Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How North Vietnam Won The War (and Kerry helped)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | August 3, 1995

Posted on 04/23/2004 11:05:59 AM PDT by robowombat

How North Vietnam Won The War The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?

A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?

A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?

A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids.

Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
This has been posted before, I am sure. But it merits putting up again as the likely Dem candidate is one of those who helped perpetrate the Vietnam stab in the back and for which he should be forever tarred and disgraced. Actions such as Kerry's emotinalized rant before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and the behavior of other such traitors as the VVAW helped make the communist victory reality. Now this termite who helped to do his little bit to gnaw away at the vitals of this nation appears before us as though the chief excutiveship is only his just reward. A reward for a career founded on treason and sustained by the sedition that has been synonomous with the Rat party for the last 30 plus years.
1 posted on 04/23/2004 11:06:00 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Flag to read later.
2 posted on 04/23/2004 11:11:36 AM PDT by FormerLib (Feja e shqiptarit eshte terorizm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
I used to think that this generation of Democrats did not know how to win a war. Now, if we could just get them to help us win one instead of our enemies - we could come out ahead in the War on Terrorism.
3 posted on 04/23/2004 11:18:45 AM PDT by hometoroost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
4 posted on 04/23/2004 11:19:23 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
That is just amazing article. I wish that every American reads this article and realizes how people like John Kerry helped the communists to win in Vietnam.
5 posted on 04/23/2004 11:20:23 AM PDT by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cateizgr8
ping! very very interesting.
6 posted on 04/23/2004 11:30:19 AM PDT by wingnutx (Are you a monthly donor? Why not? (the freeper formerly known as Britton J Wingnutx))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
7 posted on 04/23/2004 11:36:09 AM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
With the success of North Vietnam, Pol Pot rises to power in Cambodia. Millions die wuth most having their hands bound and a blue plastic bag put over their head.

Their blood and suffering is on the hands of those of the ilk of Hanoi Jane and John Kerry.
8 posted on 04/23/2004 11:45:00 AM PDT by frithguild ("W" is the Black Ice President - underestimated until the left completely loses traction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
This is an amazing article. Many people discount the similarity of Iraq and Vietnam but I believe they are similar in this way. The Iraqi rebels (read “terrorists”) are trying to wreck the resolve of the American public. At times, I think they are succeeding. I am certain that they feel if they continue to hit us hard enough the American public will not be able to stomach any more causalities and will insist the US pull out of Iraq. This would be a complete disaster just as Vietnam was a disaster.

I maintain that Vietnam was just a long, long macro-battle (with many micro battles) in the greater Cold War against the Soviet Union and tyrannical totalitarianism and Marxism. Ultimately, we won that war but I think that in the grand scheme of things, the Vietnam conflict was not as major a battle as many people felt it was at the time.

I don’t think we can say the same about Iraq. We need to win this thing. Right now, in Baghdad, Fallujah and against the Shiites in the southern region of the country, we can not lose our resolve. We must install a pro-American government in Iraq. The new government should be Democratic if possible, but that is not necessary.

Let’s learn the lesson of Vietnam. It’s different than the lesson that the left seemed to have learned. It’s time to ignore the naysayers and charge forth by doing what is right in Iraq. It is important we win the greater battle of Iraq.
9 posted on 04/23/2004 11:55:28 AM PDT by GmbyMan (John Kerry-America's first Flip Flopper Hip Hopper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
With the success of North Vietnam, Pol Pot rises to power in Cambodia. Millions die wuth most having their hands bound and a blue plastic bag put over their head.

Their blood and suffering is on the hands of those of the ilk of Hanoi Jane and John Kerry.

I once heard that Hell was having to suffer the same consequences of what your thoughts, words, and deeds inflicted on the lives of other people...for eternity.

10 posted on 04/23/2004 11:56:40 AM PDT by N. Theknow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robowombat; admin
This "article" does not link to the Wall Street Journal but to a web blog that does not credit an author and claims "Taken from The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995" Hard to reliably count on where it originates.
11 posted on 04/23/2004 12:37:33 PM PDT by misunderestimated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Click below to read Kerry's seditious part in "Winter Soldier."

"Winter Soldier"
12 posted on 04/23/2004 12:42:00 PM PDT by Smartass (BUSH & CHENEY 2004 - THE BEST GET BETTER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
13 posted on 04/23/2004 1:01:09 PM PDT by DeaconRed (sKerry did a flip flop, stepped on a pop top, got a purple heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
14 posted on 04/23/2004 1:36:59 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Notice the part about supply lines?

If "insurgents"/"terrorists"/"scumbags" in Iraq are being supplied from Syria, Iran, etc., our generals MUST have authority to cut off those supply lines, politics be damned.

Anyone else wondering why there seems to be an endless supply of explosives and heavy weapons available to the bad guys?
15 posted on 04/23/2004 1:38:06 PM PDT by jimbokun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat; archy; risk; joesnuffy; river rat; Squantos; tet68
Now, our liberal commie 'rat traitors want to do the same thing again: turn Iraq into a stinging defeat by destroying home front morale.


16 posted on 04/23/2004 1:42:30 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
The NV didn't win, we left Vietnam because many Americans, especially the politicians running the show, didn't have the guts to see it through to the end.
17 posted on 04/23/2004 1:43:52 PM PDT by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
bump for later...Thanks!
18 posted on 04/23/2004 4:32:23 PM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson