- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The True History Of How Vietnam Was Lost
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:18 pm to Black n Gold
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:18 pm to Black n Gold
quote:
If we won the war, why did it end with marines plucking people off of the embassy in Saigon?
Darth is the history buff, but in a nutshell, we won the battles, the politicos conceded the war, we handed their asses to them on air, land , and sea(rivers), learned their tactics and mastered them, the pols just pulled the plug, and of course that's what the people at home watching the Brady Bunch wanted
0
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:22 pm to Black n Gold
quote:
Serious question from a novice history buff... If we won the war, why did it end with marines plucking people off of the embassy in Saigon?
OK. The Marines you saw in the evacuation of Saigon were not from a field force that had been in combat against the NVA. Those were security at the embassy itself. This evacuation took place two years after the end of the Vietnam War. You see the war ended in 1973. But the North then went and attacked again in 1975. This time though, thanks to the Dems in Congress, we left he South out to to dry.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:27 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The Marines you saw in the evacuation of Saigon were not from a field force that had been in combat against the NVA.
the evac was coordinated and ran by my ex FIL, and I hate to bring him up because of how much I despise the motherfricker, but he was the CO of one of the -46 squadrons plucking them off the embassy, he did have some pretty cool reel to reel audio tapes of that operation, very cool to listen to
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:28 pm to Darth_Vader
Thanks for the knowledge Darth. 
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:30 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
the evac was coordinated and ran by my ex FIL, and I hate to bring him up because of how much I despise the motherfricker, but he was the CO of one of the -46 squadrons plucking them off the embassy, he did have some pretty cool reel to reel audio tapes of that operation, very cool to listen to
How about that. It's always bothered me that to the average person the evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon is mistakenly seen as the final act in us being "defeated" in the Vietnam War. But it's the lie that's been painted by the Left in the media and in intelligentsia since then and most people just accept the lie as truth.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:32 pm to Black n Gold
quote:
Thanks for the knowledge Darth.
My pleasure. It's actually been one of my passions for a long time to try and dispel the myth that the US "lost" the Vietnam War.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:34 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
most people just accept the lie as truth.
the promise of ending the war was what got tricky Dick elected, but look at how many good restaurants we got out of that evac(bad joke,) but we kind of shafted those folks too
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:36 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
the promise of ending the war was what got tricky Dick elected,
Well, he actually kept his promise. And he did it not by just pulling all our forces out and leaving the South to it's fate. Instead, he won the war.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 3:59 pm to Darth_Vader
Well, I guess whether we won or lost would best be determined by whether we accomplished our objectives in going to war in the first place (whoever those objectives were). Tactical victories in the service of Strategic defeat would seem pretty pyrrhic.
BTW Darth: ideology aside, what do you think of Ho Chi Minh as a military/political leader? I've read a little on the guy and he seemed to go through a long period as kind of a loser, ineffectual nobody put ended up with some success.
BTW Darth: ideology aside, what do you think of Ho Chi Minh as a military/political leader? I've read a little on the guy and he seemed to go through a long period as kind of a loser, ineffectual nobody put ended up with some success.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:00 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
he won the war.
you're more up on this than me, at one time I was pretty well educated on this, iirc, most south Vietnamese could give two shits about us or what we thought we were there to do, but the ones that actually bought into what we were selling got the shaft if they weren't able to get out, I guess it was a victory at home, but I'd imagine that most of the country is exactly as it was before we ever set foot on it
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:10 pm to Methuselah
quote:
Well, I guess whether we won or lost would best be determined by whether we accomplished our objectives in going to war in the first place (whoever those objectives were). Tactical victories in the service of Strategic defeat would seem pretty pyrrhic.
Good point. So what was our objective? Simple, it was to prevent North Vietnam from conquering South Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords achieved this goal and ended the war in 1973. Thus, not only did we win a tactical victory, we also achieved strategic victory as well.
The "defeat" was not to come for another two years when AFTER the Vietnam War ended, the North once again invaded the South and this time around we left the South to it's fate. The invasion of 1975 was a totally separate war from the one ended in 1973. In this war the US did not become involved despite being bound by treaty to come to the aid of the South if it were attacked.
quote:
BTW Darth: ideology aside, what do you think of Ho Chi Minh as a military/political leader? I've read a little on the guy and he seemed to go through a long period as kind of a loser, ineffectual nobody put ended up with some success.
He's a darling of the left (as are all socialists & communists) but the truth of the matter is he was a despot and guilty of crimes against humanity. He never was a military leader really, that was Giap. He was an astute political leader however.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:18 pm to Darth_Vader
The video of the S. Vietnamese MAJ flying his O-1 BirdDog onto the Midway with his family inside was/is one of the coolest things that I've seen.
That dude had some serious cajones.
Here's the video: LINK
That dude had some serious cajones.
Here's the video: LINK
This post was edited on 8/29/14 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:18 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
you're more up on this than me, at one time I was pretty well educated on this, iirc, most south Vietnamese could give two shits about us or what we thought we were there to do, but the ones that actually bought into what we were selling got the shaft if they weren't able to get out, I guess it was a victory at home, but I'd imagine that most of the country is exactly as it was before we ever set foot on it
The last US ground forces actually left Vietnam in 1973. The final push for victory was actually accomplished by the South Vietnamese Army (which contrary to popular myth was by the early 70's a formidable force) and massive US Air Power. There was also a functioning government in the South as well. But let's not kid ourselves here. The South was totally dependent on the US for survival. but just as the South was totally dependent on the US, the North likewise was a a puppet of the USSR. The only difference is that when the Vietnam war ended in 1973, the Soviets helped nourish and rebuild the north while we abandoned the South. The end result was within 2 years the South was on the verge of collapse (thanks to our neglect)while the North had rearmed and were ready for another war. What ensued at that point was genocide.
This post was edited on 8/29/14 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:37 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
but I'd imagine that most of the country is exactly as it was before we ever set foot on it
Another myth of the Vietnam War is that the people of the South either didn't care who ruled or the ones who did actually wanted the Communists to take over. This is far from the truth. When we abandoned the South to it's fate in 1975 there was a mass exodus fleeing the Communists in what is now known as the Vietnamese Boat people. It's estimated something like 2,000,000 people fled Vietnam. And they were smart to do so as upwards of 1,000,000 South Vietnamese were imprisoned in the " Communist's Reeducation Camps" where over 100,000 either were killed outright or died following years of torture and abuse all in the name of the "workers & pheasants socialist paradise".
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:38 pm to Darth_Vader
Didn't the peace treaty that we signed allow the communists forces to stay in place in the South. If I am not mistaken we agreed to come to the South's aid after we pulled out if the North violated the accords? After Nixon fell from Watergate the dems pulled the funding and we never followed through with our promises to aid the South as soon as the North started the last offensive.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:41 pm to Darth_Vader
The thing is, Darth, is that people are almost brainwashed into believing we lost. And that solely rests on the media and the White House. It's damn near impossible to do what we did with our hands tied behind our back. The war could have been over well before it was had been so hindered.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:41 pm to Darth_Vader
I read a book on Vietnam. My take, in a nutshell, was we kicked their arse from a military standpoint but lost the war of propaganda. The liberal media contributed to this tremendously.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:42 pm to Darth_Vader
I understand the argument that the 1975 invasion could be considered separate from the Vietnam War itself, but can the war really be considered a success if the South Vietnam that American troops left behind in 1973 lacked both popular support and the capacity to defend itself without our military intervention?
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:44 pm to Nativebullet
We "lost" by getting involved in the first place. It was a useless war that never should have been fought.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 4:46 pm to AU86
quote:
Didn't the peace treaty that we signed allow the communists forces to stay in place in the South.
When the Paris Peace Accords were signed, there were still some Viet Cong forces in possession of some smaller remote villages. AS for regular NVA forces, there were no large formations in the South at the time of the signing. However, this did not last long. Basically the Veit Cong continued to harass South Vietnamese forces in ever increasing frequency and size until the South finally declared the Paris Peace Accords to have been violated in January of 1974. It was at that point in January of 1974, one full year after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, that the US, under it's treaty obligations to the South should have come to the aid of the South.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News