Vietnam - Did America Win All the Battles?

[tober]

Dolchstosslegende Vietnam, Did America Win All the Battles?

​

October 9, 2013
​

Whenever the topic comes up about the Vietnam War Americans site the same mantra. It goes that they won all the battles but lost the war so in reality they were the military victors. A close reading of the memoirs of Vietnam vets reveals a different reality. The authors do not recognize or admit defeat, but they admit all the facts that make up the defeat.

A reading of memoirs of US vets reveals the same scenario repeating itself over and over again in the 1970's before the US left. American forces were virtually pinned in their bases and in a few urban centres. 85% of all contacts were initiated by NVA forces ambushing US Forces - in other words NVA forces had the initiative. A firefight would ensue in which the result was initially even or in favour of NVA forces until US supporting arms were brought it. Once supporting arms were called in, NVA forces would retire and US supporting arms would paste empty turf for anything from four hours to two days. US and NVA grunts would all watch from a distance. When supporting arms finished a few yanks would go forward, take pictures, declare victory and leave. The next day the turf would once again be firmly in the hands of the NVA. Yanks came. Yanks saw. NVA initiated combat. Yanks left. NVA remained in control. That means NVA won. And they're still there. Sounds like a win to me.

This should not come as a surprise. It is revealed in the Pentagon Papers that as early as 1967 the American military concluded it could not win the Vietnam War by conventional means. All the millions of wasted resources and most of the eventual 50,000 American dead occurred after that. In Operation Duck Hook Henry Kissinger proposed nuclear attacks. President Nixon eventually backed down in 1969. See

Duck Hook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Duck Hook (code-named "Pruning Knife" by the military) was the White House code-name of an operation President Richard Nixon had threatened to unleash against North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, if North Vietnam did not yield to Washington's terms at the Paris peace negotiations. Duck Hook called for the possible-nuclear bombing of military and economic targets in and around Hanoi….
​

Why do Americans repeatedly make this claim? The most common element is that liberal America, and especially the media, stabbed US forces in the back. It is a weak argument but there is world military precedent for it. The term used in Germany after WW1 was Dolchstosslegende, the “stab in the back”.

From Killing Hitler, Roger Moorhouse, Bantam Bell, New York, 2006, at pages 79-80:

In October 1919, less than a year after the end of the First World War, a Committee of Enquiry was established in Berlin to investigate the circumstances surrounding the German military collapse of the previous summer. One of its star witnesses was Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, former commander in chief and the new darling of the nationalist right. His appearance before the committee was remarkable. Outside, the crowds cheered his every move, while the newly republican army fell over itself to pander to its erstwhile commander. Inside, Hindenburg contemptuously ignored the questions put to him and embarked instead on a tirade against the new rulers of Germany. His statement ended with the words that would threaten the very basis of the new German Republic: “No blame” [sic] for the defeat, he said, “was to be attached to the sound core of the army.” Rather, he claimed that “civilian demoralization and disunion” had so permeated the military cadres that “our will to victory was undermined. I looked for energy and cooperation and found weakness.” In his memoirs, he gave his spurious analysis a more lyrical, heroic bent: “Like Siegrfied [sic],” he wrote, “stricken down by the treacherous spear of savage Hagen, our weary front collapsed.” Behind the rhetoric, the message was the same – the German army had been betrayed.

The myth of the Dolchstosslegende, the “stab in the back,” was born. It held the German military had not been defeated in the field and that the ambitious and unscrupulous politicians of the left and centre had shamelessly asked for an armistice without the army’s knowledge. The politicians, it claimed, had seized defeat from the jaws of victory solely to be able to usher in their own revolution.
​

The US right wing, in attempting to re-write history, has not come up with anything new. The semi-official “We were stabbed in the back,” excuse repeated so often by Americans is nothing but a re-statement of the excuse used by the pre-Nazi German military and political leadership.

 

[BaalsTears]

What happened to the Viet Cong? Why were North Vietnamese Army Regulars fighting American forces in South Vietnam after Tet.

 

[tober]

What happened to the Viet Cong? Why were North Vietnamese Army Regulars fighting American forces in South Vietnam after Tet.

According to some histories the VC were decimated in Tet in 1968, and never recovered as a major strategic force. One of the most influential authorities at the time on guerrilla warfare was Mao Tse Tung. In his Little Red Book he wrote that at some point in a successful guerrilla war regular forces must take over the fight from guerrilla forces. The north's generals were students of Mao, so presumably the take over from the VC by the NVA was not unanticipated. NVA regular forces beat the Americans.

 

[Goober]

Vietnamese general, dead at 102, accepted massive losses to free land from foreign armies - The Globe and Mail

To his American adversaries, however, from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, he was perhaps second only to his mentor, Ho Chi Minh, as the face of an implacable enemy, as ruthless with his own forces as he was with his opponents. To historians, his willingness to sustain staggering losses against superior U.S. firepower was a large reason the war dragged on as long as it did, costing more than 2.5 million lives – 58,000 of them American – sapping the U.S. Treasury and Washington’s political will to fight, and bitterly dividing the country in an argument about America’s role in the world that still echoes today.

But his critics said that his victories had been rooted in a profligate disregard for the lives of his soldiers. Gen. William Westmoreland, who commanded U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1964 until 1968, said, “Any American commander who took the same vast losses as Gen. Giap would not have lasted three weeks.”

Gen. Giap understood something that his adversaries did not, however. Early on, he learned that the loyalty of Vietnam’s peasants was more crucial than controlling the land on which they lived. Like Ho Chi Minh, he believed devoutly that the Vietnamese would be willing to bear any burden to free their land from foreign armies. He knew something else as well, and profited from it: Waging war in the television age depended as much on propaganda as it did on success in the field.

These lessons were driven home during the Tet offensive of 1968, when North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong guerrillas attacked scores of military targets and provincial capitals throughout South Vietnam, only to be thrown back with staggering losses. Gen. Giap had expected the offensive to set off uprisings and show the Vietnamese that the Americans were vulnerable.

Militarily, it was a failure. But the offensive came as opposition to the war was growing in the United States, and the televised savagery of the fighting fuelled another wave of protests. President Lyndon Johnson, who had been contemplating retirement months before Tet, decided not to seek re-election, and with the election of Richard Nixon in November, the long withdrawal of U.S. forces began.

 

[relic]

WHAT ???!!! You mean the americans didn't win every war they were ever in ? Meby bombing little countris to protect the price of bananas is more their speed.They still have a pout on because Cuba kicked their ***.

 

[tober]

WHAT ???!!! You mean the americans didn't win every war they were ever in ? Meby bombing little countris to protect the price of bananas is more their speed.They still have a pout on because Cuba kicked their ***.

Now THAT is the truth. And who was the US government protecting at the time? Primarily gambling facilities owned and operated by US organized crime. Ever since then we have heard America crying crocodile tears for "poor Cuban peasants". However when Cuban peasants were rebelling against the corrupt Cuban government, America was on the side of the organized crime figures who ran Cuba's casinos and ***** houses.

 

[damngrumpy]

What was Vietnam all about some might ask. Well in 1956 at Dien Bin Foo
the French lost the last major conflict in South East Asia. As the were then
pulling out the Americans went in to safe South Vietnam. Kennedy was the
one who really ramped things up. The Newh Family the leadership in the
south were Christian.
The war was really a few wars going on at once. North and Sout Vietman
in a civil war. America and the Russians testing their new toys and the
Americans the the Chinese engaging other under the cover of a war between
two states of a divided country.
The Viet Kong were always in South Vietnam before and after the Tet Offencive.
The Ho Che Minn Taril is about a hundred miles wide and was a supply line
for those coming in from the North. The South Vietnamese population were more
sympathetic to the North than the South in many cases because the South
Vietnamese Government was so corrupt. Another thing. Sigman Rii the VP of
South Vietnam was the Vice President and he ended up in Canada a real nasty
piece of work that guy was.

 

[tober]

Sigman Rii the VP of South Vietnam was the Vice President and he ended up in Canada a real nasty
piece of work that guy was.

Many people here might remember the South Vietnamese general who shot a VC terrorist in the head inm front of a tv camera towards the end of the war. The last thing I remember reading about him, he was a waiter in an oriental restaurant in Montreal.

 

[Vancouverite]

Of course the Americans could have won - read G. Harry Summers On Strategy.

To cut a long story short, they should have cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, all the while bombing them as Nixon ordered, along with major incursions into North Vietnam to keep them off balance. If they had been allowed to fight to win, they would have won.

 

[gopher]

The most common element is that liberal America, and especially the media, stabbed US forces in the back. It is a weak argument but there is world military precedent for it.

While that notion is popular and "politically correct" it falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that Nixon was no liberal by anyone's definition.

 

[tober]

Of course the Americans could have won - read G. Harry Summers On Strategy.

To cut a long story short, they should have cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, all the while bombing them as Nixon ordered, along with major incursions into North Vietnam to keep them off balance. If they had been allowed to fight to win, they would have won.

Not true. The Pentagon Papers, secret US government papers made public during the war, reported that the Pentagon concluded by 1967 that America could not win the Vietnam War without going nuclear. The American military's top echelons concluded that American conventional forces could not win the war. Please read the OP if you missed it.

Ho Chi Minh was on the Allied side in WW2 against Japan. He aided the allies in return for a promise of Vietnamese autonomy after the war. The US and Britain agreed. After the war ended the French said they wanted their colony back, so America turned the Jap POW’s loose under Allied officers against the Vietnamese. Eventually France tried to run the country as its old colony but failed. They were defeated by General Giap at Dien Bien Phu.

The Vietnamese demanded freedom. A north-south split developed in Vietnam in which America, having already sided against Ho Chi Minh in the north, sided with the minority in South Vietnam. A demilitarized zone was set up half way down the country and elections were called to determine whether the government of the north or south would form the central government. It became obvious that the north would win, so the US and France cancelled the elections then lied to their own countries and the world about the reason.

The Vietnamese refused to be satisfied with half a country. Even in the south the government of the south could not have won a free election. China was not the driving factor, Vietnamese nationalism was. Eventually America gave up and within three years the south fell. Within two years after that Vietnam was at war with China.

The war in Vietnam developed serious strains of anti-Americanism because America butted in after breaking its WW2 promises. The Vietnam War was primarily a civil war. Every foreigner who became involved from 1945 on was bloodied. The Japanese, the French, the Americans and finally the Chinese were all bloodied in Vietnam.

While that notion is popular and "politically correct" it falls flat on its face when you consider the fact that Nixon was no liberal by anyone's definition.

It is only politically correct in America, and not to all Americans. Mostly to dumbed down red states.

 

[gopher]

Tober,

It is only politically correct in America, and not to all Americans. Mostly to dumbed down red states.

Very true. Back then we all knew the war was based on government lies and this was confirmed when the Pentagon Papers were disclosed. Upon getting those revelations nobody in their right mind stood up and defended the war after that. However, today it has suddenly become fashionable to attack Jane Fonda and anyone who openly opposed the war rather than to criticize the Johnsons, Nixons, and D1ck Cheneys who pushed for it. Today it's always a matter of "blame the liberals" for everything under the sun. But on top of all that, today's liberals are too timid to stand up with the truth and to point the finger at the real culprits. To this day no one in the USA ever mentions the Downing Street Memo which should have been used to impeach Bush. Therefore, it's a combination of some being dumbed down and others being too timid.

 

[tober]

To this day no one in the USA ever mentions the Downing Street Memo which should have been used to impeach Bush. Therefore, it's a combination of some being dumbed down and others being too timid.

Good for you. I had forgotten the Downing Street memo. Nobody could've got Bush impeached given the government of the day. One thing I like about our form of government is the frequency with which we get minority government. It keeps the PM honest. America never gets that check and balance, as much as they claim to have adequate checks and balances. Nothing beats a third party.

 

[Colpy]

Of course the Americans could have won - read G. Harry Summers On Strategy.

To cut a long story short, they should have cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, all the while bombing them as Nixon ordered, along with major incursions into North Vietnam to keep them off balance. If they had been allowed to fight to win, they would have won.

Matthew Ridgeway (the General that replaced MacArthur in Korea) did a survey of Vietnam years before American troops were first landed in 1965.

He told the gov't it would require 2 million troops to pacify the country, and one million to keep it that way.

They should have listened.

 

[#juan]

With the official number of 303,635 wounded, 58,159 Americans confimed dead, and another 2000 missing (and probably dead), they must have lost some battles. It was a stupid, senseless war.

 

[BaalsTears]

According to some histories the VC were decimated in Tet in 1968, and never recovered as a major strategic force. One of the most influential authorities at the time on guerrilla warfare was Mao Tse Tung. In his Little Red Book he wrote that at some point in a successful guerrilla war regular forces must take over the fight from guerrilla forces. The north's generals were students of Mao, so presumably the take over from the VC by the NVA was not unanticipated. NVA regular forces beat the Americans.

Fists holding Mao Zedong's Little Red Book beat my father in law to death during the Cultural Revolution. The Little Red Book is only cited by those ignorant of history.

It was North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap who formulated the doctrine to which you refer.

With the official number of 303,635 wounded, 58,159 Americans confimed dead, and another 2000 missing (and probably dead), they must have lost some battles. It was a stupid, senseless war.

Unkkkle Sam lost firefights at the company and platoon levels during the Vietnam War, but not at the battalion or greater force levels.

 

[EagleSmack]

They still have a pout on because Cuba kicked their ***.

Cuba kicked our azz? Do tell when this happened!

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Cuba kicked our azz? Do tell when this happened!

He thinks (I presume) the Bay of Pigs was an invasion by the US military.

 

[EagleSmack]

He thinks (I presume) the Bay of Pigs was an invasion by the US military.

I'd like to see what he has to say.

At any rate... threads like this warm me in a good way. The jealousy of the OP towards the US is astounding. I can't imagine the feel of irrelevance he must have for himself. Maybe it is the no identity thing.

 

[tober]

Unkkkle Sam lost firefights at the company and platoon levels during the Vietnam War, but not at the battalion or greater force levels.

That is a twist of the same US propaganda that was intended at the time to mask the truth and keep the folks at home pacified. I’m not saying you’re lying, just misled. The “victories” you imagine are what kinds of victory? To Americans and Europeans victory meant being the ones standing on the battlefield after the last shot was fired. It was a meaningless measure in Vietnam because the Vietnamese never stopped owning and controlling the land. The only land America was ever able to claim as conquered and held throughout the war was land that US troops were sitting on.

The Battle of the Ia Drang Valley in November, 1966, is a good example. Most people have seen the movie We Were Soldiers Once. Both sides were using the opportunity to assess the other for the purpose of defining future tactics and strategies. In the movie, US forces landed in the valley and fought for three days. The grunts would have lost early except for massive support from Supporting Arms, air and artillery. On the final day US forces advanced under air cover, the NVA retreated and the movie ended. Only in real life that wasn’t the end.

In real life US troops kept moving on foot the day after the initial NVA retreat. They had a definite agenda of route march and timetable. Half way through the first day they were ambushed. It was a massacre. The US force was broken up. Survivors fled the scene and dribbled back into US lines over the next several days. The marching unit never finished its mission because it was annihilated as a cohesive, functioning force. NVA officers later said that they learned enough from those four days that the lessons carried them through the rest of the war. The lesson was that they had to separate the US infantryman from his technological support. Man to man, five foot NVA soldiers could defeat six foot Americans. They just had to get close enough to neutralize supporting arms.

To go back to the OP, that was the story of the war. US forces would advance and claim “territory”. The NVA would retreat and exact a price. After a while the US force would declare a victory and retreat to their enclaves. The next day the land would once again be firmly under Vietnamese command and control. American forces were never able to permanently come out of their forts and sandbags. When they quit and went back to America, that was just an extended version of the retreat to enclaves they had become accustomed to throughout the war.

WHAT ???!!! You mean the americans didn't win every war they were ever in ?

Nawwwww, starting with the War of 1812 when Canada kicked their asses.