re: The True History Of How Vietnam Was Lost

quote:

---

So our side suffered combined 2mm or so losses (plus the French?) to the north's 1.4mm. So much for all the arse kicking talk. As much as I want to accept that we manhandled them on the battlefield, this figure seems inconsistent

---

You are taking that out of context. During the time of our involvement, we bore the brunt of the fighting. US forces never lost a battle and inflicted a much higher ratio on the VC/NVA than they did on us. You can't correlate the two.

I can see where it would easy to say that without looking into things deeper. I don't have a true casualty list to compare, and honestly I don't think there ever will be. Our numbers are known, but theirs truly aren't due to the fact that they removed their dead most times which didn't allow for accurate counts. I think - but others will know more - that it would be fair to say that estimates could be 10 - 1 or heaven higher. However, I think that official counts are less than that.

As Darth said, Tet demolished the VC as an effective force, and the NVA never really recovered fully. Add in the fact that when we were finally turned loose (see Linebacker I and II, the Cambodia incursions, etc), the north said enough was enough. That should have been done much earlier in the war.

quote:

---

NVA and VC casualties were basically twice as high as US casualties in almost every engagement.

---

so in this measure the south also won the civil war?

quote:

---

how Vietnam was lost

---

It was a Civil War. John Kennedy said the war was a war for the Vietnamese, not the Americans, the Vietnamese would determine their own fate. Then he was killed.

We never should have gone there any more than where we have been for the last 12yrs.

That is true, but the fact is that we were. If you are going to do a job, do it right.

Actually, loud and clear. However, you can say that we shouldn't have been there all you want, and you would be correct. And, that doesn't change the fact that we were and the fact that having our hands tied led to a lengthened war. Go back and do a little research, just what happened when our hands were untied?
And, since you chose to go there, it doesn't seem facts or a logical discussion would even entertain a thought. Good day, sir.

Well, I was a history professor, so let me clear the air a bit here.

I'm not going to engage in a long and drawn out debate, but let me be the soon to be drowned out voice of reason in this sea of bullshite.

The Vietnam War was, in fact, a series of military victories for the United States. However, as President Kennedy said in 1963, speaking of South Vietnam, "in the final analysis, it is their war. They're the ones who have to win it or lose it."

That was true when Kennedy was still alive, and it was the reality that Johnson faced later. McNamara and everyone else advised him, accurately, that South Vietnam could not win the war on its own, and that American withdrawal, regardless of whatever supplies we provided (nice try, Bruce), would result in South Vietnam's defeat. That is why Johnson ultimately decided to commit American combat forces.

Nixon understood this as well, and knew well that his Vietnamization policy would fail just as it had under Kennedy and Johnson. He continued American involvement for another four years trying to get a reasonable settlement.

If there's one thing that is the silver bullet against this ridiculous theory in the video that the war was won until the Democrats fricked it up, it is the reaction to the accords by the South Vietnamese government. Look it up. They were terrified, because they knew what it meant for them. Nixon and Kissinger's agreement with North Vietnam, not later congressional action, doomed South Vietnam. Or rather, it sealed their fate, because they were doomed all along.

As much as the former Nixon assistant in the video would like you to believe otherwise, it was not the fault of the Democratic Party. Nor was it the fault of the Republican Party. There were two Democratic and two Republican presidents involved in Vietnam after the French defeat, and none of them found success there. It was a national tragedy, not a partisan one.

quote:

---

LSUinMA

---

Yeah, blaming this "defeat" on just congressional democrats is simplistic and intellectually lazy.

Four pages of discussion and not one mention of how Nixon's back -door antics blew up Johnson's peace talks before the 68 election. Couldn't have a cease fire as he was running against a "dove" HH Humphrey.