Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP General > Ask Each Other
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:11 AM
ACampComLegacy ACampComLegacy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Snow Hill NC
Posts: 651
Default Am Legion article on RVN; opinions?

Full article, from this American Legion page

(I wonder, were any Chinese, or Russian [pilots?] captured or KIA / ID'ed? I have read that a man believed to be a Chinese Advisor to NVA was killed in an engagement with 5th GRP + 4rth ID, that dad was involved in...)

Any thoughts on the article?
------------------------
In the decades after the departure of the last U.S. combat troops from Vietnam in March 1973 and the fall of Saigon to communist North Vietnamese forces in April 1975, Americans have been unable to agree on how to characterize the long, costly and ultimately unsuccessful U.S. military involvement in Indochina. To some, the Vietnam War was a crime – an attempt by the United States to suppress a heroic Vietnamese national liberation movement that had driven French colonialism out of its country. To others, the Vietnam War was a forfeit, a just war needlessly lost by timid policymakers and a biased media. For many who study foreign affairs, the Vietnam War was a tragic mistake brought about by U.S. leaders who exaggerated the influence of communism and underestimated the power of nationalism.

Another interpretation, a fourth one, has recently emerged, now that the Vietnam War is history and can be studied dispassionately by scholars with greater, though not unlimited, access to records on all sides.

The emerging scholarly synthesis interprets the war in the global context of the Cold War that lasted from the aftermath of World War II to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In this view, Vietnam was neither a crime, a forfeit nor a tragic mistake. It was a proxy conflict in the Cold War.

The Cold War was the third world war of the 20th century – itself part of what some have called the Long War or the Seventy-Five Years’ War of 1914-1989. Unlike the first two world wars, the Cold War began and ended without direct military conflict between the opposing sides, thanks to the deterrent provided by conventional forces as well as nuclear weapons. Instead, it was fought indirectly through economic embargoes, arms races, propaganda and proxy wars in peripheral nations like Vietnam.

The greatest prizes in the Cold War were the industrial economies of the advanced European and East Asian nations, most of all Germany and Japan. With the industrial might of demilitarized Japan and the prosperous western half of a divided Germany, the United States could hope to carry out its patient policy of containment of a communist bloc that was highly militarized but economically outmatched, until the Soviets sued for peace or underwent internal reform. The Soviet Union could prevail in the Cold War only if it divided the United States from its industrialized allies – not by sponsoring communist takeovers within their borders but by intimidating them into appeasement after convincing them that the United States lacked the resolve or the ability to defend its interests.

For this reason, most crises of the Cold War, from the Berlin Airlift and the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Korean and Vietnam wars, occurred when the United States responded to aggressive probing by communist bloc nations with dramatic displays of American resolve. The majority of these tests of American credibility took place in four countries divided between communist and non-communist regimes after World War II: Germany, China, Korea and Vietnam.

In an internal Johnson administration memo of March 1965, Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton emphasized credibility as the most important of several U.S. objectives in Vietnam:
In a speech the following month, President Johnson stressed America’s reputation as a guarantor: “Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of America’s commitment, the value of America’s word.”

Full-scale war was avoided despite repeated crises involving divided Berlin and Taiwan, where the remnant of China’s Nationalist government took refuge after the 1949 victory of Mao Zedong’s communists in China. The Cold War soon turned hot in divided Korea and Vietnam.

What Americans call the Vietnam War was the second of three wars in Indochina during the Cold War, in which the United States, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China intervened in shifting patterns of enmity and alliance. None of these would have occurred in the form that they did if Mao’s communists had not come to power in China in 1949. Although the regimes in Moscow and Beijing were enemies of one another by the end of the Cold War, in the conflict’s early years the triumph of the Chinese communists created a powerful Sino-Soviet bloc that opposed the United States and its allies around China’s periphery: Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. Direct Chinese military intervention in the Korean War ensured a bloody stalemate rather than reunification of the peninsula under a non-communist regime. At the same time, indirect Chinese and Soviet support in the First Indochina War (1946-1954) helped Ho Chi Minh’s communists drive the French from their former colony.

Only a few years after the Geneva Accords in 1954 established the 17th parallel as the boundary between Vietnam’s communist north and non-communist south, the Hanoi regime resumed war by means of infiltration and southern insurgents. After the conquest of the south in 1975, Communist Party historian Nguyen Khac Vien admitted, “The Provisional Revolutionary Government was always simply a group emanating from the DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam). If we had pretended otherwise for such a long period, it was only because during the war we were not obliged to unveil our cards.”

The assassination in 1963 of South Vietnam’s dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, created anarchy that led to rising U.S. involvement – starting with advisers under President Kennedy, then turning to bombing and ultimately large-scale ground forces under Johnson. In 1964, the Johnson administration won congressional passage of the Southeast Asia Resolution after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, using as a pretext for U.S. military intervention the confrontation in which North Vietnam fired on the USS Maddox. The number of American forces peaked in 1968, when more than half a million U.S. troops were waging war in South Vietnam, as well as bombing North Vietnam and taking part in incursions into Laos and Cambodia. At great cost in American and Vietnamese lives, the attrition strategy of Gen. William Westmoreland succeeded in preventing the Saigon regime from being overthrown by insurgents. The Tet Offensive of January 1968, perceived in the United States as a setback for American war aims, was in fact a devastating military setback for the north. Thereafter, North Vietnam’s only hope was to conquer South Vietnam by means of conventional military campaigns, which the United States successfully thwarted.

In the United States, public opinion grew opposed to the costs in blood and treasure of the controversial war. President Richard Nixon sought to achieve “peace with honor” by combining a policy of “Vietnamization,” or South Vietnamese self-reliance, with a policy of détente with the Soviet Union and China, in the hope that the communist powers would pressure the north into ending the war. His strategy failed. Following the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, U.S. combat forces were removed, and the south, deprived by Congress of military aid, was invaded by the north. In 1975, upon uniting Vietnam under their rule in 1975, the victorious heirs of Ho Chi Minh imposed Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism on the south and helped their allies win power in Laos. The Third Indochina War soon followed. Mao’s heirs in China viewed communist Vietnam as a Soviet satellite on their border, and in early 1979 China invaded Vietnam in a brief war, following the 1978 Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia, during which Vietnamese communists ousted the Chinese-backed regime of the murderous Pol Pot.

Of the three great powers that intervened in Indochina after the ouster of France in the 1950s, the Soviet Union gained the most. By backing Hanoi, Moscow simultaneously obtained an ally on China’s border and reasserted its leadership of international Marxism-Leninism. The former U.S. base at Cam Ranh Bay became the largest Soviet military installation outside Eastern Europe. In “The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War” (1996), Russian historian Ilya Gaiduk wrote, “Inspired by its gains and by the decline of U.S. prestige resulting from Vietnam and domestic upheaval, the Soviet leadership adopted a more aggressive and rigid foreign policy, particularly in the Third World.”

But in December 1979, only months after China was humiliated in its brief war with Moscow’s Vietnamese ally, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. That decade-long conflict proved to be Moscow’s Vietnam.

Just as the Soviets and Chinese had armed and equipped Vietnamese opponents of U.S. forces in Vietnam, the United States and China – now allies against Moscow – armed and equipped the insurgents who fought the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was the third major proxy war in the Cold War.

In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War effectively ended, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, as the United States had withdrawn its troops from Indochina a decade and a half earlier.

The United States lost the proxy war in Indochina but prevailed on a global level in the Cold War. The USSR not only lost the Cold War but ceased to exist in 1991. The discredited secular creed of Marxism-Leninism has survived in only a few dictatorships, including China, North Korea and Vietnam.

As the narrative of the 20th century is interpreted, historians are regarding the Vietnam War in a global context that spans decades and concludes with the fall of the Soviet Union. No matter their differences of perspective, they will define the Vietnam War as the Cold War in Indochina.

The interventions of the United States, the Soviet Union and China turned civil wars in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia into proxy wars. This provides an answer to those who claim that the United States, by its intervention, mistakenly turned a pure civil war in Vietnam into part of the Cold War. The United States shared its belief that Indochina was a major theater in the global Cold War with the Soviet Union and China. In “Hanoi’s War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam,” Lien-Hang T. Nguyen writes, “While Moscow hoped to see Soviet technology defeat American arms in Vietnam, Beijing wanted to showcase the power of Mao’s military strategy on the Vietnamese battlefield.”

There is no evidence that Ho Chi Minh or his successors ever envisioned the kind of neutrality that Yugoslavia’s communist dictator Josip Broz Tito pursued during the Cold War. On the contrary, the North Vietnamese communists identified themselves with the main communist bloc of nations, sought to maintain the support of the Soviets and the Chinese alike, and by the end of the Cold War had turned their country into the Soviet Union’s major Asian ally.

Was South Vietnam too marginal an interest to justify a U.S. war in the 1960s and 1970s? To this day, the United States garrisons South Korea and provides arms to Taiwan. If you consider that in today’s world, the United States could go to war if China attacks Taiwan and almost certainly would go to war if North Korea attacks South Korea, the use of U.S. military force to defend South Vietnam against North Vietnam at the height of the Cold War seems less puzzling. Indeed, a U.S. decision in the 1960s not to try to avert a communist takeover of South Vietnam would need explanation.

Viewing the Indochina wars as Cold War proxy wars, along with the conflicts of that era in Korea and Afghanistan, answers one set of critics: the realists. It also provides an answer to other critics who claim that the United States should have been more aggressive toward North Vietnam. In 1978, Adm. William Sharp wrote, “Why were we not permitted to win? In my view, it was partly because political and diplomatic circles in Washington were disproportionately concerned with the possibility of Chinese and Soviet intervention.”

The late Col. Harry Summers Jr. argued that the United States allowed itself “to be bluffed by China throughout most of the war.”

Undermining this critique is the fact that China and the Soviet Union played a much greater role in the Vietnam War than Americans realized at the time. Fifty percent of all Soviet foreign aid went to North Vietnam between 1965 and 1968. Soviet anti-aircraft teams in North Vietnam brought down dozens of U.S. planes. According to former Soviet colonel Alexei Vinogradov, “The Americans knew only too well that Vietnamese planes of Soviet design were often flown by Soviet pilots.”

China’s indirect role in Vietnam was even more massive and critical. It is now known that in a secret meeting between Ho Chi Minh and Mao in the summer of 1965, China agreed to enter the war directly if the United States invaded North Vietnam. As it was, China’s indirect involvement in Vietnam was its greatest military effort after the Korean War. According to Beijing, between 1965 and 1973, there were 320,000 Chinese troops assigned to North Vietnam, with a maximum of 170,000 – roughly a third of the maximum number of U.S. forces – in the south at their peak. On Sept. 23, 1968, Mao asked North Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong, “Why have the Americans not made a fuss about the fact that more than 100,000 Chinese troops help you building railways, roads and airports although they know about it?”

Historian Chen Jian concludes that “without the support, the history, even the outcome of the Vietnam War, might have been different.”

Nobody can ever prove that the People’s Liberation Army would have fought U.S. troops directly if the United States had invaded North Vietnam. But the depth of China’s involvement in the war suggests that U.S. policymakers were being prudent, not pusillanimous, when they worried that China would send troops to fight directly in Vietnam as it had done in Korea. Reviewing the evidence, historian Qiang Zhai concludes, “If the actions recommended by (Col. Harry) Summers had been taken by Washington in Vietnam, there would have been a real danger of a Sino-American war with dire consequences for the world. In retrospect, it appears that Johnson had drawn the correct lesson from the Korean War and had been prudent in his approach to the Vietnam conflict.”

From today’s perspective, the Vietnam War looks less like a senseless blunder on the part of the United States than like a replay of the Korean War in a different region with a different outcome. Elsewhere in Asia, including the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia, communist insurgencies were defeated by local governments, sometimes with the help of British or French advisers and combat troops. It may be that those insurgencies failed, while communist regimes survived in part of Korea and unified Vietnam, because of one factor: the absence of a land border with post-1949 communist China, which provided material support, manpower and deterrence of a U.S. escalation that might risk wider war with China.

Ever since the fall of Saigon, Americans have sought to draw lessons from Vietnam, but some have been short-lived. In the late 20th century, U.S. policymakers and military strategists, hoping to put the memory of Vietnam behind them, focused on swift, high-tech warfare against technologically advanced adversaries – only to painfully relearn forgotten lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan about counterinsurgency and nation-building.

In the aftermath of Vietnam, the United States sought to put Asian conflicts behind it. But the recently announced “pivot” away from the Middle East toward Asia is widely viewed as an American strategy of containing China, with which the United States fought bloody proxy wars in Vietnam and Korea in living memory. In a Sino-American conflict in the 21st century, Vietnam might even be an American ally.

As a historical event, the Vietnam War is an unchanging part of the past. As a symbol, it will continue to evolve, reflecting the values and priorities of later generations. In discussing and debating the nation’s most controversial war, Americans would do well to remember the words of the poet T.S. Eliot: “There is no such thing as a Lost Cause, because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.”
__________________
Gramps; O-6 Dental Corp
Dad; O-5, 5 SFG
me; lowly E-x, Med Corp
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-24-2017, 11:04 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,283
Send a message via AIM to milprileb
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACampComLegacy View Post
Full article, from this American Legion page


As a historical event, the Vietnam War is an unchanging part of the past. As a symbol, it will continue to evolve, reflecting the values and priorities of later generations. ”
This is code for : Revisionist History to define the Viet Nam War. Warp the truth to fit the agenda.

It was not a "proxy" war at my level of Infantry Platoon Leader in 101 Airborne and I sure as heck don't need Ken Burns Documentary, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and any number of liberals to define that war to me.. Nor do I need historians reading flawed historical works done with an agenda, to define the war today in warped theories and new flawed books.

The reason the truth on that war won't be told is its too painful to accept: The US convinced the South Vietnamese to accept the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, guaranteed security of South Viet Nam and military aid if North Vietnam violated the accords. Then in 1975, the NVA attacked, our parasite Democratic controlled Congress cut funding , the South Vietnamese ran out of resources to fight and South Viet Nam was brutally taken over by a human rights indifferent North Viet Nam and South Vietnamese suffer to this day.

Revisionist historians will continue to redefine this war till the above truth is masked and then fade off into the dust bin of history.

The crime is they'll do it as my generation who fought this war are dying off fast now and with them...the truth . That truth contains the indifference of our nations population to returning Viet Nam vets and contempt for decades toward them. That is criminal and its embarrassing and must be erased from history.

Its true: with the last shot of that war, the truth died with it.

Beyond all the above, I don't have a personal opinion on the Viet Nam War.

Last edited by milprileb; 11-24-2017 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-24-2017, 12:18 PM
ACampComLegacy ACampComLegacy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Snow Hill NC
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milprileb View Post

...

The reason the truth on that war won't be told is its too painful to accept: The US convinced the South Vietnamese to accept the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, guaranteed security of South Viet Nam and military aid if North Vietnam violated the accords. Then in 1975, the NVA attacked, our parasite Democratic controlled Congress cut funding , the South Vietnamese ran out of resources to fight ...

...
Never knew this milprileb; and didn't look for bias / revisionism on author's part...

THanks for your service Sir. Welcome home.
__________________
Gramps; O-6 Dental Corp
Dad; O-5, 5 SFG
me; lowly E-x, Med Corp
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-24-2017, 12:42 PM
J.R.2009 J.R.2009 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Posts: 7,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
This is code for : Revisionist History to define the Viet Nam War. Warp the truth to fit the agenda.

It was not a "proxy" war at my level of Infantry Platoon Leader in 101 Airborne and I sure as heck don't need Ken Burns Documentary, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and any number of liberals to define that war to me.. Nor do I need historians reading flawed historical works done with an agenda, to define the war today in warped theories and new flawed books.

The reason the truth on that war won't be told is its too painful to accept: The US convinced the South Vietnamese to accept the Paris Peace Accords of 1973, guaranteed security of South Viet Nam and military aid if North Vietnam violated the accords. Then in 1975, the NVA attacked, our parasite Democratic controlled Congress cut funding , the South Vietnamese ran out of resources to fight and South Viet Nam was brutally taken over by a human rights indifferent North Viet Nam and South Vietnamese suffer to this day.

Revisionist historians will continue to redefine this war till the above truth is masked and then fade off into the dust bin of history.

The crime is they'll do it as my generation who fought this war are dying off fast now and with them...the truth . That truth contains the indifference of our nations population to returning Viet Nam vets and contempt for decades toward them. That is criminal and its embarrassing and must be erased from history.

Its true: with the last shot of that war, the truth died with it.

Beyond all the above, I don't have a personal opinion on the Viet Nam War.
Amen brother.
There was more trash in that war that has never been told by any media. Since WWII has there ever been a war, by any other name, fought by us to WIN? If you are going to fight a battle you fight to win and let the military decide how to do it. Just give them the tools and support and let them do the job.
__________________
J.R.

Home of the FREE Carbine Club Newsletter Index [email protected]

http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/

USAF 379th Bomb Wing (Heavy) SAC
Gun Owners of SC
GCA
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-24-2017, 01:19 PM
Ohio Don Ohio Don is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: S Florida and SE Ohio
Posts: 3,802
Default

Quote:
The assassination in 1963 of South Vietnam’s dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, created anarchy that led to rising U.S. involvement – starting with advisers under President Kennedy, then turning to bombing and ultimately large-scale ground forces under Johnson.
There is revisionist history right there. The advisors first went in under Truman. There was a build up of them from 1951 to Johnsons's time.
__________________
NRA Life member
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,RSO
US Army Transportation and Medical Corps Museums Life member
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2017, 04:24 PM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,283
Send a message via AIM to milprileb
Default Advisors...in the shadows out of history's awareness

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Don View Post
There is revisionist history right there. The advisors first went in under Truman. There was a build up of them from 1951 to Johnsons's time.
My father was an adviser with Military Assistance Advisory Group - Viet Nam from 1955 to 1958. My brother was in killed in Central Highlands in 1964 as an advisor with Montagnard tribes. Our involvement started in earnest (boots on ground) about 1954 onwards .

and over in Laos... 1957.....http://www.specialforceshistory.info...hite-star.html

and over in Thailand...Military Assistance Command-Thailand

Last edited by milprileb; 11-24-2017 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-24-2017, 04:48 PM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,283
Send a message via AIM to milprileb
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACampComLegacy View Post
Never knew this milprileb; and didn't look for bias / revisionism on author's part...

THanks for your service Sir. Welcome home.
Thanks goes to the troops, they got shafted and treated badly. No thanks deserved to me, I have a sacred respect for the draftee...he got pulled out of his life, sent to a war and BY GOD, DID HIS DUTY. That is a lot to ask of a 17 to 22 yr old kid (on average this was the age group of draftees largely) and they stepped up and did not flinch. Then that draftee came home and got crapped on but still drove on and made his way in life. They still don't get the credit they are due but they were then, are now GREAT AMERICANS. Thank God we have them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-24-2017, 06:51 PM
howardhuge howardhuge is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: nc
Posts: 1,013
Default

Revisionist historians will continue to redefine this war till the above truth is masked and then fade off into the dust bin of history.
Sad but true. My Brother was KIA June 3 1968...i have been on a Emotional Roller Coster on the Vietnam War till the last few years ...Now at 62 I simply have come to believe your comment above has come to pass. You CAN NOT Remove the Fact they Fought with Honor, and their Sacrifice is Appreciated by those who serve and the families who gave all.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-24-2017, 06:55 PM
rickgman rickgman is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 824
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.2009 View Post
If you are going to fight a battle you fight to win and let the military decide how to do it. Just give them the tools and support and let them do the job.
When discussing the war with my Dad back in the mid 60's, he said that he felt that our nation was approaching the conflict incorrectly. He stated that the concept of a "limited war" was nonsense. He firmly believed that once the killing starts, the time for talking has ended and the proper response is to fight to win - and do it as fast as possible. To do otherwise only lengthens the conflict and results in a greater amount of casualties. Too bad LBJ and McNamara didn't have the same understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2017, 07:37 PM
10thmountain 10thmountain is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 455
Default

My father served in Vietnam. 1970-71. Trained on the M1 went to war with the M16.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.