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.
Yes it is. I was recently cleaning out some old National Geographic magazines from my basement. I ran across several issues from the early 1960s (Kennedy presidency) which had articles on US military involvement in Vietnam.
We all know that. We also know that JFK authorized a National Security Memorandum just before he was killed that ordered the first 1000 soldiers to come home by the end of 1963. LBJ rescinded that the week after JFK was assassinated.
Not "serious" insurgencies.... but activities none the less. And it was part of Malaysia during that time period, if it isn't still. I'm not sure if Singapore is a sovereign city state or what right now.
Singapore did have what the government in the 60’s described as a communist inspired political party called Barisan Sosialis. It never had a major impact on the country and by the early 70’s faded away. In neighboring Malaysia there was a communist insurgency that lasted from the late 40’s into the early 60’s.
The British had an active role in quelling the insurgency while Malaysia was still a colony. Many of the troops involved from the UK were draftees. Many of the strategies developed in that conflict were adopted by American forces in Vietnam. Some American special forces bound for Vietnam went through a jungle warfare course in Malaysia.
Singapore did have what the government in the 60’s described as a communist inspired political party called Barisan Sosialis. It never had a major impact on the country and by the early 70’s faded away. In neighboring Malaysia there was a communist insurgency that lasted from the late 40’s into the early 60’s.
The British had an active role in quelling the insurgency while Malaysia was still a colony. Many of the troops involved from the UK were draftees. Many of the strategies developed in that conflict were adopted by American forces in Vietnam. Some American special forces bound for Vietnam went through a jungle warfare course in Malaysia.
The presence or absence of a political party does not necessarily determine the presence or absence of an insurgency.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
It was as pointless a war as the US has ever engaged in, although, that said, getting sucked into fighting there wasn't nearly as stupid as invading Iraq in 2003.
Judging by Vietnam's cost in American blood, I'd say it was far more stupid than Iraq.
I think the same now as I did in 1965, that given the combined land mass/populations of the USSR and China, the big communist threats of the time, that whether Vietnam or even all of SE Asia went communist at the time it represented little increase in threat to the US. I heard LBJ say he feared appearing soft on communism as a reason he took us to war there, not that there was any great threat to overcome. A lot of people made a lot of $$$ from that war. Personally, I hope they choked on their blood money.
in the Atlantic charter FDR pledged an end to colonialism...ho chi minh declared independence using virtually our declaration
after FDR died Truman through our support back to France for the reason of NATO or Europe first..the US paid for all of the war (french expenses) as well
without Vietnam NATO would be different, but Europe was more important to us than Vietnam, Vietnam a 4 million death afterthought only///
time after time the left is proved correct as opposed to "conservative" views "domino theory" but the right continues to make up fanciful scenarios which then haunt them
in the Atlantic charter FDR pledged an end to colonialism...ho chi minh declared independence using virtually our declaration
after FDR died Truman through our support back to France for the reason of NATO or Europe first..the US paid for all of the war (french expenses) as well
without Vietnam NATO would be different, but Europe was more important to us than Vietnam, Vietnam a 4 million death afterthought only///
time after time the left is proved correct as opposed to "conservative" views "domino theory" but the right continues to make up fanciful scenarios which then haunt them
You do realize that the Vietnam War was instigated and waged by Kennedy and Johnson, both highly progressive?
The people warning against prolonged involvement in Vietnam were conservatives: Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Goldwater.
For that matter, Korea was a Democrat project as well.
I'm not actually sure who developed the domino theory but its primary practitioners were Democrats.
An interesting thought experiment, extensively discussed here in the recent past, is whether Nixon would have taken us into SE Asia had he beaten JFK (which he nearly did).
I would postulate he would have given some air support but not committed ground troops. Ike was his boss for 8 years, after all. Whatever his personal flaws, Nixon was highly intelligent and knowledgeable, and I believe he was a strong patriot with enough wartime service to understand the ramifications of military action.
You do realize that the Vietnam War was instigated and waged by Kennedy and Johnson, both highly progressive?
The people warning against prolonged involvement in Vietnam were conservatives: Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Goldwater.
For that matter, Korea was a Democrat project as well.
I'm not actually sure who developed the domino theory but its primary practitioners were Democrats.
An interesting thought experiment, extensively discussed here in the recent past, is whether Nixon would have taken us into SE Asia had he beaten JFK (which he nearly did).
I would postulate he would have given some air support but not committed ground troops. Ike was his boss for 8 years, after all. Whatever his personal flaws, Nixon was highly intelligent and knowledgeable, and I believe he was a strong patriot with enough wartime service to understand the ramifications of military action.
I submit the political party of the President would have made no difference to American involvement in
Vietnam.
The war was like a train coming down the tracks. I am not saying it was impossible to stop, but it would have been extraordinarily difficult. The issue of communism loomed large in the early 1960's for most Americans. In 1964, Barry Goldwater the GOP candidate for President suggested dropping an atomic bomb on North Vietnam. Such an action likely would have resulted in a world war with China and the USSR. This was an extremely bad idea, but something still had to be done. Johnson was in an unenviable position in 1964. The government in South Vietnam that we supported had essentially collapsed. A series of military coups took place. South Vietnam was heavily infiltrated by Viet Cong. The only thing that could prevent collapse of the South was putting a large contingent of American forces in the country. Once that decision had been made it was almost impossible for any American president to back down. As North Vietnam sent more troops south, Johnson was forced to escalate the war. Bombing failed to stop infiltration by the North simply because of its inherent limitations.
The execution of some policies and military operations could have been better, but would have made no difference in the eventual outcome.
Trying to blame one party or another is inaccurate. It was American fear of communism that drove the whole process. Both parties bought into that.
Goldwater was running against Johnson in 1964, when the U.S. was already involved in SEAsia. At that time, Goldwater, who had extensive knowledge of Asia (had flown in southern China and had trained the ROC Air force) stated that the U.S. should get the job done quickly, or not go in at all. He said we should not rule out nuclear weapons, and his statement was seized upon by the Democrats, who painted him as a dangerous, unstable radical, though he walked back that statement. Their plan worked, and Johnson won by a huge margin.
Would the electorate have been so enthusiastic for LBJ and the war against Communism, had they known he was going to commit half a million men to a major ground war, at a cost of over 50,000 American lives and trillions of dollars (in modern currency)?
The first military people sent from the US to Vietnam happened when Ike was President. The program was continued and expanded when JFK was in office. However, JFK ordered the first 1000 people to be returned to the US by the end of 1963, but that order was rescinded by LBJ shortly after JFK was assassinated. While most of the horrors of Vietnam happened while LBJ was in office, a lot of the blame needs to go to those who gave him his military and foreign policy advice, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, Maxwell Taylor, et. al.
Whatever MacArthur said about it was irrelevant. He wanted to use Nukes in Korea, disobeyed direct orders from the President, so Truman fired him. He was out of the picture by the time we sent "advisers" to Vietnam.
Goldwater did indeed say he thought we should Nuke North Korea. I've seen the TV ad the Democrats ran in 1964, with the big nuclear cloud. It must have worked. When you say stupid stuff, you can win stupid prizes. Therefore, he lost the 1964 election. I'd compare it to more recent events, but I'm not going to break the rules of the History forum.
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.
