MilitaryForums.co.uk

Hey chuckie, best read above...it explains alot.

Cheers

Redhand wrote:
1. If they had just listened to the Brits and stuck to the Strategic Hamlets program.

2. Kept President Diem in power from the start. The liberal media in the states helped murder a good man.

3. Only a farked up administration let Laos remain neutral. Laos should of staked its ground as an ally. The NVA and VC could care less about neutrality. Laos acted as a supply super highway into Vietnam, and all the yanks could do was plug holes on on an exploding dam.

Overall, i think it was more the 5th column home front who spoiled a chance to stop communist aggression. While there was some inbred US Army policy that lead to the eventual retreat, i don't think they were as much to blame as were the media and the whining saps at home.

my 0.02,

1. Strategic Hamlets program, was a balls up, this contributed to the downfall of SVN, in malaya it was a totally different ball game, non applicable to VN.

2. diem was the person who lost the war, it was already lost before the yanks commited combat units because of his control of the war.

3. yes laos was a balls up, when you mix politics with war things get f@#k up!

4. the US have never learnt the lessons of conducting a counter insurgency war (well not since the 1700's )

Chuckie1970 wrote:I know this is late, but I have some info (Aussie perspective) which you might like on Vietnam. .

the war was lost correct.
the aussies and kiwis were assigned phouc toy province, during the war.
this provience was pacified.
we did very well during vietnam, we completed our mission, bascily because we new what we were doing, unlike the poor bastard yanks who were thrown into the jungle, with f@#k all training.
all kiwis were volunteers BTW.

the war was lost correct.
the aussies and kiwis were assigned phouc toy province, during the war.
this provience was pacified.
we did very well during vietnam, we completed our mission, bascily because we new what we were doing, unlike the poor bastard yanks who were thrown into the jungle, with f@#k all training.
all kiwis were volunteers BTW.[/quote]


I always thought that the Kiwi's (in Vietnam) were only of the SAS and not of the regular army. I didn't know they were all volunteers.

I know we did very well in Vietnam... we are Aussies and Kiwis after all

Tony,

Why is it you believe Diem was responsible for losing the war?

Chuckie1970 wrote:I always thought that the Kiwi's (in Vietnam) were only of the SAS and not of the regular army. I didn't know they were all volunteers.
I know we did very well in Vietnam... we are Aussies and Kiwis after all

kiwis had arty, engineers, inf, SAS, units as well as other supporting elements, we had about 4,000 troops there during the war, (37 KIA).
i think NZ and the ROK (republic of korea)south) were the only armies there that were totally volunteers. both did very well.
you must rememberb that the ANZACs had been fighting in the jungle almost contantly since the second world war, so heaps of experience there, a heap of kiwis on the first rotations to vietnam had come from the conflict with the indos in borneo.
you cant beat experience.

Redhand wrote:Tony,

Why is it you believe Diem was responsible for losing the war?

get a book call "a bright shining lie" authour neil sheehan.
it gives a very clear picture of how the war lost before it really started, just a balls up from the start.

to give you a very quick concise example, diem wouldnt let his troops attack and defeat the V.C. when they could.
he didnt want the ARVN to take casualties, get annoyed with him and stage a coup.
all good ARVN cmdrs who were aggresive and tried to operate the right way were replaced.
also his policy of ramdom bombing and shelling of civillians.

as i said, a balls up!

The U.S. public and ruling elites were in favor of the Vietnam War from the inception of formal U.S. troop commitments in 1964 all the way into 1968 when the Tet Offensive convinced a lot of people that the war would require a far higher of commitment than we had been told. Right-wing revisionist historians blame journalists for overly pessimistic reporting of Tet; in their view, the North Vietnamese were on the brink of capitulation if only the U.S. had persisted.

I think the revisionist view midreads key realities, among them being that the North and Vietcong had been in a multi-decade struggle and were prepared to accept unlimited casualties, and another being that the south's government and ARVN were thoroughly corrupt and feckless at every turn. The North and VC would have eventually regrouped and continued the war. Besides, the U.S. didn't withdraw after Tet. Rather, Tet caused an internal reassessment in the U.S., with this reassessment occurring over a period of years. Tet was the midpoint of American involvement not the end.

Revisionists of all kinds, possessing all of the facts and 20/20 hindsight, often fall into the trap of time compression. And the Vietnam War revisionists, like so many other revisionists, are grinding a political ax, which makes much of their analysis somewhat suspect to begin with.

In any case, even the revisionists acknowledge that "victory," however temporary, in Vietnam would have required at least 1 million American troops. That was too high a price to ask the U.S. public to accept to fight a war that was peripheral to the contest with the Soviets and/or Chinese. It certainly hadn't been sold as a struggle of such monumental proportions, and when the public learned of the bait-and-switch they began telling the leadership to find a way out.

A Bright Shining Lie is an outstanding account of these and other realities of the Vietnam War.

I see a whole lot of conjecture and praise for Neil Sheehan and very little solid fact. Information flung like so much lefty BS, seems to become gospel these days. Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam both made their careers off the ruin of others and their careers.

1. You claim that Diem shelled his own people then you claim that he was too soft with his use of ARVN. You can't have it both ways, there is only legitimacy to his softness because he always emphasized to the Americans "Remember, they are Vietnamese too". It's either misinformation on your part or a straight out lie that he bombed his own people. Why? Simple, in the years of Diems Presidency ARVN had no control of Artillery...NONE. Thats a fact. And what little airpower ARVN ever had (next to nothing.), it would be totally and utterly absurd for them to bomb their own people, where do u get this from?

There is no recorded evidence ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE, ANYTIME showing that Diem massacred, shelled, or bombed his own people.

2. As to suggest he didn't strike VC at the right opportunity, thats a completely loaded question. What US staff and advisory often thought were key times to attack were completely wrong because they would involve the death of civillians. The killing of civillians was crucial to the loss of the Vietnamese War, you kill one (JUST ONE) wrong villager and ten of his relatives will live to avenge their relatives death from that point on, until death.

You think Diem was the wrong man for his country? You think that Strategic Hamlets had no place in Vietnam and comparisons with Malaya could not be made?? I suggest you take a look at what Sir. Robert Thompson would have to say.

Snyder,

Im sure you've read the recommended books section and the book i suggested that is yet to be published. You mentioned 'Revisionist Books' several times AFTER i posted that. Are you trying to say that recently released US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TOO THE PUBLIC (albeit at a price) that unequivocally prove that Diem was murdered at the hands of Kennedy's ultimate approval (granted he was under EXTREME pressure to look the other way.) are...revisionist?? If so, i suggest you take it up with the Library of Congress and the State Department.

Maybe its a Bush conspiracy

These documents also prove amongst other popular lies that the supposed 'buddhist crisis' was a sham from the start. If you bother arguing that, i will reply, but im asking you now, please don't, its a waste of your typing and mine.

These volumes are titled 'Foreign Relations of the United States' as the header. 4 volumes, roughly 850 pages thick each (lots of catching up to do boys!). They are subtitled as follows:

1) Volume 1 - 1961-1963 - Vietnam - 1961
Volume 2 - 1961-1963 - Vietnam - 1962
Volume 3 - 1961-1963 - Vietnam - January - August - 1963
Volume 4 - 1961-1963 - Veitnam - August - Decemeber - 1963

If you can't get a hold of these materials i suggest you head to 'The Vietnam Conference' in Texas (as i did) hosted by Texas Tech University. This event takes place every 3 years in Lubbock, Texas.

You will meet men such as:

- (Ret) Gen. Nguyen Kanh (best friend to Diem)
- LOTS of vets (from both sides)
- (Ret) Gen. Theo Mataxis (who stood up in front of other officers blaming ARVN and told them that without a doubt "We LOST that war, i couldn't order ANYONE to do ANYTHING"). [Over steak dinner with Mataxis i asked him why they didn't resort to shooting out of control soldiers...he said that they were talking about starting to do that but that quote "we would have to start shooting everyone". Gen. Mataxis served in WWII as an airborne trooper, an officer in Korea, and Commander of the Americal Division in Vietnam. This man blamed the loss of vietnam solely on American foreign policy and tactics. This man was no slouch.

Im getting sick of typing, your turn.

Redhand wrote:prove that Diem was murdered at the hands of Kennedy's ultimate approval

I've always accepted it as settled fact that Kennedy went along with Diem's murder and maybe ordered it for all I know. But I've never viewed Diem as all that critical. He was just the figurehead of a society that, when push came to shove, really didn't much care whether it was ruled by the government of the South or the government of the North. It was not worth spending the lives and treasure we spent there.

kiwis had arty, engineers, inf, SAS, units as well as other supporting elements, we had about 4,000 troops there during the war, (37 KIA).
i think NZ and the ROK (republic of korea)south) were the only armies there that were totally volunteers. both did very well.
you must rememberb that the ANZACs had been fighting in the jungle almost contantly since the second world war, so heaps of experience there, a heap of kiwis on the first rotations to vietnam had come from the conflict with the indos in borneo.
you cant beat experience.[/quote]

Tony,

I knew the Koreans were in the vietnam war as my tae kwon do master was a gereral for the korean army and he has some great stories. Crazy stuff actually. I wont go into it unless some one asks. But I didn't know the Koreans were volunteers. I find it surprising because and this is my impression from my master and I hope no one takes offense but they weren't fans of the vietnamese. God I hope no one gets upset with that comment. Sorry if I offended anyone

Nope,

Yer right on that. I have a couple of Korean buds from back in High School...they didn't like Vietnamese...on principle.

I for one would like to hear your stories.

Chuckie1970 wrote: Tony,

I knew the Koreans were in the vietnam war as my tae kwon do master was a gereral for the korean army and he has some great stories. Crazy stuff actually. I wont go into it unless some one asks. But I didn't know the Koreans were volunteers. I find it surprising because and this is my impression from my master and I hope no one takes offense but they weren't fans of the vietnamese. God I hope no one gets upset with that comment. Sorry if I offended anyone

chuckie a fact is a fact, not saying it doesnt make it go away. say what you want to say, you arent being racist just stateing facts.
the ROK forces are generally not volunteers (i think, i really could be wrong on this one though) but the guys that went to VN volunteered for the TOD.
yes they were incredibly cruel and tough, no-one would mess with them, and from what i know the pacified their AO (area of operations)
but this was a gurrilla war and that 'style' of fighting tends to upset the populace you are trying to bring on-side.
the ARVN were no better though, cowards and corrupt to the core but if they had a PW or civis they were cruel little shits!
they got what they deserved in the end.

tonyh762 wrote:

Chuckie1970 wrote: Tony,

I knew the Koreans were in the vietnam war as my tae kwon do master was a gereral for the korean army and he has some great stories. Crazy stuff actually. I wont go into it unless some one asks. But I didn't know the Koreans were volunteers. I find it surprising because and this is my impression from my master and I hope no one takes offense but they weren't fans of the vietnamese. God I hope no one gets upset with that comment. Sorry if I offended anyone

chuckie a fact is a fact, not saying it doesnt make it go away. say what you want to say, you arent being racist just stateing facts.
the ROK forces are generally not volunteers (i think, i really could be wrong on this one though) but the guys that went to VN volunteered for the TOD.
yes they were incredibly cruel and tough, no-one would mess with them, and from what i know the pacified their AO (area of operations)
but this was a gurrilla war and that 'style' of fighting tends to upset the populace you are trying to bring on-side.
the ARVN were no better though, cowards and corrupt to the core but if they had a PW or civis they were cruel little shits!
they got what they deserved in the end.

Sorry Tony, I wasn't questioning you with regards to the Koreans being volunteers... I actually am surpised and you are probably right. I just didn't know that.

Redhand wrote:Nope,

Yer right on that. I have a couple of Korean buds from back in High School...they didn't like Vietnamese...on principle.

I for one would like to hear your stories.

Ok one story.. Its not really that exciting but my instructor became a chain smoker in vietnam. The VC put a $1 million USD bounty on any korean general found dead or alive. My instructor, never slept through the whole of his tour. He was that scared.. he use to lie underneath his bed and chain smoke through the night to stay awake.