This paper mentions Ho’s overtures to the US at the end of WW2, And I remember reading of another approach in the fifties, I think it was, but can’t find a cite. He was ignored both times.
What was it that kept the US from dealing with Ho on a diplomatic level? Well, he was a communist, but were there other factors at work?
Peace,
mangeorge
Ain’t that the truth?
Yes…during the war FDR had been rather wishy-washy about America’s attitude toward colonies after the war. He personally opposed colonies on principle, but when your biggest allies are France and England, you don’t want to take too hard a line on the subject. This wishy-washy attitude continued after FDRs death. For instance, the State Department continually reassured France that we supported the reintroduction of French rule in Indochina after the war while at the same time Truman was forbidding U.S. ships from carrying French troops or war material to Vietnam.
The result was a fear on the part of the French that the U.S. would intervene on the side of Vietnamese independence (which is, after all, exactly what Ho wanted). At the same time, the U.S. was afraid that France would go communist. Remember that in the years following the war the French Communist Party was polling over 25% in elections.
So…the U.S. was afraid that any dealings with Ho Chi Minh would be percieved by the French as a lack of support which then might strengthen support for the communists in France and drive France into the communist camp.
The US military never lost any major engagement of the war. It dominated any area that it was in. It cleared the skies of any opposition and despite loses from anti-aircraft defenses, the US could bomb any target it wanted to.
Militarily it was no contest, we won it.
We had our gaping rectal orafices handed to us politically. As I said, we had absolutely no reason or right to be involved. We lost politically.
War isn’t a 50/50 proposition, so we lost (quite rightly). The only thing we can pull out of this war, besides the honors due to those who fought in it, is this: never back into a war. Have a reason, have a goal, get it done and go home.
The real victory is secured only by peace and economics, and when done properly **both **sides win.
Have a good one…
I beg to differ.
You can’t just seperate politics and military action.
American casualties were running much higher than expected at the start of the war. Also the true face of war was clearly shown to the American public. Both these things made America want to get out. You lost heart and left the field of battle.
In my view that is a defeat.
The problem we had was allowing politicians to run the war rather than handing that job over to the experts in the military. The politicians were allowed to pick and choose the battles rather than letting the military organize attacks the best way they knew how. It was a political game with our soldiers playing the pawn.
We did NOT win that war on any front. The numbers of lives lost due to a half-hearted effort at stamping out communism (which, incidentally, most Vietnamese people didn’t object to) demolished our faith in our government, destroyed lives, and embarrassed us politically.
Hey Latro, we’re both saying the same thing only with slightly differing reasoning.
Me: Our military might was tops, but politically we sucked. Together this equals bad thing and loss.
You: Politics and military too close together to seperate so both sucked. That equals bad thing and loss.
Let’s have peace and get together economically. Will the first round of drinks be on you or me?
Have a good one.
EchoKitty This goes for you too. We’re too close on the final answer to disagree. Perhaps you’ll agree with my statement of what the US should take out of this war:
Never back into a conflict. Have a reason, have a goal, get it done and go home. Then make sure everyone wins the peace.
Peace.
The US military achieved a military kill ratio of over 22:1, in vietnamese militants to US soldiers dead. This is not including civilians and non-combattants.
The US military was never overrun, in the entirety of the war, in anything over than platoon strength.
The US military won every single battle they engaged in, and accomplished every military object the politicians gave them.
The US owned the entirety of the airspace over the entire region.
To call this a military loss would be inaccurate. Even with all of the ridiculous restrictions the politicians put on the army’s warfighting ability - even with the fact that we were fighting the enemy on their own territory - and even with the fact that we were fighting alongside a generally incompetant ally, we managed to kick ass and take names at every battle in the Vietnam war.
The politicians, and quite possibly those who were the adamant protesters, are the ones who made us break our word and abandon the people of South Vietnam.
Even after we pulled out, we promised to supply them with weapons and military support. We didn’t. The Russians kept up their deal with the North Vietnamese. Is it any wonder they lost?
We abandoned the South Vietnamese people, and thousands upon thousands were murdered, or sent to forced labor ‘re-education’ camps. This fact seems to be overlooked by those who were so adamant on protesting the war - and abandoning the Vietnamese people - and their media allies. I hope they feel proud of stomping on our honor like that. Congratulations.
This is a very interesting argumentation.
I’m looking for cites now.
In any case, I seem, obviously, like some right wrong pro-vietnam freak.
Actually, I’m not sure whether we should’ve gotten involved, and I lean towards ‘no’, but I believe that once we made our promise to the Vietnamese people, then we were obligated not to cower and pull out.
I also believe that we abandoned them, and that people ignore the fate they suffered because of it.
And I hate the misperception that the US Military got it’s ass beaten in Vietnam. Far, far from it.
Jeu first round is on me.
Let’s have peace. Ok Holland won’t invade U.S.
Let’s get along economically. Ok, please raise steel import barriers 
This site claims 1.1 million NVA/VC casualties. I cannot verify it’s authenticity, but I’ve seen similar claims elsewhere, and it seems authentic.
At (rounded) 58000 KIA on the US side, that gives us an 18.9:1 kill ratio. Lower than what I claimed - I’m either misremembering, or the source I’d read before had slightly different numbers - but quite clearly militarily impressive.
Argh! Right wing!
I should’ve slept 8 hours ago.
I’m not saying that and you could have won the war, easily.
If you had invaded North Vietnam, things would probably have turned out differently. But you didn’t defeat the opponent.
The U.S. sat tight and then left, that’s not how wars are won.
Is all I’m saying.
Latro: Now, what would have happened had the US invaded Hanoi? There was the issue of China right there on their border and the PRC already proved they’d happily invade over a border if your forces got too close (remember Korea?).
In Vietnam the cure was worse than the disease, and yet the patient died on the operating table.
Just because we had a higher kill ratio than them doesn’t mean we won the war. Our objective was to stop communism, and we didn’t do it. We may have held it off a bit, but at what cost?
Not that a rice farmer with 6 kids gives a shit who is running the government! Then as now, their main concern was putting food on the table and not getting bombs dropped on their villages.
I think the biggest tragedy in the whole war was not pulling out in the mid 60s when we knew we couldn’t defeat the sheer numbers of Chinese. Yes, we told them we would help them, but even if we were allowed to fight a “smart” war, the enemy would keep coming…and coming…and coming. We should have cut our losses.
Ok people you need an outside look. Vietnam was for U.S.A. what Afghanistan was for the U.S.R.R. Have you heard of “Won the battle but lost the war”? Or victory a la Pirro? (Pirric victory?).
It doesn’t matter how many battles you won they kept coming, it doesn’t matter how many thousands you killed (actually it does but not in a military sense) they kept coming. Finally you decided to go home becuse south vietnam could not live on with out your support they lost the war… as you did not accomplish your objective so did you.
In a war in order to know if you won a) what was your objective? b) Did you achieve it? .
Estilicon, you’re correct. Not only was it a questionable objective, given the fact that the Chinese weren’t a direct threat to our freedom, but the endless stream of combatants would keep us from winning the war EVER.
For political purposes, we chose to keep fighting the losing battle, and in the process killed so many people needlessly. Even worse, we killed our national spirit. I, for one, don’t think we’ve recovered from that, and I think it will be a long time before we do, if ever.
vietnam was a post-colonial race war.
vietnam was a french colony b4 WWII. the japanese chased the french out. Ho Chi Minh was a leader among the vietnamese resistance against the japanese. the allies provided them with some support. when the war ended the french wanted back into vietnam. roosevelt was opposed to this but had to go along since the french were our allies in the war. the US provided the french with economic support but they got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu. Ho thought he had won the whole ball of wax but the US and other europeans created SEATO and South Vietnam. The US created the vietnamese civil war. do you think most vietnamese gave a damn about the difference between frenchmen and americans?
the poor dumb colored people need europeans to tell the what to think.
so 2,000,000 north vietnamese were killed for capitalism and capitalist economists can’t do grammar school algebra. when was the last time you heard an economist say how much american consumers loose on deperciation of automobiles every year?
i was in the first draft lottery to go to vietnam, but my number came up 348. i figured out our economists were ignoring depreciation of durable consumer goods in 1976, the year after the real end of the war, so this crap kind of annoys me. didn’t have an intelligent discussion of capitalism/communism at any time in highschool even though body counts were in the news every night. this WAR ON TERRORISM looks just as stupid as vietnam just that now American lives are really precious. afghan and iraqi children hardly matter.
Dal Timgar