Is this accurate? South Vietnam was winning when US quit that war?

[Sailboat]

This might be posted in the wrong forum...I'm looking for what passes for factual answers in historical/military analysis...but it might be a sore point for some readers.

The Washington Post editorial linked here conatins this assertion by author Mark Moyar:

Originally Posted by Mark Moyar for the Washington Post

Critics of Vietnamization point to the ultimate defeat of South Vietnam. But in fact the South Vietnamese largely pacified their country by 1971, and defeated a massive conventional North Vietnamese invasion in 1972 without the help of U.S. ground forces. They ultimately lost because the United States withdrew support while the North Vietnamese enjoyed enough superpower support to mount an even larger offensive in 1975.

That...surprised me. I don't recall hearing that the South won just before we withdrew.

Does that quote sound like the consensus understanding among historians? What incident(s), offensive(s), or program(s) is he talking about?

Sailboat

[Little Nemo]

I presume they're talking about the Nguyen Hue Offensive. North Vietnam launched a major two-pronged attack against South Vietnam and captured several provinces. By the time of the attack, American ground troop levels had been greatly reduced and the South Vietnamese Army was the main ground force resisting the attack. However, the United States Air Force assisted by launching a massive bombing campaign against the north. After several months of fighting, the south recovered most, but not all, of the lost territory. Both sides lost a lot of casualties. Neither side acheived a major victory, although most people (including myself) would say that South Vietnam "won" - North Vietnam was forced to withdraw. But is was a fairly pyrrhic victory - the South lost a lot of men and equipment it couldn't afford to lose and also showed it was still incapable of defending itself without American assistance.

[John Mace]

I don't know how accurate it is to say the South was "winning", but they did only agree to the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 because the US promised to come back in if the North launched an invasion. After we left, though, Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off any future military funding for South Vietnam, thus making rendering the PPA moot. That could have emboldenedd the North to invade when the political compromise the two sides were supposed to work out (per the PPA) never got anywhere.

The US was withdrawing troops rapidly in 1971, and the Easter Offensive (by the North) in 1972 was pushed back by the South, although not without considerable help from the remaining US troops (and air power). So, I guess one could say that the South (still with some help from dwindling US ground troops) was able to fight off a significant invasion from the North, but they certainly hadn't defeated the North by any means-- the country was still split, and the South controlled only, well... the South.

[Jeff Lichtman]

Isn't it a contradiction to say that South Vietnam was able to defeat a masssive invasion without U.S. help, but the reason that South Vietnam fell was that the U.S. withdrew its forces?

[Little Nemo]

Isn't it a contradiction to say that South Vietnam was able to defeat a masssive invasion without U.S. help, but the reason that South Vietnam fell was that the U.S. withdrew its forces?

They didn't defeat it without US help. Most people feel the deciding factor was the massive USAF bombing campaign (Operation Linebacker II). Three years later, the NVA tried another similar campaign and this time, without American support, the ARVN was overrun.

[Little Nemo]

I don't know how accurate it is to say the South was "winning", but they did only agree to the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 because the US promised to come back in if the North launched an invasion. After we left, though, Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off any future military funding for South Vietnam, thus making rendering the PPA moot.

Congress being the only people who had the Constitutional authority to make such a promise, any promises of intervention made at the time of the peace accords were always moot. There certainly was no such promise included in the accords - the actual text said: "The United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Viet-Nam."

[rowrrbazzle]

A little more background.

From "How North Vietnam won the war", Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 3, 1995. pg. A8 (Interview with Bui Tin)

Our losses [in the Tet Offensive] were staggering and a complete surprise. [N. Vietnamese General] 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.

[Little Nemo]

The Tet Offensive also had political goals. The NLF had built up its own organization and leadership and had a large degree of independance from the North Vietnamese government. Hanoi decided to try a strategy of "let's you and him fight" - the NLF was convinced to carry out a major conventional military campaign against the ARVN and American forces. The result was that the South Vietnamese and Americans suffered a lot of casualties and the VietCong suffered even more casualties and was effectively eliminated as a force to be reckoned with. Six years later when North Vietnam occupied the South, there was no existing organization left that might have contested their control.