Did we win in Viet Nam?

If Lee Kuan Yew is to be believed, then, the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was
a
major factor is achieving the West's overall victory in the Cold War. It held
the line while freedom and prosperity were established in non-Communist Asia
— and that provided the rest of the world, including the evil empire itself,
with a "demonstration effect" of how freedom led to prosperity. ...


Chris Mark







I would agree. Viet Nam was but one battle in the Cold War.

"QDurham" a écrit dans le message de
...
As for France "blackmailing" HST. Let's note that NATO was formed in
1949 and the French didn't withdraw until after Dien Bien Phu in
1954!!!

Exactly. Truman provided transport for the French to re-enter "French
Indo
China" in about '45 -- before NATO was firmed up.

And he did much more than that afterwards. The US help to the French war
effort in Indochina was *tremendous*. Delivering vehicles, planes,
ammunitions, etc, along with direct financing, the US supported around 80%
of the cost of the war in 1953-54.



I have no idea how the French got OUT after Dien Bien Phu but any form of
transport (no matter how humble) was, I'm sure, highly welcome.


Many of the poor guys entrenched in DBP didn't get out.... The US provided a
ship-hospital to take care of the wounded and of those who survived the
Vietminh camps, along with a few medevac flights to Travis AFB via Japan,
Hawai and San Francisco. As for the rest of the troops, don't forget that
the evacuation of Indochina was part of an agreement signed in Geneva and
that the French troops were not pushed back to the sea. They left in order
using the same ships, French and others, they used to get there; it was
nothing like Saigon in '75.

ArVa

John Kunkel wrote:

The "domino theory" that fomented the U.S.'s involvement originated in the
Eisenhower/Nixon administration. In fact, the first public use of the
"dominos falling" terminology to defend involvement in SEA was in a
presidential news conference in April 1954. Troops and the CIA were there in
'53.
Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.

While Ike's administration may have "invented" the Domino Theory, their
involvement in SE Asia would likely not have gotten much further than monetary
and clandestine support had Nixon won in '60. Kennedy upped the ante
considerably with Laos and then South Vietnam and while its arguable had he not
been killed in Nov. '63 that Kennedy would have reversed earlier policies,
there is no direct proof of that.



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

John O'Sullivan wrote:

A visitor to the cities like Hanoi
and Saigon

Hmm...I believe the city of Saigon has been called Ho Chi Mihn City since 1976.

Twice Sullivan calls it Saigon....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

John O'Sullivan wrote:

A visitor to the cities like Hanoi and Saigon

Hmm...I believe the city of Saigon has been called Ho Chi Mihn City since
1976.

Twice Sullivan calls it Saigon....

There are official names, and there are names being used.

According to a couple of people who recently visited VN, in Ho Chi Minh
City, nobody there that they heard called it anything but Saigon.

"ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr wrote in message
...

And he did much more than that afterwards. The US help to the French war
effort in Indochina was *tremendous*. Delivering vehicles, planes,
ammunitions, etc, along with direct financing, the US supported around 80%
of the cost of the war in 1953-54.


Truman left the presidency on January 20, 1953.

"Steven P. McNicoll" a écrit dans le
message de nk.net...

"ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr wrote in message
...

And he did much more than that afterwards. The US help to the French war
effort in Indochina was *tremendous*. Delivering vehicles, planes,
ammunitions, etc, along with direct financing, the US supported around
80%
of the cost of the war in 1953-54.


Truman left the presidency on January 20, 1953.


Yes, I know, the information has eventually reached this side of the
Atlantic.

Truman initiated the military aid in 1950 and it lasted and grew in
importance till the end in '54, long after he left the White House, because
both his foreign policy and his successor's one had the same goals
concerning SE Asia. Is that really so hard to understand?

ArVa

"Brett" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:
"John?]
"
wrote in message
. net...
In article , John Mullen
wrote:

"John?]
"
wrote in message
. net...
In article ,
WalterM140
wrote:

We won in Viet Nam and lost in Washington and Paris. Your
bitterness is
misdirected.


I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we
"won"
anything in
Viet Nam.

NVA army units siezed the capital of the south, ran up their
flag --
they even
changed the name. We and our allies had to flee. That's
defeat.

Walt

You should try reading a history book sometime so perhaps you
won't
look like such an idiot.

The last combat units left Vietnam on March 29 1973. The only
American
forces remaining in Vietnam after that date were the Marine guards
at
the embassy and the Defense Attache Office. When the NVA units
seized
the capitol, US forces had been gone more than two years. It's
hard
to
flee or suffer a defeat when you are not even there.

So overall then you would say the US intervention in Vetnam was a
success?
The lives lost worthwhile?

Just interested in how far you would go with this...

John

Of course it was not a success; the country fell to communist rule,
but
it is wrong to call it a "defeat". Words mean things, and the U.S.
military was not "defeated" in Vietnam, we withdrew for political
reasons. On March 29, 1973 we had a nice parade, retired the colors of
the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, boarded chartered and
military aircraft, and left in an orderly fashion. We were not
"defeated" and we did not "flee". Those are the facts, plain and
simple.

Ok, so you say it was not a success, but it was not a defeat either.
What
*would* you call it?

A decision by a bunch of democratic politicians in Washington to ignore
the
guarantees made to the South Vietnamese by North Vietnam, the Nixon
Administration and Congress. The democratic political hacks appeared to
have
had a problem with the idea that the Nixon Administration could be seen as
having succeeded, where the policies implemented by the democratic
administrations of Johnson and Kennedy were viewed as failures, especially
after the minor incident that occurred in the Watergate hotel.

I see. So you see it in party political terms. How, pray tell, would you
have seen it done differently? Military rule? Close down the democratic
process for the duration?

In what sense would you say the Nixon govt had succeeded?

Obviously they would not number the Watergate incident aas a great success!

How would you say it compared with say the USSR withdrawal from
Afghanistan?

It was a decision by Gorbachev to withdraw without any guarantees from the
forces opposing the Soviets to respect the Afgan administration the
Soviets
had entered the country to support.

So, comparable with Nam then?

I.e. they were both defeats!

John

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:
"John?]

Of course it was not a success; the country fell to communist rule,
but
it is wrong to call it a "defeat". Words mean things, and the U.S.
military was not "defeated" in Vietnam, we withdrew for political
reasons. On March 29, 1973 we had a nice parade, retired the colors
of
the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, boarded chartered and
military aircraft, and left in an orderly fashion. We were not
"defeated" and we did not "flee". Those are the facts, plain and
simple.

Ok, so you say it was not a success, but it was not a defeat either.
What
*would* you call it?

A decision by a bunch of democratic politicians in Washington to ignore
the
guarantees made to the South Vietnamese by North Vietnam, the Nixon
Administration and Congress. The democratic political hacks appeared to
have
had a problem with the idea that the Nixon Administration could be seen
as
having succeeded, where the policies implemented by the democratic
administrations of Johnson and Kennedy were viewed as failures,
especially
after the minor incident that occurred in the Watergate hotel.

I see. So you see it in party political terms.

No I reported the actions by the Democrats in Congress after the last US
troops had been withdrawn from the region in March 1973. The Ford
Administration couldn't spend money on agreements that Democrats in Congress
refused to fund.

How, pray tell, would you
have seen it done differently? Military rule? Close down the democratic
process for the duration?

Well North Vietnam came South with tanks and what was left of their army. US
Air Force strikes against those forces in South Vietnam would have totally
destroyed it - that was afterall the type of force we expected to find
coming West out of East Germany.

In what sense would you say the Nixon govt had succeeded?

How many US troops were in Vietnam by the end of 1973, the same number would
have been in Vietnam at the end of 1975 if Congress had allowed the Ford
Administration to honor the agreements that resulted in all US Forces being
removed in 1973.

Obviously they would not number the Watergate incident aas a great
success!

How would you say it compared with say the USSR withdrawal from
Afghanistan?

It was a decision by Gorbachev to withdraw without any guarantees from
the
forces opposing the Soviets to respect the Afgan administration the
Soviets
had entered the country to support.

So, comparable with Nam then?

No, the Soviets never came to any agreement with the actual "troops"
fighting them in Afghanistan. So while it might be considered an orderly
withdrawal it was a withdrawal made under enemy fire. North Vietnam was
bombed into accepting a peace agreement and the US withdrawal wasn't under
fire and North Vietnam returned the US POW's they admitted or we knew they
had.

I.e. they were both defeats!

How many US troops were in Vietnam and how many US planes were flying
overhead when the NVA moved South in 1975 and how many had been there since
March of 1973?

"Brett" wrote in message
...

(big snip)

So, comparable with Nam then?

No, the Soviets never came to any agreement with the actual "troops"
fighting them in Afghanistan. So while it might be considered an orderly
withdrawal it was a withdrawal made under enemy fire. North Vietnam was
bombed into accepting a peace agreement and the US withdrawal wasn't under
fire and North Vietnam returned the US POW's they admitted or we knew they
had.

If you cared to reword this I might be able to make sense of it. As it
stands I cannot.

I.e. they were both defeats!

How many US troops were in Vietnam and how many US planes were flying
overhead when the NVA moved South in 1975 and how many had been there
since
March of 1973?

None, bar a few guards at the US embassy. All the others had fled. And then
even they left. And then there were none.

Defeat I still say.

John