Trotsky brought up Vietnam in this thread, and to avoid further hijacking we should have a separate one.
Of course, this kind of historical “what if” question is impossible to definitely settle one way or the other, but I believe if the U.S. forces had continued the war much past 1974, even more Vietnamese, north and south, would have died violently than the number who died violently (in combat and in “re-education camps”) after we left and NV invaded and conquered SV. Further, I do not believe a permanent division as in Korea could have been achieved there – because SV had to deal with a highly popular native insurgency in addition to a Communist enemy over the border. And looking at things in the long run, Vietnam, while still nominally Communist and certainly an undemocratic police state, now has a prosperous mostly-market economy, and is at least united as a country and completely free from foreign domination (which I think is what most Viet Cong were fighting for – national unity and independence, not a Communist utopia). Vietnam is certainly better off now than at any time in its long and bloody history, and very probably better off than it would have been if we had continued the war for several more years, killing even more Vietnamese (and Americans) and destroying even more of the infrastructure (such as it was).
(Taking bets Trotsky will now hijack this thread into a discussion of Iraq/Iran/Pakistan. )
I cited that link only to show Vietnam’s history has been unusually bloody (even compared to, say, China’s or Japan’s – because so many Vietnamese dynasties were overthrown after only two or three emperors); not to show it is well off now. That’s the debate.
Gods know. Its probably a wash. With the US there it would have been a low grade fight for some indefinite period of time. Eventually I’m fairly sure the Viet Cong, who had pretty much been wiped out in the Tet Offensive, would have reconstituted and become once more a major force in the south. Most likely however, South Vietnam would have existed indefinitely as well…as long as the US was there to hold things from flying apart.
Of course, we know what DID happen…and that was ugly enough.
Well…on the one hand you had an invasion supported by the NV regular army…and of course the aftermath in those things you charmingly refer to as ‘re-education camps’. On the other hand we would have had the same low grade insurgency in the South…and the continued bombings of infrastructure in the North by the US. I’m guessing that there would have been more North Vietnamese killed (and American’s of course) had the US stayed…and probably less South Vietnamese. Just a guess though.
:dubious: BG, in the sentence before this you acknowledged that the South only fell AFTER a full scale invasion by the North using regular forces. Do you get the implications there?
I think if the US stayed and was willing to pay the price ( :dubious: ) that South Vietnam would have held together. Would it be better off today? No idea…probably not. Would this have been wise of the US to do? Probably not. However I would LOVE to see your logic behind why the South would have folded had the US not pulled out and left them essentially holding the bag in the face of not a popular insurgency but regular NVA troops.
Maybe. Probably. Pretty hard on those ex-South Vietnamese (and other undesire-ables) however who either had to pose for gun fire or were ‘re-educated’, ehe?
Sure…but South Korea is better off today than in ITS long, bloody history as well. There is no telling what South Vietnam may or may not have become had the US stayed. Its pure speculation. My guess is…if they could have gotten past the corrupt governments they were hung with and had they managed to get some kind of cease fire similar to what North/South Korea finally came too, they would have been at least as prosperous as today…maybe more so. But there is simply no telling.
What xtisme said. The “native” (or semi-native…a lot of the Viet Cong were North Vietnamese, and the Viet Cong had mostly North Vietnamese leadership), were pretty much wiped out after the Tet Offensive. Beyond that, the Viet Cong lived and died by North Vietnamese supply and support. If some sort of ceasefire had been accomplished so that the People’s Army wasn’t operating in South Vietnam, and the US/South Vietnamese government was able to interdict shipments from the North, then they wouldn’t have had any trouble getting rid of the Viet Cong.
I don’t know of any evidence that the Viet Cong was ever “highly popular” in South Vietnam, especially after 1965. There was a constant stream of refugees from Viet Cong controlled areas, and Viet Cong treatment of civilians in Viet Cong areas was harsh, with the VC subjecting civilians to high taxation and forced labor (although, of course, support for the Viet Cong went up, and for the government went down when it appeared that the government was losing, and vice versa, but that’s to be expected).
Its a good point. And of course, the NV government survived by the supply and support of the USSR and China. Without that, the whole thing would have imploded like a house of cards. Oh, I have no doubt the NV would have kept trying (though I doubt they would have indefinitely), but the whole thing was unsustainable without massive amounts of money and arms from those two major powers. And I doubt whether the USSR and China’s pockets were infinite…at some point they would have been forced to start cutting funding for what was (at least to the Russian’s) just a sideshow to embarrass the US.
Do you have a cite for the VC being wiped out by the Tet Offensive? I’m not disputing it was a military defeat for them, I’m asking about the level of losses they sustained.
As for the OP, you have to count the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who came to the US, most of whom I suspect consider themselves better off - certainly few seem to want to move back. But I think the answer depends on how the war would have gone, and there is no way of knowing that.
The debate is that Vietnam’s history has been bloody? I don’t think so…
Anyway, you have to define more of what the parameters are than the US not having pulled out. Did we increase troops levels? Did we install a right-wing dictator who could effectively crush any native communist resistance in the South? What would have happened if the war went on until the Soviet Union collapsed?
There are too many variables. I can imagine scenarios where they would be better off and scenarios where they’d be worse off.
The Tet Offensive was in 1968. The US continued to increase its military commitment after that and didn’t withdraw its troops until 1973. If the ARVN was going to become a force to be reckoned with because of Tet, it had amble time to do so.
The Tet Offensive did achieve the goals of the North Vietnamese government. It killed South Vietnamese forces and it killed Viet Cong - neither of which was part of the North Vietnamese military. When the NVA overran the South a few years later, it didn’t have to worry about interference from an indigenous guerilla force.
I think under those circumstances they would have been considerably more likely to come to the U.S., if they could. (Of course, the end of the war and our national guilt over it probably gave many of them opportunities to come here that they would not have had if the war had continued.)
So…your point is that the ARVN backed by the US (sort of) and then left holding the bag after we bolted couldn’t take on the NVA backed (to the hilt) by China and the USSR? Or…well, what? The ARVN was plenty enough to contain the Viet Cong and the home grown insurgents…just not enough to withstand the regular NVA in a full scale invasion.
Um…huh? The gutting of the Viet Cong was part of some deep North Vietnamese plot? Do you have a cite for this incredible statement?? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
The only ‘goal’ that Tet achieved for the North was the body blow it dealt the US public…i.e. it was a PROPAGANDA victory. Militarily it was an absolute disaster for the North.
What do you base this on? Do you have some statistics that mass immigration was happening prior to the collapse of the South under a full scale invasion from the North? AFAIK, there was no mass migration in all the years BEFORE that collapse…it was only at the end (and after the communists took over and people were still able to get out) that we saw a huge influx of Vietnamese coming to America.
I could of course be wrong here…thats why I’m asking for a cite.
Do you even know what you’re talking about??? The end of the war gave them the “opportunity” to risk their fucking lives on rickety boats to get here. Lucky them!!
The situation in Vietnam seems almost completely parallel to our involvement in Korea. Communist north, American supported government in the south, foreign intervention for the communists, etcetera etcetera.
On what grounds could you argue that Vietnam was likely to turn out differently than Korea, had we stayed and fought? I imagine that South Vietnam would have eventually become governed by a freely elected democracy with a strong US military presence, but politically stable and economically prosperous.
We can’t really estimate how much more violent death there would have been, though. Is it possible that North Vietnam was ready to accept a peace deal that involved a political divide? We don’t know how long it would have taken to resolve, and it could just as easily have been two months away as two years.
)