Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?
Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life. A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory. Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?
I disagree. We had every right to help a friendly nation defend itself from foreign aggression. It was the betrayal of our promises that cost our stature in the eyes of the world.
It was not "a friendly nation." It was a friendly government that had little popular support.
As I have already pointed out in this thread, nearly 80 percent of the nation of Vietnam supported Ho Chi Minh.
Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.
As far as a change in world order, there is an argument that fighting in places like Korea and Vietnam showed the resolve of western powers to fight Soviet expansion. The Domino Effect idea was that letting one nation fall to the Soviets and doing nothing just prompted others to do the same, so we had to fight.
Given America left Vietnam, regardless of the reasons, surely that would have meant the Soviets were emboldened.
Did the Soviets invade America or do any damage at all to the United States?
As they did not, that argument is suspect.
It was not "a friendly nation." It was a friendly government that had little popular support.
As I have already pointed out in this thread, nearly 80 percent of the nation of Vietnam supported Ho Chi Minh.
Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.
On all three fronts of the offensive, initial North Vietnamese successes were hampered by high casualties, inept tactics, and the increasing application of U.S. and South Vietnamese air power. One result of the offensive was the launching of Operation Linebacker II, the first sustained bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S. since November 1968.
Easter Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Without American air support the offensive would have succeeded. This is why:
"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
The war was lost really before it got started. I think it was more a numbers game. With a force of about half million we were facing a force of 300,000 to 400,000 fighting against an invading army in swamps and jungles which they called home. Convention wisdom is that you need a great troop superiority to engage in guerrilla warfare in the enemy's homeland and that we did not have. We pined our hopes on aerial bombing which solidified anti-war resistance at home and turned many of the South Vietnamese against us.It was not "a friendly nation." It was a friendly government that had little popular support.
As I have already pointed out in this thread, nearly 80 percent of the nation of Vietnam supported Ho Chi Minh.
Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.
On all three fronts of the offensive, initial North Vietnamese successes were hampered by high casualties, inept tactics, and the increasing application of U.S. and South Vietnamese air power. One result of the offensive was the launching of Operation Linebacker II, the first sustained bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S. since November 1968.
Easter Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Without American air support the offensive would have succeeded. This is why:
"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life. A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory. Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?
I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?
Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life. A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory. Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?
So why did the US ignore the Communist threat 90 miles from our shores in Cuba to fight the Commies 7,000 miles away in Vietnam? Sorry the "stop communism" argument does not hold water.
The war was lost really before it got started. I think it was more a numbers game. With a force of about half million we were facing a force of 300,000 to 400,000 fighting against an invading army in swamps and jungles which they called home. Convention wisdom is that you need a great troop superiority to engage in guerrilla warfare in the enemy's homeland and that we did not have. We pined our hopes on aerial bombing which solidified anti-war resistance at home and turned many of the South Vietnamese against us.Pure fantasy. If 80% of the population had favored Uncle Ho there would have been no mass migration south of people willing to leave everything behind to avoid his rule. There actually would have been a mass uprising in support of the Tet offensive. The North Vietnam Easter-Apr. '72- offensive would have been welcomed with open arms as there were no US ground combat units remaining in-country. Instead the communist invasion was soundly defeated by the ARVNs you are trying to claim actually supported Ho. Fantasy.
On all three fronts of the offensive, initial North Vietnamese successes were hampered by high casualties, inept tactics, and the increasing application of U.S. and South Vietnamese air power. One result of the offensive was the launching of Operation Linebacker II, the first sustained bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S. since November 1968.
Easter Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Without American air support the offensive would have succeeded. This is why:
"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm
Regarded as a brilliant tank commander by his peers, General Creighton Abrams is best known for skilfully presiding over America’s withdrawal from Vietnam. He was the son of a railroad repairman and in 1936 graduated from West Point in the same class as (General) William Westmoreland.
Vietnam War
On 1st June 1967 Abrams was appointed Deputy Commander of U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and was responsible for overseeing the U.S. advisory effort with the Vietnamese Armed Forces (RVNAF). Thirteen months later, following the Tet Offensive and General Westmoreland’s promotion to Army Chief of Staff, he became Commander of MACV.
Unlike his predecessor, who had favored a division of effort - U.S. units concentrating on the destruction of the enemy's main forces, whilst the RVNAF focused on pacification (the "other war") - Abrams articulated a "One War" approach. Rather than relying on the body count to gauge the progress of the attrition strategy, the new commander stated that population security would now be the barometer for success.1
In this regard Abrams favored using small unit patrols to deny the Viet Cong access to the people and to disrupt the movement of Communist forces and their supplies. However, despite advocating the primacy of pacification, large combat operations in remote areas continued, such as the assault on Hamburger Hill in the A Shau Valley in May 1969.
Beginning in July 1969, Abrams was tasked with implementing President Nixon's Vietnamization policy, which turned responsibility for military operations over to the Vietnamese so that U.S. forces could be withdrawn. In order to achieve this without South Vietnam collapsing the pacification program was accelerated, particularly in the southern provinces. Able to be withdrawn from the pacified areas, the ARVN replaced the departing American soldiers fighting the enemy's main forces in the northern regions. Abrams' implementation of Vietnamization was portrayed as a success after the ARVN was able to confront the NVA's 1972 Easter Offensive whilst the territorial forces simultaneously managed to maintain security in the southern Delta.2
In October 1972, after four years in command of MACV, Abrams became Chief of Staff of the Army, where he continued the Army’s transition to an all-volunteer force and its reorganization in Western Europe.
When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.
Kennedy was not aware of the plans to invade Cuba until after he was inaugurated. The invasion was planned by the CIA under the Eisenhower administration. According to Kennedy's biographer, he approved the plan because commitments had been made, the invasion could not be delayed, and the CIA assured him that US government involvement could be kept secret. Kennedy's fear was that US government involvement would not be kept secret and the Soviets might react strongly to a US sponsored invasion. So less than 3 months after he took office the invasion took place and it failed miserable. Kennedy of course took the heat and the following month, Soviet missiles installation began in Cuba, 90 miles off the US coast.Because at the time, Communism was viewed as a major threat to our way of life. A lot of people really believed that the Communists would try to take over the US, so stopping communism wherever we could was mandatory. Remember how Joseph McCarthy destroyed so many lives by accusing just about anyone of being a communist or a communist sympathizer?
So why did the US ignore the Communist threat 90 miles from our shores in Cuba to fight the Commies 7,000 miles away in Vietnam? Sorry the "stop communism" argument does not hold water.
When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.
Bottom line. That's why.
Where do you guys grow up to miss this much history in school?
I think many of you are actually moles or plants from overseas posing as dumb young Americans.
The chance of a nuclear exchange between the USSR and US over Viet Nam was minimal compared to Cuba.When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.
Now let me get this straight, Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise? Sorry not buying it.
When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.
Now let me get this straight, Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise? Sorry not buying it.
When Cuban immigrants tried to stage an invasion & coup to retake Cuba early in the Castro regime, it was not supported by Kennedy and a rout by Castro's forces ensued and the Bay of Pigs was a black eye for JFK.
The subsequent Cuban missile crisis several months later was resolved, in part, with a promise to leave Cuba alone.
Now let me get this straight, Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise? Sorry not buying it.
Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
However, in Viet Nam the belief and fear was that once Viet Nam went Communist the rest of the countries in the region would also fall to the Reds, one after the other, like dominoes.
Hence, the "Domino Theory."
Now let me get this straight, Communist in Cuba 90miles away get a free pass, while communist in Vietnam 7000 miles away we decided to fight spending billions of dollars and 50,000 lives of our military all because of a promise? Sorry not buying it.
Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
However, in Viet Nam the belief and fear was that once Viet Nam went Communist the rest of the countries in the region would also fall to the Reds, one after the other, like dominoes.
Hence, the "Domino Theory."
How many countries went "red" after the Vietnamese victory over America?
Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
"
I'm having a little trouble trying to work out why America went into Vietnam.
I was assured it was to save the democratic world from the evil communist threat but, regardless of the reasons for it, you lost and went home.
After that withdrawal, there was no change at all in the world order.
Given that, can anyone explain why the United States went to Vietnam, spent a massive pile of your taxpayers' money, and killed a load of your own people?
Cuba going Red wasn't going to lead to the rest of the region going Red, necessarily.
"
Really? So you are saying that the US did not worry about any other Caribbean or South or Central American countries going Communist? I don't believe that was the case at all.
