yy.


I agree. Especially if the Communist Party had become The Socialist Party, and gradually allowed the privatization of property from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down. I think unfortunately, the Oligarchs were chosen over the "mom & pop stores" (small businesses) causing a shock from which my basic understanding is that Russia is only just recovering from...

[Nickdfresh]

Maybe, maybe not - would be interested in hearing your your opinions.

No, they didn't lose the cold war, neither did they win it, in the usual sense of the term. More to the point, the Soviet Union lost it.

Okay, I'll admit saying that "we won the cold war! USA! USA!" is a bit simplistic. But the West did withstand a serious threat from communism in the form of third world liberation movements and the like.

There is substantial evidence that the Soviet system was really beginning to gradually implode as early as Kruschev's tenure. It is known that those, even amongst the most ardently ideological in the Kremlin, were beginning to realize that the command economy simply did not work well in peace time, and that economic crisis was becoming endemic and perpetual. Perhaps there were some that thought the only way out was a direct military confrontation with the West?

Just speculation, that's all...

Egorka once accused me of habit. At first I misundertood his point, then I came to realize that he was speaking of cultural habit. Again, that is something that I rebel against, but I still find myself, at times, of being guilty of it. it's really about stepping back and taking a broader view.

You know, it's funny. I mod another board, where right wing conservative bush-loving assholes have accused me of being a "communist," or a "jihadist."

Then I read some of my statements on this board which perhaps put me as a "nationalist," more in line with Reagan. :shock: Oooof!

I certainly do not buy the crock that 'Reagan won the Cold War' or that the West was militarily weak and 'defenseless' until 1981. Both assertions are patently false as the US build-up was in a sense continual, but interfered with by Vietnam. And intelligence factions continually exaggerated Soviet military power and sustainability. Nixon, Ford, and Carter all funded new weapons systems that were themselves a direct result of the experience of the Vietnam War. While Vietnam did irreparable damage to the US Army, which may have had its 'golden age' between the mid-point of Korea (about 1952) and about 1968.

I think my comments also have to do with the fact that many in America, and in the West in general, view Vietnam as merely a humiliating defeat that made America look a weak paper tiger. My alternative view is grown out of a realization that to our potential enemies, even our military 'quagmires' can be interpreted as a sign of strength. (I've even heard speculation that the US, and even the Japanese, involvement in Iraq has disconcerted the Chinese gov't.) The US still demonstrated enormous firepower in Vietnam. Something that was of only limited use against an agrarian society, but still a huge problem, as the fact is that the Soviets would have to contend with if they ever struck into West Germany, where artillery and air strikes would have been far more effective against a mechanized army advancing on an open plain. Then, there is the Korean War...

If you watch the film "Pork Chop Hill," you'll notice that it is an allegory for the final days of the UN/US involvement in the Korean War, a period of extremely contentious negotiations between obstinate, politically determined Chinese and NK negotiators and the US/UN contingent, which were operating on more conventional notions of Western diplomacy. But, the final phase of Korea, after about the midpoint of 1951 or so, was dominated by what amounted to static warfare punctuated by periodic mini-offensives conducted by both sides. The premise was that the Chinese were continually "testing" the US to see if it was willing to do more than just kill PLA soldiers through vastly superior firepower. The senior US officers soon came to the conclusion that real question was: "Was the United States prepared to sacrifice its men for what amounted to strategically worthless hills, merely to make a political point." And so, men were by-in-large sent to their deaths and ordered to hold territory that was pretty much useless in order to do little more than to show that the US was indeed willing to accept casualties. Whether or not Vietnam was a continuation of this notion, I can't say with any certainty. But I can say that Vietnam showed that the US gov't WAS willing to sacrifice its young men in futile causes.

What impact this had, no one can say for certain. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that there was no impact. And I will also say that it was never worth it in the end...

[Nickdfresh]

dupe.

[Rising Sun*]

Then I read some of my statements on this board which perhaps put me as a "nationalist," more in line with Reagan. :shock: Oooof!

There is a limit to everything, including self-flagellation. :D

The US still demonstrated enormous firepower in Vietnam. Something that was of only limited use against an agrarian society, but still a huge problem, as the fact is that the Soviets would have to contend with if they ever struck into West Germany, where artillery and air strikes would have been far more effective against a mechanized army advancing on an open plain.

I think that's one of the things that's at the heart of America's problems in its post-WWII military adventures and associated, for want of a better word, diplomacy.

Coming as I do from a small nation that had to learn to use its very limited resources against much larger enemies which resulted in an entirely different type of military doctrine and tactics to those that America as a superpower could evolve, it seems to me that America has consistently put too much emphasis on the aggressive part of Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

So far as the military aspect went in Vietnam, a lot of the problem was that America relied on massive firepower, which had been devastating in Europe and the Pacific in WWII, against an elusive enemy which wasn’t all that susceptible to it.

We’ve seen the same thing in Iraq in a different fashion, where America, with a bit of help from its mates, creamed Saddam in the conventional war because of its massive firepower, but can’t win against irregular forces because it didn’t anticipate their impact or work out how to defeat them as part of its war plans (not invading Iraq would have defeated them before they even looked like resisting the invaders).

Just like Vietnam, but for a whole set of different reasons, America (with a bit of help from its mates) is now bogged down in Iraq in something it created; doesn’t really understand; to which it has no military solution; and to which its President’s only response is to increase the military commitment in the hope of solving insoluble problems in Iraq and marginally less insoluble political problems in America.

It’s not an accident that, even allowing for the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq being in hotter spots than their mates, the Australians and Koreans in Vietnam and the British and Australians in Iraq managed to deal with their areas of operation more effectively militarily and ultimately more harmoniously with the local populations, even if they had to give them a flogging first to get their attention.

One reason that American forces didn’t achieve the same results was that their military doctrine was based on massive firepower. This in turn was derived from America’s successful WWII experience and the application to war of America’s massive industrial resources and desire to avoid casualties. It was consolidated by gearing up for a European land war 1945 onwards with conventional forces in European geography.

Meanwhile America fought its most significant wars in Korea and Vietnam on different geography and, in Vietnam, against forces that didn’t bear any relation to anything that American military doctrine was designed to deal with.

Despite all that, America didn’t learn that just because you’re the biggest bloke on the block, it doesn’t mean that pygmies who keep firing darts at you from the alleys won’t win.

So now it's stuck in Iraq, with lots of alleys and lots of pygmies in them.

[32Bravo]

I agree. Especially if the Communist Party had become The Socialist Party, and gradually allowed the privatization of property from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down. I think unfortunately, the Oligarchs were chosen over the "mom & pop stores" (small businesses) causing a shock from which my basic understanding is that Russia is only just recovering from...


Privatisation of property means ownership, does it not? Bit of a culture clash there. Was it not ownership by the few, when the majority were still in a semi-feudal society tha gave rise to the revolution in the first instance?

[32Bravo]

What impact this had, no one can say for certain. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that there was no impact. And I will also say that it was never worth it in the end...

I could say that you would have a hard time convincing me that any good came from the war, but that would just be silly. One has to keep faith with that in which one believes. If one were to say nothing came out of it, then one would have to say that those people died in vain - who wants to say that?

Not my intention to prove or disprove the positive or negative impact of the Vietnam War. Just wanted to get away from the 'we kicked your butts' mentality.

Would recommend: 'Vietnam' by Christian G. Appy.

Lots of personal stories there, including one from the Grandson of the fellow who wrote 'Pork Chop Hill'. There are also stories from former VC and NVA. One Marine reckons that the war could have ended in 1969 and that the further twenty five thousand American fatalities, which followed, were a waste.

Another criticizes 'search and destroy' as a strategy, and says that 'hearts and minds' should have been pursued more vigorously. Lots of opinions based on personal experience, but none of them actually prove anything. It just illustrates the complexity of the war.

We do hear that the qualities of the US forces which were sent there in 1965 were of a higher standard than those that followed later. Perhaps this is due to the draft and the way the war was waged. Again, a fault which can be placed at the doors of the Pentagon and the WHite House rather than in the hands of the soldiers who performed their duty. My own thoughts are that those that formulated strategy betrayed their people by not keeping an open mind on how to prosecute the war and, instead, shackled themselves to doctrine.

By the way, I happened accross the site you mentioned, some time ago.

[32Bravo]

Have to agree with Chevan, regarding Afghanistan. I was going to mention it, but he beat me to it.

Re: the early sixties - Cuba had a big impact on the psyche of western governments and played no small part in convincing the US that they must call a halt to the spread of communism - Dominos.

[Nickdfresh]

Privatisation of property means ownership, does it not? Bit of a culture clash there. Was it not ownership by the few, when the majority were still in a semi-feudal society tha gave rise to the revolution in the first instance?

I was referring to a gradual transition from autocratic communism to a mixed economy of democratic socialism in which the major industries stayed within the hands of the gov't, at least for a time, while entrepreneurs would be allowed to establish the basis of an open economy starting with small businesses. Ideally, this would have averted the catastrophes of the oligarchs and the polarized wealth in the country. Not unlike what is happening in China, only with an actual democratic gov't...

[Nickdfresh]

I could say that you would have a hard time convincing me that any good came from the war, but that would just be silly. One has to keep faith with that in which one believes. If one were to say nothing came out of it, then one would have to say that those people died in vain - who wants to say that?

They did mostly die in vain. Mostly...

Not my intention to prove or disprove the positive or negative impact of the Vietnam War. Just wanted to get away from the 'we kicked your butts' mentality.

I don't think I tend to exude that mentality, but okay...

Would recommend: 'Vietnam' by Christian G. Appy.

Lots of personal stories there, including one from the Grandson of the fellow who wrote 'Pork Chop Hill'. There are also stories from former VC and NVA. One Marine reckons that the war could have ended in 1969 and that the further twenty five thousand American fatalities, which followed, were a waste.

Another criticizes 'search and destroy' as a strategy, and says that 'hearts and minds' should have been pursued more vigorously. Lots of opinions based on personal experience, but none of them actually prove anything. It just illustrates the complexity of the war.

I've read quite a bit on Vietnam, though I'll check his book. Of course everything stated is true to an extent. The war was very complex, and essentially was a "two front" war in which the US fought an insurgency of the National Liberation Front (NLF or 'Viet Cong') and the regular formations of the North Vietnamese Army...

Some have argued that the US and their South Vietnamese allies essentially marginalized the NLF, if not nearly defeated it, through the "Operation Phoenix" program dreamt up by William Colby of the CIA. And that the program (which essentially turned into a bloody assassination and terror pogrom not unlike what the NLF had been doing to the Saigon regime's representatives since the late 1950s) was very successful to an extent.

And yes, conventional, heavy-handed military strategies were foolhardy in a counterinsurgency situation (something the US Army is just rediscovering with Gen. Petraeus in Iraq).

But it came down to the simple fact that Vietnam was essentially a civil war, and the US, for all its firepower, can not "win" someone else's civil war. They had to do it themselves, we should have seen that they were completely incapable much sooner than we did...

We do hear that the qualities of the US forces which were sent there in 1965 were of a higher standard than those that followed later. Perhaps this is due to the draft and the way the war was waged. Again, a fault which can be placed at the doors of the Pentagon and the WHite House rather than in the hands of the soldiers who performed their duty. My own thoughts are that those that formulated strategy betrayed their people by not keeping an open mind on how to prosecute the war and, instead, shackled themselves to doctrine.

The decline of the US Army had to do with conscripts fighting an extremely unpopular war, drugs, and a systemic breakdown of discipline, and of course the fools who planned the thing...

By the way, I happened accross the site you mentioned, some time ago.

Interesting...Ever post?

[Nickdfresh]

There is a limit to everything, including self-flagellation. :D

It’s not an accident that, even allowing for the Americans in Vietnam and Iraq being in hotter spots than their mates, the Australians and Koreans in Vietnam and the British and Australians in Iraq managed to deal with their areas of operation more effectively militarily and ultimately more harmoniously with the local populations, even if they had to give them a flogging first to get their attention.

...

So now it's stuck in Iraq, with lots of alleys and lots of pygmies in them.

I agree with 90% of your post -but-

The British are in (what were anyway) 'quiet sectors' of mostly Shiites that hated Saddam, and were more appreciative, if very dubious, of the effort to get rid of him.

There is NO comparison between this and the American experience of dealing with the Sunni Triangle, or the sectarian wars going on all over the country, and especially Baghdad. Though the war-plan was completely fucked (with only about 60% of the troops called for being sent!) and the fact that there was NO plan for what happened after "we broke it," there were in fact visionary US Army, Marine, and sp. ops. commanders that, for instance, temporarily quelled Sunni areas like Tikrit and Ramadi (initially) by working WITH the Sunnis rather than trying to intimidate them.

Unfortunately, these were too few and far between, and their work was quickly undone by "hard asses" that 'thought' that alienating the populations by kicking in doors and ignoring what their troops did was the answer.

Read the book "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks for more info...

And as for the rest of the British Army's counterinsurgency experience of the last sixty years, well they operated in areas where there were few TV cameras or people asking questions. That is until there was Northern Ireland, and that one took a while, didn't it?;)

[Rising Sun*]

Some have argued that the US and their South Vietnamese allies essentially marginalized the NLF, if not nearly defeated it, through the "Operation Phoenix" program dreamt up by William Colby of the CIA. And that the program (which essentially turned into a bloody assassination and terror pogrom not unlike what the NLF had been doing to the Saigon regime's representatives since the late 1950s) was very successful to an extent.



Because it's remembered now for the assassination aspects, it's forgotten in most quarters that Phoenix was actually a much broader and quite good counter insurgency plan.

Your comment in response to my last post about the hard asses in Iraq stuffing up another good plan applies equally to Phoenix.

Aggressive military action probably can't win against insurgents by itself if they have strong popular support.

[32Bravo]

Interesting...Ever post?


Nahh, this site takes up too much of my time as it is. I try to keep away, but what you chaps post is just such compelling reading, I find myself unable to resist the odd comment. :D

One thing I would add regarding Vietnam and my coments: the Vietnamese were not the enemy of Britain, as such, though at the time it was going on, my loyalties were towards our cousins accross the water, and some of the comments which I might post now, I would have considered to be disloyal at the time. However, a lot of time as passed by since then, and so I look at it in more of an historical context.

We often ignore the Vietnamese in our dicussions, beyond the fact that they were the enemy - but they did overcome.

Here's what Bill Shanahan, the author of 'Stealth Patrol' says of them:


During the two years I spent in Vietnam I saw a lot of action - a lot of highs and a lot of lows - but the one thing I saw that just never changed was the enemy. I went from the line company to the Lurps, made the transition to the Rangers, and spent months and months humpin' some of the most hostile territory in the land. And the one constant, throughout it all, was the enemy. They were elusive, they were a mystery - but above all, they were just always there.

The Vietnamese had been fighting over that land for hundreds of years - previously with the French and before them the Japanese and the Chinese - and through that entire time they'd never been defeated. They had a mindset that was just doggedly determined, the sort of commitment that could only come from someone with a passionate belief in what he was doing - in their case, fighting for control of their homeland.

Our guys had the best technology, there was no doubt about that. We had choppers, rifles, grenades, mines, artillery, planes, ships, tanks - anything you could think of, we had it - but those guys had the commitment. They had the willingness and the drive to see the war through to its end, no matter how long it took. They'd lost no telling how many men, and yet they still continued to fight - and as far as I could tell, were in no hurry to quit.

[Nickdfresh]

Nahh, this site takes up too much of my time as it is. I try to keep away, but what you chaps post is just such compelling reading, I find myself unable to resist the odd comment. :D

One thing I would add regarding Vietnam and my coments: the Vietnamese were not the enemy of Britain, as such, though at the time it was going on, my loyalties were towards our cousins accross the water, and some of the comments which I might post now, I would have considered to be disloyal at the time. However, a lot of time as passed by since then, and so I look at it in more of an historical context.

We often ignore the Vietnamese in our dicussions, beyond the fact that they were the enemy - but they did overcome.

Here's what Bill Shanahan, the author of 'Stealth Patrol' says of them:


Quite true. The North Vietnamese fielded some of the finest infantry the world has ever seen.

I'm currently reading "Fiasco," in which the Vietnam comparison crops up frequently. Here's a relevant passage:

Retired Army Colonial Harry Summers, Jr. began On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, perhaps the most influential book to come out of the conflict, by recounting an exchange he had had in Hanoi on April 25, 1975, with a North Vietnamese Colonial.

'You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield,' Summers said.

The North Vietnamese officer considered this assertion for a moment, and then responded, 'That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.' Hanoi's center of gravity (the main focus of the "enemies" war effort and ability to resist) had not been on the battlefield.
"Fiasco," by Thomas E. Ricks (pg. 131)

They endured, "It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will conquer."

[32Bravo]

I already knew of the 'irrelevant' comment, Nick. One could draw parallels with the American war of independence.

If you are interested in gaining a true insight into the Vietnamese attitude, you couldn't do better than reading 'The War of the Flea' by Robert Taber (if you haven't read it already), it pretty much explains all.

I have spotted 'Fiasco' on the book shelves, but haven't been tempted, as yet, mainly due to the amount of other books I'm reading. I'm sure I'll get around to it in the not too distant future.

[Nickdfresh]

I already knew of the 'irrelevant' comment, Nick. One could draw parallels with the American war of independence.

I saw a recent documentary in which an Englishmen/host did just that, with annoying frequency.:)

If you are interested in gaining a true insight into the Vietnamese attitude, you couldn't do better than reading 'The War of the Flea' by Robert Taber (if you haven't read it already), it pretty much explains all.

I'll seek it out...

I have spotted 'Fiasco' on the book shelves, but haven't been tempted, as yet, mainly due to the amount of other books I'm reading. I'm sure I'll get around to it in the not too distant future.

It's a fascinating study of how all of the lessons of Vietnam were lost in such quick order by the US military, and what a bunch of shortsighted cunts we elected...

[namvet]

I served 4 years in that war. for me to say they died in vain would dishonor them. you have comfort of 20-20 hinsight.

when we came home we didn't give a good god damned what anyone thought

and we still don't

[kallinikosdrama1992]

Well i think that here everybody should speak that's why i am writing this . I know few of Vietnam War but from the things i read in the books and saw in the movies , from my part , yes i think they did . For me , every attack war with no reason , because i think Vietnam War had no reason , and the casualties of these wars are with no reason .

I hope you understand what i am writing

[Kato]

Well i think that here everybody should speak that's why i am writing this . I know few of Vietnam War but from the things i read in the books and saw in the movies , from my part , yes i think they did . For me , every attack war with no reason , because i think Vietnam War had no reason , and the casualties of these wars are with no reason .

I hope you understand what i am writing

Everyone still dies anyway. Death at war can't be more in vain than death from natural causes at peace.

[Rising Sun*]

Death at war can't be more in vain than death from natural causes at peace.

I think it can.

An 20 year old conscript dying to no good purpose in a country that doesn't matter to his instead of dying at home of natural causes 60 years later with his children and grandchildren around him is a waste, a death in vain in the sense of futile, pointless, of no value.

Where was the point in Americans and others on that side dying in Vietnam to prop up a corrupt South Vietnamese government while their own governments didn't give them the means to fight the war properly and in fact hamstrung them from doing so for domestic and international political reasons?

Not to mention the poor bloody South Vietnamese grunts and civilians who bore the brunt of the war.

What is the point of getting involved in a war that doesn't have as its objective the defeat of the enemy, and won't allow the military to do that?

Contrast that with lives lost fighting the Nazis or the Japanese, which were lost in pursuit of a clear objective of defeating the enemy instead of, as in Vietnam, just starting out by maintaining the status quo of supporting the crooks running SVN and then, at the executive government rather than military level, having no idea what to do as things started spin out of control.

If the same pussy footing approach taken to hammering and invading and defeating North Vietnam had been employed in WWII, the Allies would still be in England and Saipan, begging the enemy to surrender.

[Chevan]

IWhere was the point in Americans and others on that side dying in Vietnam to prop up a corrupt South Vietnamese government while their own governments didn't give them the means to fight the war properly and in fact hamstrung them from doing so for domestic and international political reasons?

What do yo mean to fight the war properly mate?
Somebody prevented the Americans destroy the enemy?Or didn't let them to use the "proper" wearpon like a-bomb?

[Rising Sun*]

What do yo mean to fight the war properly mate?
Somebody prevented the Americans destroy the enemy?Or didn't let them to use the "proper" wearpon like a-bomb?

Exactly.

The Americans hamstrung themselves.

Although when Nixon indicated he might nuke NVN, NVN suddenly found itself able to advance the peace talks it had been stalling for ages.

The problem goes back to the start of the 'war' when America became directly involved, although it really goes back to the division of Vietnam about a decade earlier. Kennedy and Co wanted only to prop up the Diem regime, until they worked out that, as is common with America when it clumsily and ignorantly interferes in other countries to pursue its narrow and ill-considered interests, they had backed the wrong horse. Nobody saw how it was going to develop at the start, because the Americans thought they could contain the anti-Diem forces and then they thought they could handle the various politicians and crooks who succeeded the crooked politician (Diem) America backed to begin with. Not unlike America's other brilliant exercises of a similar nature in other parts of the world, giving rise to the modern belligerent Iran, long term support for Saddam Hussein, and various human rights abuses in South America such as Chile in the early 1970s.

Anyway, back to Vietnam.

Then Kennedy or others in his Administration gave the green light to Diem's assassination (or maybe they didn't and were even more ill-informed and ill-advised than they appeared) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm and everything turned to shit after that as the US dragged itself deeper and deeper into a swamp with no bottom as long as it confined itself to not taking the war into NVN and not going north of the DMZ on land.

A war which does not have as its ultimate objective the defeat of the enemy is just a waste of everything and everyone involved.

A war which cannot be won from the air, which the Vietnam war couldn't, requires a land advance into the enemy's territory.

That could not happen as long as SVN / US and their allies would not cross the DMZ and advance towards Hanoi with the clear intention of capturing it and subjugating NVN.

As long as Hanoi and NVN knew they weren't going to be invaded, and were not invaded, they would keep invading SVN.

It requires a military idiot of spectacular incompetence or masochism to run a war on the basis that it allows the enemy to cross a border to invade its territory but it won't respond by doing the same to the enemy.

There were wider political reasons for that refusal to go north revolving around the risk of Chinese and or Russian involvement at the height of the Cold War, because Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and its allies against the communists (which the US and its allies thought were all the same, conveniently ignoring that Vietnam and China had been enemies for perhaps a thousand years or more and China and the Soviets weren't exactly singing from the same hymn book) but in those circumstances it was just plain bloody stupid to try to prosecute a war that couldn't be won against NVN because nobody was going to invade it.