The truth about Viet Nam, and life there today.

Self Researched. | Oct 2002 | Exton

[Exton1]

The truth about Viet Nam, and life there today.

Exton

I have been to Viet Nam twice in the last two years. In fact I went with the son of someone who for a short period of time was the highest ranking representative of the South. The dirty truth is that we actually won the war MILITARILY and lost it due to politics and lies of the communist press here in the states. Walter Cronkite, a proclaimed communist, lied when he said after the “Tet Offensive” that we were in a quagmire. The truth is that we had just destroyed the Viet Cong. They spent several years and all they had at us, and we kicked their butts. In fact the communist were surprised that we did not declare victory then.

The US killed so many men during the war that women had to fight. Even today the ratio of women to men is about 5 to 1. (Many families sent their boys out of the country to work so they could send money home) In fact the country almost had mass starvation, due to the war and the stupidity of the Communist leadership. It was not until about 5 years ago that they have had enough rice and goods to export.

What happened is that the last leader of the South was a communist who basically gave the country to the North. The North Communist had estimated that it would take 3 to 5 years to take over the South. Because of the action of the South’s president, the Communists met little if any resistance and took the country in about 3 months. What is also not widely known is that Nixon’s Christmas bombing almost won the war. The communist leader in Hanoi, said that had the bombing continued for a day or two longer they WOULD HAVE GIVEN UP UNCONDITIONALLY.

In addition , the Wall Street Journal had an article about 8 years ago that talk brought up the “Domino Effect.” Because we fought the war for about 10 years, this gave surrounding countries the time they needed to become DEMOCRACIES. People in countries like Thailand, give us credit for wining the war and stopping the spread of communism.

The lesson of Viet Nam is that, you do not go to war with a country unless you plan to finish the job and win. Once we were committed we should have stayed and finished the job. And that we should always support our troops and explain to the public why we are fighting.

In addition, it has been pointed out that America ONLY spent about one or two hour total explaining to the GI’s why they were fighting. This compared to the Communist who spent nearly 4 hours a day, every day explaining to its solders why they were fighting. They told their soldiers that as poor as they were, the South was worse, because of US Imperialism the South did not even have bowls for their rice. That there was mass starvation and poverty. With stories like this many soldiers felt that their was great need to fight. So many were extremely surprised to find that it was all a lie, and that the South lived in luxury compared to them. Many said if they had known the truth they would have not fought or changed sides.

If you go to Viet Nam today you will find that the people love America and much of our culture. With the exception of the Government run War Museums, you will think the West won. Viet Nam has discos and night clubs where they sing American Songs, dress in American style clothes, and use cell phones. Although it always helps to be with someone who speaks the language, more people are learning English in Viet Nam then at any time in the past.

However, the county is very poor and change is slow because the old jungle fighters run the country, and they are extremely greedy. The average income is about $80.00 per month. When I was there I read a story about a family of four or five who got by on about $1,200 a year. The populace are fairly intelligent and realize that if they are to grow they have to get rid of Communist rule. Even though the government has repressed anti-government talk. It will only be a matter of time before even they ended up on the ash heap of history.

[Red Jones]

thanks for that first-hand account. But I must defend myself in that I am not a revisionist or a leftist or an ahole. You are correct in that my only 'knowledge' comes from what I read and from what people tell me. I'm certain that the number of weekly or monthly combat deaths by americans reached a peak somewhere in 67-68. It really declined very dramatically by 70 and we had very few deaths in 71, 72 & 73. I also spoke to people who said that in their infantry unit that they were in in 69&70 they went on patrols every 2-3 days for their entire tour and didn't see but 1 or 2 VC or NVA the whole time. So, I imagine that different people had different experiences, that if you were in a hot zone in 70, 71 that you wouldn't be so warm to what I said.

But I appreciate everything you said to me in both posts. And I know that the superiority we enjoyed over the enemy in vietnam was only partially due to our equipment and our tactics. It was also due to professionalism and just plain quality of individuals that we had on our side. Even when dealing with jet fighters like you were, superiority does not come merely with superior equipment. At least I brought out a first-hand account of this and I'm happy of it.

[killjoy]

My point is that if you consider that countries around Viet Nam did not fall to the Communist,

Um, what about Laos and Cambodia?

[slimer]

I really enjoyed reading this. In hind sight, we learned some important lessons from Viet Nam but it's astounding to learn that we were within hours of achieving victory and pulled out.

I have met a number of Vietnamese people who are now living in the U.S and every one of them are kind, humble, generous and family oriented. Too many Americans do not understand what hardship really is.

[Red Jones]

hey listen skull stomper; and everyone else really;

What I was trying to say all along on this thread is that the historical evidence is that we won that war militarilly. People from foreign countries like to remind americans that we lost vietnam war. I don't care what they think, but it's false. We won militarilly. We decided to pull outpolitically.

Your witnessing on this proves the point as well as mine. The statistics really do show that fighting started out hard in late 64, climbed to a peak in 67/68 at tet obviously. Then after that there was fighting by americans until 72 or so, but it was not throughout the country and was not nearly so much statistically. The nva pulled the large bulk of their resources back after tet. They stayed at home and nurtured new soldiers until after we left. They only put forth enough of an effort in the south to pre-empt any political movement made in washington to send our troops north to finish them off. If we'd followed them to the north and brought in fresh boots to boot in the second half of 68, as in a normal war, then we'd have won that war politically as well as militarilly.

It was our choice to lose all along. Our soldiers/sailors/airmen did their job.

Another little known fact. The only prominent politician in 1963-64 to say anything even cautious about our vietnam involvement was barry goldwater. He said he didn't want it to be a half-effort war effort to tie as in Korea. Goldwater is more famous for being a war-monger because in an interview a journalist asked him, 'well would you rule out using nukes?', he said 'no'. The next day newspapers all over the country branded goldwater as promoting nuclear weapons use in vietnam. That was in 64.

The politics of that war were all dem leaders were for the war in the early days. Only goldwater was cautious and would not outright endorse it until after it started. Then after the war got tough in 68 it was the dems who wanted to cut and run.

In 67 & 68 the pentagon tried to get dem president lbj to let south vietnamese be trained and equiped by us to supplement our efforts in the war. LBJ wouldn't allow it. Republican president nixon in 69 finally began immediately to train and equipment south's soldiers to fight that war. President lbj preferred to use americans than south vietnamese to fight when he had the choice.

Democrats got us in that war, screwed it up and republicans would've saved the war if congress would've let them. But democrat congress literally pulled the financing plug on the south. That is the big thing the media has sheltered everyone from. Of course they're going to fail without money.

We could've fought that war with considerably fewer casualties if we'd used south vietnamese heavily in 64 to fight parallel to us. They sacrificed american lives without thinking. Then, they imposed stragic restriction of not letting troops go to north and win which is going to guarantee failure against a determined enemy. If we'd funded the south and provided air support when needed, we should've trained and equiped their air force to defend themselves. Only a few years of this type of effort and vietnam as well as loas cambodia would've been free and avoided the bloodbaths.

Even as it played out, our efforts still saved thailand malaysia singapore and indonesia too from communism. just as in ww2 we fought a war for freedom in europe, at the end half of europe was free half was not. in southeast asia we fought a war for freedom in se asia. in the end half of se asia was free half was not.

I can imagine how you got that name skull stomper.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The politics of that war were all dem leaders were for the war in the early days.

Ike kept us out in spite of French pleading from 1954 onward. Pretty much everyone else on his staff, all the Dems and the US population wanted to go into Viet Nam AND nuke China.

[Illbay]

Since you didn't even bother to understand what I actually wrote, I'll pass on trying to enlighten you.

[per loin]

Thanks for posting real stats. I've never understood how some people believe that posting unbelievable stats increases the chance that others will believe what thet are trying to say.

[Chu Gary]

"The average income is about $80.00 per month. When I was there I read a story about a family of four or five who got by on about $1,200 a year. The populace are fairly intelligent and realize that if they are to grow they have to get rid of Communist rule. Even though the government has repressed anti-government talk. It will only be a matter of time before even they ended up on the ash heap of history."

Good post, Extoni. I live in HCMC part-time. The avg earnings per person is more like US $30 per month. And, I think your statement about "the government has repressed anti-government talk" is directionally right but falls way short of hitting the mark.

[Chu Gary]

"There is a resort about a days drive north of Saigon. The place has a name that sounds like “Fun Tit. "

Phan Tiet is a coastal city. It's very quiet, remote and about a 3 hour drive by private car from HCMC. My girlfriend hates it because there's nothing to do other than the beach and the bar..to me, it sounds pretty cool but she won't agree to go. Vung Tau is not too bad but I wouldn't go on a weekend. Vung Tau is accessible via car or motorcycle from HCMC or the hydrofoil from downtown. (one hour by hydrofoil and they have beer on board, also thankfully, a john.)

[RLK]

Why did the North have piles of tanks. Is it because the United Nations prohibited the US from attacking them in North Vietnam? My understanding is that the UN cost us the Vietnam War moreso than the US media every did, what with them requiring our bombers to always use the same pre-determined approach paths and broadcasting all of our intended actions to North Vietnam.

----------------------------p Throughout most of the first eight years of the war we employed the McNamara doctrine of showing the communists they couldn't win. Get a copy of the movie "We were Soldiers" and the actual newsreal of Johnson's proclaiming that policy is in it. As such, the military approach was very non-aggressive. McNamara briefly did some bombing in obscure lower parts of the north while warning Hanoi where he was going to bomb beforehand, supposedly as a demonstration of our invincability. What it did was give the North opportunity to clear their troops and equipment from the area. Until Nixon bombed the north, at no time were the equipment and personnel in the North in danger of personal safety or loss. What existed is a safety and staging area for their convenience until the right time came for them, in which case they could march south with previously protected troops and equipment. That's exactly what happened.

Go to zolatimes2.com. Ping on WRITERS. Go to Robert L. Kocher. Read the series on Viet Nam there for a 200 page more detailed analysis than can be posted here. The series has been used by certain military elements as a text on military science and tactics. More will be added to it in the future.

[Chu Gary]

"The north vietnamese began fighting us in 64.."

Good post, Red. Actually it's a little bit of a misnomer to say that we were fighting the North Vietnamese. We are really fighting the commies. With a true military genius planning their biggest campaigns (Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap) they defeated the French in '54 at Dien Bien Phu. In '56 the U.S. sent advisors there. As I recall, the first U.S. casualty was in '61 or so.

I enjoyed your post.

[Chemnitz]

The Left very much needed us to lose in Viet Nam. Remember the Academy Awards and the person who celebrated the "liberation" of South Viet Nam?

Most Americans wanted us to stay and claim our victory. Getting Nixon out of office helped gain the political victory. Nixon was gutless, having decided from the beginning that "we couldn't win." Ford was also gutless. We already won and he did nothing as Commander in Chief. I am surprised the Republic survived those two goofs.

I am even more surprised that the military did not give up on the whole enterprise. Instead they worked to create a new concept of military might for America. Congratulations to all those vets who stayed in and fought to improve our striking power, which was already awesome. As I recall the "Jedi Knights" was the nickname for the new approach. The leader got punished (always the case, eh?) but the concept took over. The Persian Gulf War is a good example of Viet Nam fought the way it should have been fought. However, we also let an overwhelming victory turn into a stalemate. Thank you George Senior.

It is always worth repeating - thank you to all the wives and children of our fighting men. You make the greatest sacrifice of all.

[Chu Gary]

"If you mean tac-air,it never happened. I'm not even sure the north HAD fighter-bombers. They did have fighters though,and they did scramble them early in the war to try and defend the north from bombing attacks. There are two SF guys I know who participated in the very first "Bright Light" insertion into North Viet Nam (within sight of the Hanoi lights)to try to rescue a shot-down pilot,and as they were inserting,one turned to the other and asked him,"What would you do if you saw a MIG now?" When the second one answered "Shit",the first one pointed out a MIG coming after them. The MIG saw their fighter escort though,and ran away. "

In '67 - '68, the NVN air force had a few Mig 15's, many -17's, a few -19's and a growing number of Mig 21's although they were mostly antiquated versions. But as the late 1960's went on, they received more late model Mig 21's. Nonetheless, the U.S. pilots could usually bust their asses.. no wonder that jerk ran rather than fight.

[lewislynn]

Was the Cu-Chi perimeter lined with 105's all the way around the base?...If it was I spent a week there one day.

[lewislynn]

That Photograph reminds me of how we saw each other as men, yet clearly we weren't much more than children. Most everyone was 19-20 yrs old...

I spent 1yr and 3mos there, I turned 21 one month before I left.

[Exton1]

Some truths behind the photos.

The famous photo of a man handcuffed, a man walks up puts a gun to his head and kills him. The truth is that the man killed was a communist that had just killed a family of four or five. The murder was witnessed by a S. Vietnamese General, who ordered the man executed. The soldier ask to kill the communist, balked because of the news cameras. The General, became frustrated so we walked up and make photo history.

The young girl running naked from bomb attack. The cowardly communist had placed a spy and command center plus had stored ammo in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The South Vietnamese knew this and sent planes to take it out. It was not clear if the girl has injured by the bombing or by the explosions that followed. Later she came to the USA for corrective surgery.

[lewislynn]

Vung Tau is not too bad

I was fotunate enough to have been stationed at Vung Tau....330th Transportation Co. Feb 1967 thru May 1968.

[Chu Gary]

"It was the US Air Force, and the US Navy,(including of course US Marine air elements),who destroyed any, and all Migs, that moved ,by CAPs and the infamous "Fleet Pickets". Simply put,we killed them when they moved,period. The North Vietnamese couldn't even move Migs between their own airfields in the North, without being shot down by the 7th. Fleet. My ships had "confirmed" Mig kills, using our GMC Mk. 71 Tarter /GMC Mk.76 Terrier,systems. These were from most northern picket in the Tonkin, and all were above and deep inside North Vietnam."

Jesus, man, you must have had some serious shit to smoke on your boat if you thought you guys shut down the North's air forces. Not even close.