A little truth about the Viet Nam War..

The following video is about promises made, a president impeached, and a newly elected congress that broke America's promise which was signed at the Paris Peace Accord even though President Ford begged them not to. I do remember Ford's speech... As far as I am concerned the old boy hit the nail on the head.

www.prageruniversity.com...

The premise being if the US had continued to provide arms to the Vietnamese living in the "South", the people in the "North" wouldn't have been able to reunify the country.

The US, with all its might, had already failed to subjugate the whole of the country for over a decade (at the time the longest US war on record). What a bonus that would have been, a constant stream of arms for the military industrial complex.

The mission in Vietnam was to retain a toe hold on the Asian continent (same as Korea), surely another thorn in the under belly of Russian and Chinese interests (why they armed the "North", by the way).

It was always doomed to failure because the expectation of indigenous peoples to war with each other because someone drew a line on a map dividing the country is preposterous.

Divide and Conquer has been employed before in places like Yemen, Rhodesia and Korea. The goal is always to incorporate the whole nation under one flag of the empire of the west.

This professor needs to shut up about how we coulda shoulda won the war if only we had kept up the flow of arms.

The people of America rose up as one in protest to defeat the warmongers then (unlike today) and the US has learned the lesson of Vietnam; they don't divide countries anymore, they trash the whole place and arm every clashing faction equally.

Look at the similar fallout pattern. Streams of refugees in boats (called "boat people" in Vietnam) flood the Mediterranean today just like back then.

Same Game, different presentation.

a reply to: 727Sky

I don't see a vid or link in your post . It could be on my end . I wanted to drop off a link to a piece I read a few days ago on the history of that region and the authors take on what may be going on today .

I don’t know who “Conical Hat” really is. All I know is that he is a Vietnamese reader of the blog. And judging by his article, he is somebody with superb knowledge and understanding of Vietnam’s history and international relations. We emailed each other a couple of times and, one day, I suggested that he write up something about the geostrategic position of Vietnam. What Conical Hat sent back to me was the most detailed and most interesting analysis of Vientam I have seen in a very long time.

thesaker.is...

a reply to: 727Sky

I dont think we can fault the nation for wanting to be unified considering the United States done the same during the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783. Then again during the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865.

Freedom or so it seems is a desirable quality for any nation even if at the end of the day it's simply an illusion.

originally posted by: intrptr
The premise being if the US had continued to provide arms to the Vietnamese living in the "South", the people in the "North" wouldn't have been able to reunify the country.

The US, with all its might, had already failed to subjugate the whole of the country for over a decade (at the time the longest US war on record). What a bonus that would have been, a constant stream of arms for the military industrial complex.

It was always doomed to failure because the expectation of indigenous peoples to war with each other because someone drew a line on a map dividing the country is preposterous.

The people of America rose up as one in protest to defeat the warmongers then (unlike today) and the US has learned the lesson of Vietnam; they don't divide countries anymore, they trash the whole place and arm every clashing faction equally.

Look at the similar fallout pattern. Streams of refugees in boats (called "boat people" in Vietnam) flood the Mediterranean today just like back then.

1) The US never tried, wanted or intended to 'subjugate the whole country'. We were assisting one country (SViet) defend itself against an aggressive neighbor (NViet). If we had pushed into NViet and taken Hanoi things would have been very very different. We did not want to expand the war like that.
2) The world is full of 'lines drawn on maps'. Does not justify aggression. If the two countries really really wanted to unify they could have done so peacefully (a la Germany).
3) The people of America did not 'rise up as one'. The country was divided; a lot of us supported the war.
4) Speaking of boat people and refugees, remember how many SViets fled when the NViets took over? They knew a cruel and hostile regime was coming and they wanted no part of it.
Our failure in Viet Nam doomed a whole nation to a generation of poverty and enslavement to the communist masters in Hanoi. Too bad Ho Chi Minh wasn't more like Ghandi instead of being a Mao wannebe.

For those who actually watched the video the point of the post was the little important part of signing an agreement and then not holding up your end. The NVA stated their whole operation in the beginning to test the new president and congress of the USA. Our response was "crickets/nothing" so they continued on their southward move.

If we would have supplied the south with the material we promised or airstrikes (that we promised) could they have held of the North's advance.. maybe , maybe not.. Just history where stuff continues to be rewritten regardless of the actual facts ..

No one hates the stupidity of war more than me ... I also hate signed sealed and delivered agreements that are not worth the paper they are written on. Especially by a government.

A very sad chapter in the history of both countries.. I actually plan on going to Viet Nam when it cools off a little to play some golf. 38 to 43C is to darn hot for me.

Who would have thought things would turn out the way they have..

America is big buds with Viet Nam now, as they have a mutual interest in trying to hold China back during the great Asia pivot..

a reply to: 727Sky

If the US had kept on supplying arms and aid to the south the soviets would simply have done the same regarding the north. Which indeed they did to a fashion.

As to the continuation of air strikes against their population centers and infrastructure? That could quite possibly have escalated the situation regarding the whole region and lead to a third world war.

Post WW2, the nations of Europe MOSTLY agreed to return their colonial possessions. The French being, well, French disagreed and felt entitled to try and hold onto French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) AGAINST the express wishes of America. Roosevelt and US General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell were adamant that the French were to abandon their designs on maintaining this colony. As the British gave up India, the French were supposed to give up Southeast Asia.

America had supported Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Nimh against the Japanese. The Viet Nimh were a Nationalist-Communist force determined to have independence for Vietnam. The Chinese, French and British - with re-armed Japanese - fought AGAINST the forces of Ho Chi Minh over dominance of the region.

Chiang Kai-shek cut a deal with the French to get the French out of China...by "giving them" Vietnam. Something the Vietnamese vehemently demanded was not up to China to give.

The French were back into Indochina by 1946.

From 1950 on the French fought to hold onto what they saw as their colony. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence from foreign influence. The Chinese, French, Japanese...all of them. Ho Chi Minh fought against the French with some Chinese and Soviet support until 1954 when the French quit the peninsula after the massacre at Dien Bien Phu.

Had the French done as their WW2 Allies had demanded in 1945 what happened next would likely have never occurred.

America, now committed in the middle of the Cold War was committed to stopping the influence of the Chinese and Soviet Communists in the region and took up the fight abandonded by the French and... we got the Vietnam Conflict that we all think we understand. American direct involvement ended in 1975 with America and it's allies leaving the region as the French had in the 50's. America, along with Australia, New Zealand and other allies, had been drawn into picking up a fight they tried to prevent the French from undertaking.

What the greater world saw as a proxy-war in the greater Cold War conflict remained a Civil War and a war for independence by the Vietnamese. They would always be more committed, no matter the cost, to win their independence.

Essentially, we got drawn into somebody else's fight. It could only end badly from that point forward.

I did my part at the pointy end in those days and none of what I have described above registered with me at the time, or with anyone that served with me.

By saying that, I am not claiming to fully understand it now, or that my far-to-brief description will sit well with everyone who was part of those times.

But if you were NOT directly involved please be cognizant of the fact that many of us that were, are still around when you decide to comment and contribute to the discussion.

a reply to: 727Sky

America is big buds with Viet Nam now, as they have a mutual interest in trying to hold China back during the great Asia pivot..

As well as nice golf courses when the weather's right hey Sky?

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: intrptr
The premise being if the US had continued to provide arms to the Vietnamese living in the "South", the people in the "North" wouldn't have been able to reunify the country.

The US, with all its might, had already failed to subjugate the whole of the country for over a decade (at the time the longest US war on record). What a bonus that would have been, a constant stream of arms for the military industrial complex.

It was always doomed to failure because the expectation of indigenous peoples to war with each other because someone drew a line on a map dividing the country is preposterous.

The people of America rose up as one in protest to defeat the warmongers then (unlike today) and the US has learned the lesson of Vietnam; they don't divide countries anymore, they trash the whole place and arm every clashing faction equally.

Look at the similar fallout pattern. Streams of refugees in boats (called "boat people" in Vietnam) flood the Mediterranean today just like back then.

1) The US never tried, wanted or intended to 'subjugate the whole country'. We were assisting one country (SViet) defend itself against an aggressive neighbor (NViet). If we had pushed into NViet and taken Hanoi things would have been very very different. We did not want to expand the war like that.
2) The world is full of 'lines drawn on maps'. Does not justify aggression. If the two countries really really wanted to unify they could have done so peacefully (a la Germany).
3) The people of America did not 'rise up as one'. The country was divided; a lot of us supported the war.
4) Speaking of boat people and refugees, remember how many SViets fled when the NViets took over? They knew a cruel and hostile regime was coming and they wanted no part of it.
Our failure in Viet Nam doomed a whole nation to a generation of poverty and enslavement to the communist masters in Hanoi. Too bad Ho Chi Minh wasn't more like Ghandi instead of being a Mao wannebe.

Hold on a second, the US joined the war after France, a colonial power, came under attack by militants. We basically supported their colonial rights.

And then the other probably more important point is that this was OBVIOUSLY a proxy war with USSR. This country is included even in old propaganda videos about the domino effect of Communism.

So much for national sovereignty, democracy, aye?

a reply to: Leonidas

Essentially, we got drawn into somebody else's fight. It could only end badly from that point forward.

I think you see it clearly Leo and I think you sum it up well when you suggest

What the greater world saw as a proxy-war in the greater Cold War conflict remained a Civil War and a war for independence by the Vietnamese. They would always be more committed, no matter the cost, to win their independence.

originally posted by: 727Sky
For those who actually watched the video the point of the post was the little important part of signing an agreement and then not holding up your end. The NVA stated their whole operation in the beginning to test the new president and congress of the USA. Our response was "crickets/nothing" so they continued on their southward move.

If we would have supplied the south with the material we promised or airstrikes (that we promised) could they have held of the North's advance.. maybe , maybe not.. Just history where stuff continues to be rewritten regardless of the actual facts ..

No one hates the stupidity of war more than me ... I also hate signed sealed and delivered agreements that are not worth the paper they are written on. Especially by a government.

A very sad chapter in the history of both countries.. I actually plan on going to Viet Nam when it cools off a little to play some golf. 38 to 43C is to darn hot for me.

Who would have thought things would turn out the way they have..

America is big buds with Viet Nam now, as they have a mutual interest in trying to hold China back during the great Asia pivot..

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Kind of ironic and funny when you think about it . Like many of my friends heading to Jamaica because they have cheep rum .after they get back the only thing they know is that the rum was cheep and they probably drank too much .:>)

a reply to: Leonidas

I thought you covered the high and low points rather well. C 227th First Cav Rude crude and highly unsophisticated but we got the job done... or so they say

Salute and thanks for the time and posting

a reply to: works4dhs

1) The US never tried, wanted or intended to 'subjugate the whole country'.

Crap. The US is heading world domination, then and now.

We were assisting one country (SViet) defend itself against an aggressive neighbor (NViet).

Right, divide and conquer. Or divide and ruin, whichever. We can tell the conflict wasn't internal to the people of Vietnam, because the weapons were provided from the outside. Claims of civil war were propaganda to justify occupation.

If we had pushed into NViet and taken Hanoi things would have been very very different. We did not want to expand the war like that.

Right, not to win, just make money in low level conflict like in Afghanistan, for instance. A nice little gravy train of a war, funded by American taxpayers and the blood of their sons. We didn't go into Vietnam just to end up leaving, just like Korea.
That game continues today. Look at the Middle East.

I was born after the war in the 70s and never heard it put that way. The video certainly clears things up. It doesn't suprise me as we see the same stuff between democrats and Republicans today...surely the vietnam war the cake.

reply to: 727Sky

Ah yes a little truth.

"' I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom.I cannot leave in such a cowardly fashion.As for you and in particular your great country I never believed for a moment that you would have the sentiment of abandoning a people which have chosen liberty.You have refused your protection and there is nothing we can do about it.You leave us and it is my wish that you and your country find happiness under the sky.But mark it well that if I should die here in my country that I love it is too bad because we all are born and all must die one day.I have only committed the mistake of believing in you Americans,my faithful and friendly sentiments'

Prince Sirik Matak of Cambodia to the US Ambassador 1975.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: works4dhs

1) The US never tried, wanted or intended to 'subjugate the whole country'.

Crap. The US is heading world domination, then and now.

The US 'dominates' the world thanks to our humungous economy. Viet Nam is a backwater that 90% of us can't find on the map. do you really think we went there to expand our hegemony? nonsense.

We were assisting one country (SViet) defend itself against an aggressive neighbor (NViet).

Right, divide and conquer. Or divide and ruin, whichever. We can tell the conflict wasn't internal to the people of Vietnam, because the weapons were provided from the outside. Claims of civil war were propaganda to justify occupation.


SViet was our ally and we were obligated to help them defend themselves. they were fighting each other before we got there.

If we had pushed into NViet and taken Hanoi things would have been very very different. We did not want to expand the war like that.

Right, not to win, just make money in low level conflict like in Afghanistan, for instance. A nice little gravy train of a war, funded by American taxpayers and the blood of their sons. We didn't go into Vietnam just to end up leaving, just like Korea.
That game continues today. Look at the Middle East.

Korea saw pols like Harry Truman determined to stand up to the communists. He kept us in till we won. The democrats in the early 1970s were so partisan they pulled the plug; the considered Republicans to be the real enemy, so screw the Vietnamese. If the war really was about funding the big evil weapons companies we never would have pulled out (treaty negotiated by Richard Nixon, by the way).
Remember, we left South Vietnam free and independent, with a treaty signed by North Vietnam agreeing to guarantee the peace. They violated the treaty and the democrats, and the world community, did nothing.
The mullahs in Iran saw this and counted on our weakness when they took our embassy in 1979. The real world is Darwinistic; show weakness and they come after you.

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: intrptr
The premise being if the US had continued to provide arms to the Vietnamese living in the "South", the people in the "North" wouldn't have been able to reunify the country.

The US, with all its might, had already failed to subjugate the whole of the country for over a decade (at the time the longest US war on record). What a bonus that would have been, a constant stream of arms for the military industrial complex.

It was always doomed to failure because the expectation of indigenous peoples to war with each other because someone drew a line on a map dividing the country is preposterous.

The people of America rose up as one in protest to defeat the warmongers then (unlike today) and the US has learned the lesson of Vietnam; they don't divide countries anymore, they trash the whole place and arm every clashing faction equally.

Look at the similar fallout pattern. Streams of refugees in boats (called "boat people" in Vietnam) flood the Mediterranean today just like back then.

1) The US never tried, wanted or intended to 'subjugate the whole country'. We were assisting one country (SViet) defend itself against an aggressive neighbor (NViet). If we had pushed into NViet and taken Hanoi things would have been very very different. We did not want to expand the war like that.

Whoa, that's not true at at all! What we call the "Vietnam War" is known globally as the "2nd Indochina War". In short, France had conquered & colonized Indochina in the late 1800s. Japan conquered Indochina from the French. Japan was pushed out of Indochina at the end of WWII. The French tried to reconquer Indochina & the US paid roughly 80% of the costs. The Vietnamese people fought back in a brutal war (with communist help), losing more than a million civilians. But the French kept losing so America & its allies jumped in, in what is known as the 2nd Indochina War/Vietnam War. America was definitely trying to subjugate the whole country.

Our failure in Viet Nam doomed a whole nation to a generation of poverty and enslavement to the communist masters in Hanoi. Too bad Ho Chi Minh wasn't more like Ghandi instead of being a Mao wannebe.

This statement is simply ridiculous. It's obvious you don't know about the brutality & outright atrocities the US-sponsored Ngo Dinh Diem regime committed, much less how the US operations in the 2nd Indochina War killed around 6 million people. And Henry Kissinger's policies there are why he's considered a war criminal in many parts of the world. Saying our actions "doomed a whole nation to a generation of poverty and enslavement" is incredibly wrong, especially since we were originally trying to re-install their actual colonial oppressors! And how were we trying to save their country by killing millions of their civilians? That simply doesn't make sense.

I hate war with a passion, but the people of Indochina were fighting for independence from their former colonial rulers. I can't fault any nation for that.

Also, here are a few links so everyone can get a better understanding of what was going on in the Second Indochina War/"Vietnam War". These are just the basics, but it seems like most people have fallen for the watered down propaganda.

French Indochina

The Japanese invasion of French Indochina

The First Indochina War

The Second Indochina War, also known as the "Vietnam War" in America

As for the US paying 80% of the French costs in the First Indochina War, this claim is substantiated on page 4 of the pdf on this page.
mises.org...