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.
Just curious because I recently taught a college class about this and I found my students' beliefs about the American experience in Vietnam very puzzling--even after I exposed them to the evidence.
Could the American experience in Vietnam be considered a success, failure, or a stalemate?
What are the reasons for your answer? When did American involvement in Vietnam begin? What specific policies caused the result for the U.S. in Vietnam? What caused opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam?
I'd really like to gauge everyone's opinion about this not too distant episode in U.S. history, and I'm not making this thread so that it will devolve into partisan name-calling and chest-thumping. Instead, I want to see what knowledgeable lay persons think about the American experience in Vietnam (and yes, I consider most of the regulars here to be knowledgeable lay persons).
One aspect of the Vietnam was has to be "Was the Viet Cong pretty much defeated by 1973?". and if the South had continued to receive arms/ammo/medical support, could they had held on?".
Many of the boat people I talked to in 1980-81 were former South Vietnamese Officers. They said if we had continued to support them with weapons they might have held on. Of course, they admitted the corruption was a huge problem, but still, the ARVN had matured greatly and they had some very good forces, but lacked ammo/medical/ etc...
I think it was Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy that pushed cutting off all aid, even medical aid, which really sealed the fate of the ARVN/South Vietnam.
BTW: Your choice of the word "evidence" is very telling.
Telling how?
"Evidence" in the context contained in the OP is an historical term. Evidence refers to primary source documentation such as the Geneva Peace Conference of 1954 that partitioned Vietnam, speeches by U.S. Presidents and other officials, the Pentagon Papers, U.S. Army documents that have since been declassified, first-hand accounts by U.S. and Vietnamese soldiers who fought in the war, various documentary films--one of which was Robert McNamara's movie The Fog of War, and many, many other government documents. In short, however, "evidence" is merely a reference to primary sources.
One aspect of the Vietnam was has to be "Was the Viet Cong pretty much defeated by 1973?". and if the South had continued to receive arms/ammo/medical support, could they had held on?".
Many of the boat people I talked to in 1980-81 were former South Vietnamese Officers. They said if we had continued to support them with weapons they might have held on. Of course, they admitted the corruption was a huge problem, but still, the ARVN had matured greatly and they had some very good forces, but lacked ammo/medical/ etc...
I think it was Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy that pushed cutting off all aid, even medical aid, which really sealed the fate of the ARVN/South Vietnam.
The "nation" of South Vietnam was a western creation. Certainly, without the U.S. propping up the government of the fledgling country and conducting the bulk of military operations, it was doomed to fall. Further, the ARVN could not and would not fight under Nixon's Vietnamization policy. I think the officers you've talked to gave you the typical line of the ARVN officers, which was "just give us more support and we can win." The U.S. did that for years. Ultimately, it was the failure of South Vietnamese nationalism that doomed the upstart little country. They didn't have a Syngman Rhee like South Korea did. And the U.S. did little to "win the hearts and minds" of the people who bore the brunt of the fighting under the Vietnamization policy.
So what would victory have meant in Vietnam? What was the U.S. objective or goals? I think these are important questions that need to be answered before we can make any evaluation of the U.S. experience in that conflict.
In 1954, the U.S. and the Western allies claimed that self-determination for Vietnam was the objective. Yet the U.S. blocked unification elections that were treaty-bound to be held in 1956 because the Eisenhower adminstration knew that Ho would win these in a landslide. So much for self-determination.
By the JFK administration, the situation in South Vietnam was so bleak that the strategic hamlet program forced the relocation of thousands of peasants. U.S. "advisors" rounded up people and pushed them into defensive villages and took them off of their ancestral lands. JFK also propped up the Diem regime--a brutally repressive "government" backed by the U.S. until Diem began freelancing--and then the CIA signed off on his assassination. Again, far from self-determination.
As U.S. policies toward Vietnam played itself out, it became very clear by Tet that self-determination was not a goal of the U.S. government. Instead, the goal was mineral and raw material extraction--the same goals as the French before the Americans. This is why the South Vietnamese as well as the forces under Ho viewed the U.S. as another imperialistic/colonial power.
So what would victory have meant in Vietnam? What was the U.S. objective or goals? I think these are important questions that need to be answered before we can make any evaluation of the U.S. experience in that conflict.
My passion is Ancient History so I'm weak in American History. With that said, my impression is that the Vietnam War was a colonial war, and the US got involved to stop Communism. To me Vietnam was part of the Cold War and started after WWII. American involvement took some time to really “get going” but exploded in the 60’s. This is going from memory.
The biggest impression this war made on me, was it appeared the US didn't know what they were doing. How can you go to war and not know basic elements like who are your allies and enemies? I am also disturbed about the whole refugee situation that the US made - Vietcong. Then they turn around and deemed them enemy/communist. From the Vets I have talked to, it seems that this was more of a political war than a military war. Then there is the helicopter thing. Someone was making a lot of money on these helicopters, which were not effective and caused many deaths. At this point of my knowledge, I don't think anyone came out a winner. Again this is my impression of the war with my limited knowledge.
One aspect of the Vietnam was has to be "Was the Viet Cong pretty much defeated by 1973?". and if the South had continued to receive arms/ammo/medical support, could they had held on?".
Many of the boat people I talked to in 1980-81 were former South Vietnamese Officers. They said if we had continued to support them with weapons they might have held on. Of course, they admitted the corruption was a huge problem, but still, the ARVN had matured greatly and they had some very good forces, but lacked ammo/medical/ etc...
That's the problem I have with their testimony: All they can say is, they "might" have held on, which to me indicates that they knew their footing in Vietnam was not really solid. I have a lot of sympathy for veterans, both Vietnamese and Americans, who fought for a cause they believed in, and I probably wouldn't be the one to try and cast a cloud of doubt over them and their convictions about what they did in combat decades ago. That's not for me to do. Not my place to do it. But when I look objectively at the situation based on what I know, I can't help but think that we did the right thing by leaving when we did, and I'm not really sure if we were right to get involved in the first place. I don't think that all of the Vietnamese liked communism and I'm sure many were embittered by the defeat and the withdrawal of U.S. forces after Saigon's fall, but when you really look at what happened, our 'defeat' was basically a case in which the Vietnamese became weary of war, and they were wary of foreign intervention. I think most Vietnamese wanted a country for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
I think it was Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy that pushed cutting off all aid, even medical aid, which really sealed the fate of the ARVN/South Vietnam.
People were tired of watching a war drag on for years with no end in sight. In a democracy, popular support is important. We're witnessing the same thing with our interventions in the Middle East right now. I'm sure the Democrats played up Vietnam's bungling for political gain, but I also think there was a genuine concern that this effort overseas was hurting American prestige internationally, and it was detracting from a focus on domestic problems. Again, the same issues are alive and well today.
As U.S. policies toward Vietnam played itself out, it became very clear by Tet that self-determination was not a goal of the U.S. government. Instead, the goal was mineral and raw material extraction--the same goals as the French before the Americans. This is why the South Vietnamese as well as the forces under Ho viewed the U.S. as another imperialistic/colonial power.
Even more so, the goal was to harvest the human resources (aka people) of Southeast Asia as a labor pool for capitalist-world corporations, and as potential consumers of for-profit marketing.
Yes, South Vietnam was created after the French defeat but more than a few North Vietnamese fled to the South rather than suffer under the Communists. The early days of Communist rule in North Vietnam was very brutal and they slaughtered thousands of their own people.
Certainly the South was corrupt and the government officials inept, but as we have found out since the North took over they are not exactly having 'free and open elections". 1 million people have fled and a few hundred thousand were tossed into prison camps or executed.
Ignoring the results of the election during the 1950's might seem heavy handed now, but when have the Communists run a fair election? At the time, we were at the peak of our power and perhaps thought we could save this nation or at least help them build up an army/economy that could defend itself. Certainly, the leaders of the 1950's knew the horror of the people living under the Communist rules in Eastern Europe, Russia, PR China and thought they should try to prevent more millions of people from suffering the same fate.
Fifty years on we can see the limits of American power and the failed idea of "exporting our way of life" as a foreign policy. Iraq will most like be run by a brutal dictator eventually and Afghanistan will just go back to being run by the various tribes.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with using human resources (aka people) in Southeast Asia as a labor pool for the capitalist-world corporations since capitalism is the only economic system that lifts people out of poverty.
Just curious because I recently taught a college class about this and I found my students' beliefs about the American experience in Vietnam very puzzling--even after I exposed them to the evidence.
Could the American experience in Vietnam be considered a success, failure, or a stalemate?
What are the reasons for your answer? When did American involvement in Vietnam begin? What specific policies caused the result for the U.S. in Vietnam? What caused opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam?
I'd really like to gauge everyone's opinion about this not too distant episode in U.S. history, and I'm not making this thread so that it will devolve into partisan name-calling and chest-thumping. Instead, I want to see what knowledgeable lay persons think about the American experience in Vietnam (and yes, I consider most of the regulars here to be knowledgeable lay persons).
Thanks in advance!
I'm 33 and consider myself well versed in history in relation to the average person but for some reason the Vietnam War has never really interested me.
I guess my impression is that it was a needless war. If a group of people want to embrace communism who are we to stop them, more to the point why should we risk our young men to do so?
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.
