We Should Have Gone Further Than Containment in the Cold War (Israeli, polls)
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.
Meanwhile, having won the Cold War, the USA is reinforcing the new frontier in Poland and the Baltic States. Essentially, we are trying to institutionalize the status quo with Russia. That is likely to lead to a tacit understanding whereby Russia is given a free hand in Ukraine and other former Soviet States provided they keep out of Eastern Europe.
Unfortunately probably true. We probably should have prevented the Crimea takeover, and kept Russia from having a warm-water port. Fortunately, Russia is basically a gas station and if oil prices stay low they could implode further. Strategy-wise we should probably push Europe to produce their fair share of energy, by way of fracking. This should depress oil prices further, to the detriment of such awful countries as Russia and Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
Meanwhile, the real powder keg continues to be Middle East instability and, there, successive administrations have made a royal screw up of how we handle matters giving Russia an easy entry into the Syrian conflict. Israel continues to be the only truly stable and modern country in the region. She could be the economic motor for her neighbors driving economic prosperity and giving them a stake in her existence.
Fine so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
But neither Israel nor the USA seem able to see beyond the continued stand-off.
So what should Israel and the USA do "to see beyond the continued stand-off"? Surrender? Or just appeasement? The Arabs have shown no interest in anything constructive. How do we get beyond that? Just give up even though we're winning?
I am stating this as a new topic to avoid sidetracking the thread at the foot of this OP.
The "Cold War" with Communist powers started immediately after the end of WW II. The Western countries more or less ceded Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence. We allowed direct takeovers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We allowed, without much more than verbal protest, the Soviets to stir the pot in Poland and Czechoslovakia until Communist governments loyal to the USSR were installed. East Germany and North Korea were part of direct occupation zones of the Soviet Union. China's situation was more complicated. Truman concluded, probably correctly, that the Kuomintang were irredeemably corrupt and that any assistance would go right into Swiss bank accounts.
Unfortunately the Communist powers wanted even more. North Korea invaded South Korea, under U.S. influence, on June 19, 1950. Both China and the USSR angled for influence in Vietnam after French authority collapsed, immediately gaining countrol of the northern half of that country.
The US, drained by WW II, settled on a policy of "containment" whereby the Western powers would resist Communist expansionism, but not coiunter-punch. I view that as a serious mistake. We should have aimed for "containment-plus." In other words we would leave the Communists alone but if they invaded from any of their country that country's independence should have been very much at risk. Thus, if North Korea invaded South Korea, the Communist control over South Korea should have been immediately in jeopardy. Ditto North Vietnam. Agreeing to restrict the war to defending South Korea and South Vietnam gave the Communists the advantage of "heads you win tails I lose." In other words the worst that would happen to the aggressive Communist power is a failure to expand. That happened with North Korea. The best that would hapen would be victory. That happened with South Vietnam.
The UN bleats and moans that Israel won't give back territories captured in the Six Day War. To the contrary an aggressor should face serious risks. After all we won the Cold War without firing a shot when the threatened SDI, or "Star Wars" may, if built, have neutralized the Soviet numerical advantage in nuclear forces.
I come from a family with many military veterans. I was raised to respect those in service.
With that said, I came to conclusions about the tragedy of the Vietnam Conflict that simply
overwhelmed my initial assumptions.
As a grandson of a patriotic WWII Veteran, I was really upset as a child when I saw the movie "More American Graffiti"
with my parents in the late 1970s. I learned that the USA had lost the war. My view was that "Americans are the good
guys" and "We never lose". This early childhood resentment led to many years of independent, sporadic research going
back to age 13.
In middle school, I immediately noticed none of the teachers would discuss the Vietnam War. It
was a taboo topic not to be discussed. Ironically, that just drove my curiosity even further. I
read one book by Mark Baker called "Nam" and a 2nd by General Westmoreland. The two were in
high contrast. Baker had realism from the "grunts on the front" while Westmoreland was deeply
political and painted a picture of proper execution. So what was the truth?
In graduate school, I studied many more books, magazines, government documents, GIS data,
personal narratives, documentaries, and magazine articles. My capstone project was on GIS analysis
of Agent Orange data and exposure to soldiers and civilians.
I learned that Agent Orange is still causing casualties well into the 21st century. The VA claims for
Vietnam Veterans were often handled horribly in the aftermath of the war. http://www.pennlive.com/projects/2014/agent-orange/
As for the "Communist War", I learned that the Communist nations of southeast Asia actually went
to war with each other after the USA withdrew in 1975. The Communist nations of that region clearly
were not united but were often adversarial. So the Domino Theory was false. The war to contain
Communists was not a valid premise. They went to war with each other anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
The fictional film "Apocalypse Now" had French survivors of Dien Bien Phu bring up the point that
Communists are not united. Although the film was fictional, the character's assertions are most definitely
historically valid - Communists fought each other.
As for the war's outcome, I know it is hotly debated. The historical facts are that the American military won the vast majority of battles and generally held the "line" to some extent. The problem was that the war was treated as a series of "frontal battles". But the most heavily decorated Vietnam Veteran of the US Army, Colonel Hackworth, noted the flaws to his superiors. Hackworth felt the war
should be approached from the perspective of guerilla warfare. He predicted South Vietnam would fall in 1975 largely in part due
to the "frontal war" policy and "battle showdowns" which were bizarre. Americans would typically fight for a hill, win it, then abandon
it despite heavy casualties. The guerillas usually just came back. Casualties from "Operation Apache Snow" in the summer of 1969
were shown in LIFE magazine with pictorials and biographical information. The anti-war protest reached its height in the aftermath
of "Hamburger Hill". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ogmLOR7Ac
The tactical advantage the NVA had was the Ho Chi Minh Trail. That supply line was always operational despite heavy bombing and attacks. The best historical analysis I saw was that the USA could win the war "short-term" but not long-term due to the economic
cost, lost of lives, and lack of ROI from a political and practical perspective. So Nixon chose to withdraw.
As for the few lost battles, LZ Albany and Fire Support Base Ripcord are blatant losses. FSP Ripcord was kept classified until 1985.
There are other "losses" in dispute. But I think the major force to reckon with on a tactical level was the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
So the war ended with the Fall of Saigon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcQoQDkhbYw
RIP American Casualties (in-battle and in-aftermath due to Agent Orange)
Hackworth himself died from exposure to chemical defoilants. The character of "Colonel Kilgore" and the classic chopper attack
scene in Apocalypse Now was based on Hackworth. In real life, he died from cancer in "Nam". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth
About 20-25% of American casulaties in Vietnam were due to friendly fire. Stone dramatized a battle during the Tet Offensive of
1968. It was based on his actual combat experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p25bS4VXYq8
Last edited by grad_student200; 03-12-2017 at 11:42 AM..
^^^^^^
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.
We became involved in an unwinnable war for stupid reasons, and failed to change course even when the mistakes and the outcome had become obvious. As the world kept pointing out to us, the US was in fact the "bad guy" in Vietnam and was deserving of the various flavors of defeat that it ultimately brought upon itself.
We became involved in an unwinnable war for stupid reasons, and failed to change course even when the mistakes and the outcome had become obvious. As the world kept pointing out to us, the US was in fact the "bad guy" in Vietnam and was deserving of the various flavors of defeat that it ultimately brought upon itself.
The Vietnam War was a huge mistake.
But I think you are incorrect in saying that we were the "bad guys". That assumes there were "good guys". There were none of the latter.
^^^^^^
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.
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.
Compare and contrast Ho Chi Minh and George Washington.
Depends on from which population's perspective you want to compare and contrast them from. Ho asked for help from the US in ending French imperialism after WWII, but we let the French re-imperialize that nation.
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.
Does that mean every time a nuclear power expresses an aversion to losing one of its vassal states the West needs to back down?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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.
In both the Vietnam and Korea cases it has not worked out well. Heck, North Korea is rattling the nuclear cage right now with Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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.
Nuclear weapons were more risky to the Soviet Union. In general the West had little interest in expanding. It was the Soviet Union that was penned in. I think we should have tested whether the Soviet Union was willing to risk obliteration over NK or NV. In fact one of the reasons DeGualle had France go unclear was his well-founded concern that we wouldn't risk annihilation to protect France.
I am stating this as a new topic to avoid sidetracking the thread at the foot of this OP.
The "Cold War" with Communist powers started immediately after the end of WW II. The Western countries more or less ceded Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence. We allowed direct takeovers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We allowed, without much more than verbal protest, the Soviets to stir the pot in Poland and Czechoslovakia until Communist governments loyal to the USSR were installed. East Germany and North Korea were part of direct occupation zones of the Soviet Union. China's situation was more complicated. Truman concluded, probably correctly, that the Kuomintang were irredeemably corrupt and that any assistance would go right into Swiss bank accounts.
Unfortunately the Communist powers wanted even more. North Korea invaded South Korea, under U.S. influence, on June 19, 1950. Both China and the USSR angled for influence in Vietnam after French authority collapsed, immediately gaining countrol of the northern half of that country.
The US, drained by WW II, settled on a policy of "containment" whereby the Western powers would resist Communist expansionism, but not coiunter-punch. I view that as a serious mistake. We should have aimed for "containment-plus." In other words we would leave the Communists alone but if they invaded from any of their country that country's independence should have been very much at risk. Thus, if North Korea invaded South Korea, the Communist control over South Korea should have been immediately in jeopardy. Ditto North Vietnam. Agreeing to restrict the war to defending South Korea and South Vietnam gave the Communists the advantage of "heads you win tails I lose." In other words the worst that would happen to the aggressive Communist power is a failure to expand. That happened with North Korea. The best that would hapen would be victory. That happened with South Vietnam.
The UN bleats and moans that Israel won't give back territories captured in the Six Day War. To the contrary an aggressor should face serious risks. After all we won the Cold War without firing a shot when the threatened SDI, or "Star Wars" may, if built, have neutralized the Soviet numerical advantage in nuclear forces.
The United States and it's allies did launch an invasion of North Korea and very nearly overran it. We were driven back out by the Chinese...who entered the war at that point to prevent having a unified Korea allied to the United States right on their border.
The Cold War turned out about as well as could have been reasonably hoped for. A much more aggressive stance by the US and it's allies may have led to World War 3 and nuclear war...two things that we had close brushes with as it was.
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 03-26-2017 at 11:53 AM..
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.
