Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something that has been discussed several times on the History Forum.
There were reasons the USA chose not to undertake something like a ground invasion of North Vietnam. The big reason was that it was too risky. China bordered NV and China was a nuclear power by 1964. There was also at least a remote prospect that this escalation would lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The point is that it would have been irresponsible brinksmanship to undertake such an invasion of NV.
What I have observed over and over again is that some people in the right just can't accept the notion that the Vietnam War was never intended to be an "all out" war. LBJ's concept was that he would fight it along the same lines that we had fought the Korean War. The belief was that if enough pressure were placed on NV that it would voluntarily negotiate a peace settlement that would leave SV intact as a country in the same way that South Korea had been left intact following the Korean War.
War isn't a football game. Responsible political leaders avoid war when they can. When they do decide that war is a necessity, they do what they can to minimize risks.
During the Cold War, there was much concern that there would be World War III and it would lead to a nuclear exchange that would destroy both the USA and the USSR. What we lose sight of today is that despite the fact that the Vietnam War was ill-conceived it did not escalate into a larger conflict.
Yes, and China had already gone to war with the United States and it's allies once...in the preceeding decade...following our very nearly successful counterinvasion of North Korea during the Korean War in order to prevent a unified Korea allied to the USA from existing right on their border. I am sure that US policy makers carefully considered the implications of a full invasion of North Vietnam should that escalate into a much larger war in the event that Chinese responded in identical fashion to how they had responded to our invasion of North Korea. At the end of the day Vietnam just wasn't worth fighting an apocalyptic war over.
There was more than one reason the USA chose to pursue containment as a policy. The only alternative would have been military confrontation and pushing back communism. There were a number of reasons this was untenable.
1. The USSR had been our ally through World War II. Love em' or hate em' they killed hundreds of thousands of German soldiers that would have killed Americans had we had to fight the war without them. No matter how badly the USSR behaved towards other people there was some residual good will towards them that made a war difficult to imagine.
...
No, & we (the West & the US) did our best to strangle the USSR in the crib. The US (& Western Europe) had expeditionary forces in Ukraine, I think it was, fighting to prop up the White Russians. Eventually, our forces had to fight their way out, on the Tran Siberian Railway - to exit the USSR through their East coast.
The USSR wasn't our ally, they were allied to Nazi Germany, & invaded & partitioned Poland between them. The USSR sold material, ores, metals, food, whatever they could afford to sell - to Germany, & especially to the German military - rented airfields, hid tanks & arty & aircraft that were forbidden Germany after WWI. The USSR only began to fight - & belatedly, @ that - Germany once Germany invaded the USSR.
So yes, the US aided the USSR, especially after France succumbed & the BEF in Europe had to be withdrawn hurriedly, & without their heavy weapons. We expected the USSR to also fail in the field, & they did lose division after division. But Stalin was able to overcome - he keep calling up reserves, forming new divisions, restoring military officers who had been purged (lots of them) if they would fight. The USSR was the only horse left in the race who could remotely be considered friendly to the Allies - but they were very good @ killing Germans.
Last edited by southwest88; 03-26-2017 at 01:29 PM..
I actually agree with that, and I feel that the Domino Theory in SE Asia made sense...even though it only partially happened.
However, I also remember watching one of LBJ' speeches during the Vietnam War (yes, I'm that old), and he started talking about "our good friends the South Vietnamese", and I thought "good friends"? Americans know nothing about the Vietnamese, and most couldn't even point out the country on a map, let alone know anything about its culture.
And so the question becomes when is it in our interest to fight. My partial answer to that is that I don't know...but I know we fought too often in situations that had no real importance to our nation. We played international chess too often, moving the pieces but sometimes not being directly involved.
FDR was right. In WWII, the US was fighting to preserve itself, & Western Civilization. But we weren't interested in propping up nor restoring the British Empire/Commonwealth, nor the French, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch, & so on. & certainly we weren't about to sacrifice our sons for the sake of someone else's empire. FDR's take on French Indochina was that the sooner it became independent, the better. Truman & Eisenhower were somehow convinced that France was going to be important in the post-war political environment in Europe, & we began abandoning material, arms, cannon, transport, & etc. to French forces. I believe we also provided transport, to get French troops from France to Indochina. Eventually we were providing arty, transport, intel, pay, air strikes - & when France finally tired of the war, we took that over too.
FDR was right. In WWII, the US was fighting to preserve itself, & Western Civilization. But we weren't interested in propping up nor restoring the British Empire/Commonwealth, nor the French, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch, & so on. & certainly we weren't about to sacrifice our sons for the sake of someone else's empire. FDR's take on French Indochina was that the sooner it became independent, the better. Truman & Eisenhower were somehow convinced that France was going to be important in the post-war political environment in Europe, & we began abandoning material, arms, cannon, transport, & etc. to French forces. I believe we also provided transport, to get French troops from France to Indochina. Eventually we were providing arty, transport, intel, pay, air strikes - & when France finally tired of the war, we took that over too.
FDR's fallacy here was not understanding that control over most of the world was important. If the newly independent countries were basket cases at best and animalistic at worst that would ultimately impact on the U.S. Notice that FDR 's believe in independence stopped at what's now the Israeli border. Where the independent countries were going to be pro-Western democracies he wasn't interested.
FDR's fallacy here was not understanding that control over most of the world was important. If the newly independent countries were basket cases at best and animalistic at worst that would ultimately impact on the U.S. Notice that FDR 's believe in independence stopped at what's now the Israeli border. Where the independent countries were going to be pro-Western democracies he wasn't interested.
FDR was a radical socialist at heart.
FDR was a great President. Historians continually rank him either #2 or #3 in polls that are regularly conducted. Only Lincoln and sometimes Washington are considered greater presidents.
The idea that the USA should have been able anticipate every event in every country that occurred after World War II is absurd. The fact that FDR realized standing by Britain and the USSR when they were gravely threatened by the Germans renders him worthy of respect. He made many decisions that lead to the USA coming out of World War II more unscathed than any of the other major countries who fought in it.
Last edited by markg91359; 03-26-2017 at 09:39 PM..
I'm sure the locals disregarded all claims by outsiders
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
You didn't answer what made Britain's or Spain's rights superior to those of the U.S. Who do you think the Floridians wanted?
The Native Peoples who lived in Florida? They likely wanted to be left alone, as they had been for a very long time. The swampy land was very tough on outsiders, between insects, gators, snakes, disease. The Native Peoples who stayed in the area had a lot of time in which to develop immunity to the local diseases & ways of dealing with the insects & flora & fauna.
FDR was a great President. Historians continually rank him either #2 or #3 in polls that are regularly conducted. Only Lincoln and sometimes Washington are considered greater presidents.
I put him with Pierce, Buchanan, Nixon, Harding and Carter as among the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The idea that the USA should have been able anticipate every event in every country that occurred after World War II is absurd. The fact that FDR realized standing by Britain and the USSR when they were gravely threatened by the Germans renders him worthy of respect. He made many decisions that lead to the USA coming out of World War II more unscathed than any of the other major countries who fought in it.
A two year old could have told you that most of these countries weren't ready for self-government and that at best it would be tribe brutalizing tribe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I think you should be honest with the people here. Your criticism of FDR is a result of your background and a belief that he could have done than he did for the Jews of Europe. That is debatable. However, I have seen how this belief renders you unable to discuss his presidency rationally.
I concede that is a good part of my reason but I am a fully rational person. His willful negligence on the Western European Jews was of a piece with his favoring non-Western cultures such as India, the Muslim land and the Russians. He hardly stood by Churchill. He undermined the British hold on India despite the fact that many Indians were fighting for the Nazis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
The Native Peoples who lived in Florida? They likely wanted to be left alone, as they had been for a very long time. The swampy land was very tough on outsiders, between insects, gators, snakes, disease. The Native Peoples who stayed in the area had a lot of time in which to develop immunity to the local diseases & ways of dealing with the insects & flora & fauna.
My statement was directed at the U.S.'s rights vis a vis other colonial possessors of Florida. The Native Americans have a different problem. Their resistance to malaria and yellow fever was phenomenal. But so was that of the Negro slaves which is why they replaced white indentured servants but I digress.De Soto's pigs basically wiped out 95% or more of all Native Americans, leaving very few and very demoralized people for a very large continent. See Mann's excellent 1491.
^^^^^^
But could we have won by fighting the war in NV rather than SV? I thikn we should have put NV itself on the 10 yard line for starting the war in the first place. We tried to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules and lost.
Yep, that was the first problem: There was no clear definition of victory. The US military wanted to go full-bore, possibly including nukes. The Executive - once FDR died, & we bought into propping up France - merely wanted to avoid losing VN, as it were ours to lose in the first place.
Sure, we could have nuked the place to a nice glow & a long time recovering - see the half-life of U-235. But the Executive didn't want that. In truth, I think we should have cut ties to France (in VN) @ the end of WWII, & let them tilt @ windmills until they recognized the writing on the wall, & then brokered an honest peace - as much as we could have. Tactically, we only needed to show the flag & delay the takeover of S. VN for a decent interval - say 10 years.
Ho Chi Minh had originally hoped to gain international legitimacy & a hearing of VN's grievances with France @ Paris in the peace talks following WWI. He was refused, of course, & I'm not sure he ever got a hearing from the victorious Allies. Failing that, he moved on to shop for patrons & support & military material from the USSR, & reluctantly (the Chinese never leave!) from China.
Incremental tactics don't work against a truly revolutionary people's army - & N. VN managed to build that army in their time fighting off the French.
A two year old could have told you that most of these countries weren't ready for self-government and that at best it would be tribe brutalizing tribe.
I concede that is a good part of my reason but I am a fully rational person. His willful negligence on the Western European Jews was of a piece with his favoring non-Western cultures such as India, the Muslim land and the Russians. He hardly stood by Churchill. He undermined the British hold on India despite the fact that many Indians were fighting for the Nazis.
My statement was directed at the U.S.'s rights vis a vis other colonial possessors of Florida. The Native Americans have a different problem. Their resistance to malaria and yellow fever was phenomenal. But so was that of the Negro slaves which is why they replaced white indentured servants but I digress.De Soto's pigs basically wiped out 95% or more of all Native Americans, leaving very few and very demoralized people for a very large continent. See Mann's excellent 1491.
It doesn't matter. You do not have the right to own other people, any more than they have any right to own you. And that's what imperialism is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More details
