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.
I never saw one and was at two of the largest protests in history (DC).....
But an important point remains. Whenever you have a large group of people you have outliers...I'm sure many wife-beaters, child abusers and even murderers attended anti-war rallies. Many criminals did also.
When you attend a football or baseball game, the same goes - I am 100% certain there are characters of every (negative) type enjoying the outing with you.
My point is that if 10+ million protested the war and a couple dozen were communists (there are well meaning communists, BTW - they are just wrong)....it doesn't change a thing.
Communism was really big among my Jewish friends when I was young. Parents would send their children to live on communes in Israel for a summer or for a year. I have friends who did this even when they were adults.
As we see with Russia (now) it was never communism that was the problem. It's Russians. While there are some positives within their culture, they have pretty much been the "brutes of history" for the last couple 100 years. Bad leadership - and enough bad people to do the bidding of the leaders. This continues today.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing communism. I can appreciate the attraction of collectivist thinking among the kibbutzim and others. My focus is on people who openly supported our enemy in a very real conflict, and how Burns and Novick completely ignored this aspect of the "anti-war" movement in what was purported to be a comprehensive history of the Vietnam War. I have provided evidence of how the pro-VC demonstrators and their international visibility was used by the VC and NVA to create propaganda both for their side and for English-language psychological warfare, and made reference to the admission by North Vietnamese leaders after the war that the demonstrations in the U.S. were effective in boosting morale on their side. I'm reading comments from anti-war folks in this thread testifying to their positive motives and to the fact that the VC flag wavers were a tiny minority. But I am not reading any refutation of my major points: that 1. to our enemy, the demonstrations were indeed a source of psychological aid and comfort, and 2. that these phenomena were ignored by Burns for some reason, be it ignorance or by design.
Fair enough. I conclude then that you were aware of and concede that what I posted was true: that such flags and such sentiments were indeed part of the "anti-war" protests, though not those in which you participated.
I wrote, "I always struggle with the notion that military can win a war without consideration for the politics, or should be able."
You may THINK there is no such notion, but I think your struggle is not with me but those who seem to think the military can win wars seemingly oblivious to the political considerations.
And am telling you this...The military is the last place to look for that kind of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Case in point is how we read so much about how we could have won the war in Vietnam if the military were simply allowed to do so.
Here is where many, if not most, on the civilian side failed to understand that argument.
The reason why the US 'lost' the Vietnam War was because of the difference in political goals. Militarily speaking, the US dominated the battlefields in every way, but as I pointed out earlier on the difference between political goals and military objectives, the difference between what North Viet Nam wanted vs what South Viet Nam wanted, which includes their sponsors, the US/SVN alliance was %99.999 destined to fail.
What the Soviet/China/NVN alliance wanted: All of Viet Nam.
What the US/SVN alliance wanted: Partition.
Since political goals determines military objectives, it is not that difficult to see how divergent each side's military is going to conduct the war.
If you fight for partition, you have effectively restrained yourself on the ground. Your forces will stop moving at that line of political demarcation. The enemy did not stopped you. YOU did. YOU gave the enemy a safe zone for respite and regroup. On the other hand, since the enemy was fighting for the entirety of the land, of course he will respect no lines and his tactics will reflect that.
All the communists had to do was attack and withdraw. Rinse and repeat. Viet Nam was not Korea. Geographically, Korea made it possible to fight for partition and achieve that political goal. Korea was a peninsula and the US Navy effectively controlled the waters on both sides. Viet Nam shared borders with Laos and Cambodia and neither country was strong enough to resist communist violations of their borders to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support a southern communist insurgency that made life difficult for all of South Viet Nam.
Fighting for partition in Viet Nam was quite doomed from the start.
This was what it meant that the military 'was not allowed to do its job'. By restraining ground forces at the 17th parallel, the US could not do debilitating damages to NVA forces. At the very least, US forces could have pursue retreating NVA forces, cross north of the 17th, utterly destroy any NVA units encountered, which includes bases of support, then withdraw to below the 17th. But that was not what happened.
Eventually, the patience of the US public got worn out so the US had to withdraw from SE Asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Rarely do I read, however, how we would have dealt with the Chinese or Soviets had they begun to commit their troops after the long slog of attrition we had experienced. The Reds were not stupid. They simply watched the Vietnamese and Americans butcher each other and when the time was right, America all the more exhausted and unwilling to keep committing the bodies, maybe after another bloody year or two, maybe then the Chinese and/or Soviets would have come marching in to extend the fighting for another who knows how long...
There was no need for China to commit combat troops the way the US committed combat troops. Once it became clear that the US self restrained via the 17th parallel, all Mao had to do was supplied purely defensive measures, which includes support personnel, to the North Vietnamese.
This kind of self restraint was what Colin Powell talked about and the US successfully avoided during Desert Storm.
Finally, as an FYI, just in case anyone want to criticize the US for bombing Laos and Cambodia...
Laos and Cambodia failed to enforce their borders. Whether they were too weak or willing partners with North Viet Nam are besides the point. Belligerents are expected to respect the borders of countries not party to their conflict.
In the above convention, Article 1 is respected by the US only if Articles 2 thru 5 are enforced by Laos and Cambodia. Neither did. North Viet Nam used Laos and Cambodia as components of its war against South Viet Nam and effectively opened the door for the US to engage the soil of those countries as hostile territories.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing communism. I can appreciate the attraction of collectivist thinking among the kibbutzim and others. My focus is on people who openly supported our enemy in a very real conflict, and how Burns and Novick completely ignored this aspect of the "anti-war" movement in what was purported to be a comprehensive history of the Vietnam War. I have provided evidence of how the pro-VC demonstrators and their international visibility was used by the VC and NVA to create propaganda both for their side and for English-language psychological warfare, and made reference to the admission by North Vietnamese leaders after the war that the demonstrations in the U.S. were effective in boosting morale on their side. I'm reading comments from anti-war folks in this thread testifying to their positive motives and to the fact that the VC flag wavers were a tiny minority. But I am not reading any refutation of my major points: that 1. to our enemy, the demonstrations were indeed a source of psychological aid and comfort, and 2. that these phenomena were ignored by Burns for some reason, be it ignorance or by design.
I was a protester too and never saw a communist flag. We did hear that there were communists out there protesting but didn't know whether or not it was true. We carried American flags and we only wanted to bring the boys home, safely home.
1. To our enemy, we didn't know at the time what the repercussions, if any, would be. We were in college. seeing our friends drafted into a war we didn't think was winnable. There was little or no access to tv for us so, no we had no idea except that we hoped our government was watching and taking note of what we were trying to say.
2. I have not been able to watch the Burns documentary because I married a Viet Nam vet and suffered along with him when he had severe PTSD from his experiences. So I cannot comment.
We were only trying to do what we though was best at the time. It was not like WWII. It was something that we felt strongly enough against that we exercised our right to free speech in protest.
Last edited by in_newengland; 10-02-2017 at 04:48 PM..
I was a protester too and never saw a communist flag. We did hear that there were communists out there protesting but didn't know whether or not it was true. We carried American flags and we only wanted to bring the boys home, safely home.
1. To our enemy, we didn't know at the time what the repercussions, if any, would be. We were in college. seeing our friends drafted into a war we didn't think was winnable. There was little or no access to tv for us so, no we had no idea except that we hoped our government was watching and taking note of what we were trying to say.
2. I have not been able to watch the Burns documentary because I married a Viet Nam vet and suffered along with him when he had severe PTSD from his experiences. So I cannot comment.
We were only trying to do what we though was best at the time. It was not like WWII. It was something that we felt strongly enough against that we exercised our right to free speech in protest.
Thanks for your thoughts. I remember our previous conversation on this topic months ago. Your husband's suffering is something with which I have had some experience as well. I am very grateful for the help I received from the VA doctors and psychologists which permitted me to get my life back after ten years or so of emptiness and horror. From what I remember of our previous conversation, your husband did not make it through the nightmare of PTSD successfully. I grieve for him; I commiserate with you.
Thanks for your thoughts. I remember our previous conversation on this topic months ago. Your husband's suffering is something with which I have had some experience as well. I am very grateful for the help I received from the VA doctors and psychologists which permitted me to get my life back after ten years or so of emptiness and horror. From what I remember of our previous conversation, your husband did not make it through the nightmare of PTSD successfully. I grieve for him; I commiserate with you.
What an evil war. What an evil time.
Thank you for your understanding. No, he did not make it through successfully. He had held it back for so long that there wasn't anything the VA could do for him. He spent three weeks hospitalized and then they told me that he was the worst case they'd ever seen and that I really needed to get a divorce for my own safety.
I stayed with him and helped him get his mental health VA disability but then we split up. We still chat in emails but you can tell that he is "not right." I am not angry with him, just sad that such a nice guy turned into a lying, cheating, out of control and even dangerous person.
I think part of the problem may have been that the reason they were over there wasn't clear cut. It wasn't WWII where the whole world was in danger and they were fighting the Nazis. He just went because he was drafted and thought that as a good American, that's what he was supposed to do.
So many lives lost or ruined. Yes, what an evil time that was.
Did you read the statistic at the end? Our government did not even allow the dogs to return home..........most were put to death.........kind of what happened to the south Vietnamese........both were treated like dogs........
And am telling you this...The military is the last place to look for that kind of people.
Here is where many, if not most, on the civilian side failed to understand that argument.
The reason why the US 'lost' the Vietnam War was because of the difference in political goals. Militarily speaking, the US dominated the battlefields in every way, but as I pointed out earlier on the difference between political goals and military objectives, the difference between what North Viet Nam wanted vs what South Viet Nam wanted, which includes their sponsors, the US/SVN alliance was %99.999 destined to fail.
What the Soviet/China/NVN alliance wanted: All of Viet Nam.
What the US/SVN alliance wanted: Partition.
Since political goals determines military objectives, it is not that difficult to see how divergent each side's military is going to conduct the war.
If you fight for partition, you have effectively restrained yourself on the ground. Your forces will stop moving at that line of political demarcation. The enemy did not stopped you. YOU did. YOU gave the enemy a safe zone for respite and regroup. On the other hand, since the enemy was fighting for the entirety of the land, of course he will respect no lines and his tactics will reflect that.
All the communists had to do was attack and withdraw. Rinse and repeat. Viet Nam was not Korea. Geographically, Korea made it possible to fight for partition and achieve that political goal. Korea was a peninsula and the US Navy effectively controlled the waters on both sides. Viet Nam shared borders with Laos and Cambodia and neither country was strong enough to resist communist violations of their borders to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support a southern communist insurgency that made life difficult for all of South Viet Nam.
Fighting for partition in Viet Nam was quite doomed from the start.
This was what it meant that the military 'was not allowed to do its job'. By restraining ground forces at the 17th parallel, the US could not do debilitating damages to NVA forces. At the very least, US forces could have pursue retreating NVA forces, cross north of the 17th, utterly destroy any NVA units encountered, which includes bases of support, then withdraw to below the 17th. But that was not what happened.
Eventually, the patience of the US public got worn out so the US had to withdraw from SE Asia.
There was no need for China to commit combat troops the way the US committed combat troops. Once it became clear that the US self restrained via the 17th parallel, all Mao had to do was supplied purely defensive measures, which includes support personnel, to the North Vietnamese.
This kind of self restraint was what Colin Powell talked about and the US successfully avoided during Desert Storm.
Finally, as an FYI, just in case anyone want to criticize the US for bombing Laos and Cambodia...
Laos and Cambodia failed to enforce their borders. Whether they were too weak or willing partners with North Viet Nam are besides the point. Belligerents are expected to respect the borders of countries not party to their conflict.
In the above convention, Article 1 is respected by the US only if Articles 2 thru 5 are enforced by Laos and Cambodia. Neither did. North Viet Nam used Laos and Cambodia as components of its war against South Viet Nam and effectively opened the door for the US to engage the soil of those countries as hostile territories.
Thanks. I read your comment one time, and I want to read consider it further when more time allows, but I've got company visiting right now, so I've not got the time for this like I usually do in the mornings. Until later, my initial reaction is that I'm really not sure I need this explanation about what you claim civilians don't understand or even what sort of people that can't be found in the military, "the difference between political goals and military objectives."
Not even sure I agree we "dominated the battlefields in every way." Or perhaps is the question whether we are out to earn control of a country's people or dominate them? We didn't always seem to have the benefit of "hearts and minds" working in our favor. Is that not important? You don't typically take an area and then need to retake it soon after if the area is secure.
In any case, we have all heard for as long as we can remember how we did not "win" because the military was kept from being allowed to win. Not sure partition was a "winning" strategy, and I'm not sure what alternative strategy -- objective -- goal -- would have allowed us to "win" rather than what most people today consider a loss in many respects. Politically or militarily, whatever, I struggle to see the "winning" strategy then or now in hindsight.
No doubt I need to review your comment more carefully, and no doubt I should do that before even making this comment, but again..., my initial quick thought, and thanks again. Really! Especially in this forum, I sure do appreciate the better than average seemingly well-informed exchange of opinion that you offer over all too much of the alternative types of comments we need to deal with here.
Over and out...
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.
