# Was US the only capitalist country able to fight the Viet Cong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 18, 2012, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379 "2012-11-18T05:43:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/41 "2012-11-19T15:34:09Z")
This is a very confusing question. “Fighting” the VC was never the problem. Anybody could do that. The big problem was organizing the South Vietnamese to create a credible and effective government, rally the public’s support, and destroy North Vietnam’s military capabilities at the strategic level (which we never even attempted). I would re-phrase your question to ask, “Was the US the only country with the resources to fight the North Vietnamese insurgency at the strategic level?” I think that question is more relevant and better captures your intent. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/42 "2012-11-19T16:29:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So the orders went out for a great offensive. The Viet Cong were told to go out into the open and fight the Americans directly. They did so and caused a lot of damage to the Americans. And then the Americans regrouped and wiped out the Viet Cong. And then Hanoi and the PAVN were able to take full control of the final stages of the war without any potential rivals being around. > > I don’t think this was a coincidence. I think Hanoi knowingly sacrificed the VC in the Tet Offensive. It served the immediate advantage of hurting the Americans and the long-term advantage of removing the VC as a future factor in Vietnamese politics. I’ve heard of this as a theory as well, apparently believed by some captured/defected VC officers among others. I don’t buy that it was a deliberate plan, the PAVN was heavily committed to the Tet Offensive as well, notably at Hue and Khe Sanh amongst other places. The leadership believed the offensive would ignite a popular uprising amongst South Vietnamese and hopefully topple the government of the South. I’ve no doubt the leadership in the North didn’t shed too many tears over the losses of the VC leadership in the South, but I don’t buy that it was a deliberate part of the plan for Tet to fail and gut the VC, more a happy coincidence of the failure of Tet. Given its history, and the history of communist movements worldwide, there’s no reason to doubt that there would be purges. I have trouble seeing Tet as a deliberate plan to purge the VC when they could just as easily have done it after winning the war. Calling the VC ‘wiped out’ after Tet is also a considerable exaggeration. After the failure of the attacks during Tet they did the same thing they had always done after losing battles against American and ARVN forces: disappear back into the general population and the countryside. Tet hurt them but didn’t come anywhere close to wiping them out, they remained a factor until the end of the war. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/43 "2012-11-19T18:52:11Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that NLF was another term for the VC (mostly irregulars from South Vietnam) and the NVA (North Vietnamese Army, as termed by the West) were the regulars from North Vietnam. Both groups were under the command of the VPA (Vietnam People’s Army) > > From what I see, most writers include both the NLF and NVA in discussions. You are correct; I blame early onset Alzheimer’s or something. I think I was misremembering the NLF encompassing VC main force, regional force, local force, and the shadow government as the NLF encompassing the VC and NVA. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/44 "2012-11-19T19:11:46Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Indeed, near history is so often forgotten. > > The FFL wasn’t even remotely close to “the most effective military force in the world” in the Dien Bien Phu days. By and large, it was underequipped and somewhat inexperienced. The French sent them, not because they were so bad-ass that they’d win, but because they weren’t French soldiers, and if they did get wiped out, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. (common theme in FFL deployments, BTW). French citizens fulfilling their compulsory national service obligation could not deployed outside of Europe. This was due to the US’s insistance that the French contibute to the anti-Soviet bulwark, and also the French Communist party’s oppositon against colonial wars; especially against the Vietnamese Communists. The French did send regulars to Korea, while the FFL, as well as Algerian and Morroccan troops (who acutally outnumbered the FFL at Dien Bien Phu) were in Vietnam, in return for US military equipment. Traditionally, Indochina duty was for second-rate FFL - their best were needed for North Africa where there was always more trouble. The Indochina FFL was defeated by the Thais in 1941, and by the Japanese after Vichy collapsed. You’re correct that the FFL in the First Indochina War were inexperienced: the myth of veteran Wermacht troops is inaccurate: most of them would be in their 30’s in 1954. That’s too damn old for jungle warfare. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/45 "2012-11-19T19:16:02Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Given its history, and the history of communist movements worldwide, there’s no reason to doubt that there would be purges. I have trouble seeing Tet as a deliberate plan to purge the VC when they could just as easily have done it after winning the war. But as you noted the VC were skilled at avoiding detection when they needed to be. The Saigon government had been unsuccessful in its attempts to eliminate the VC. There’s no reason to think the Hanoi government would be more successful. So Hanoi would have found it easier if they could convince the VC to come out in the open and get themselves killed fighting the Americans. I’m not suggesting this was the main goal of the Tet Offensive. I’m sure Hanoi regarded weakening the South Vietnamese government and the Americans as their primary goals. But my point was that the loss of so many Viet Cong can’t be regarded as having turned the Tet Offensive into a defeat for the North when it was really an added bonus for them. As a historical precedent, I’ll point to the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The Soviets encouraged the Warsaw resistance movement to rise up against the Germans. Then they stood by and waited while the Germans eliminated the resistance. The Soviets didn’t interfere while their current enemies and their potential future enemies were killing each other. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/46 "2012-11-19T19:30:47Z")
I could see the North Vietnamese maximizing their resources and investment by sacrificing the Viet Cong. That may not have been the primary reason for doing it, but I doubt they would have seen it as a drawback. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/47 "2012-11-19T22:29:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But as you noted the VC were skilled at avoiding detection when they needed to be. The Saigon government had been unsuccessful in its attempts to eliminate the VC. There’s no reason to think the Hanoi government would be more successful. So Hanoi would have found it easier if they could convince the VC to come out in the open and get themselves killed fighting the Americans. There’s a difference between being able to hide from the Americans and the ARVN on the battlefield and hiding from purges once they had taken power and were out in the open as part of the new government. It wasn’t just the VC that came out in the open in Tet, the NVA did as well. Hue was occupied by a division of the NVA, two or three NVA divisions laid siege to Khe Sanh, a divison assaulted Dong Ha, a division attack Da Nang, two regiments successfully forced the abandonment of Kham Duc, etc. > [@](#): > > As a historical precedent, I’ll point to the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The Soviets encouraged the Warsaw resistance movement to rise up against the Germans. Then they stood by and waited while the Germans eliminated the resistance. The Soviets didn’t interfere while their current enemies and their potential future enemies were killing each other. The Warsaw uprising doesn’t work as a precedent. The NLF and North Vietnam were both communists, Vietnamese, and had the same goal; reunifying Vietnam under communist rule. They were actual allies; they didn’t merely share a common enemy. Relations between the Polish Home Army and the USSR on the other hand were quite hostile. The [Armia Krajowa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa) was loyal to the Polish Government in exile in London, not the Polish communists; the Soviets set up their own Polish army in exile in the form of the [People’s Army of Poland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludowe_Wojsko_Polskie). There were hostilities between the AK and the USSR from [very early on](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Soviets): > [@](#): > > Armia Krajowa relations with the Red Army became increasingly poor over the course of the war. Not only did the Soviet Union invade Poland following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, but even after the Germans invaded Soviet Union the Soviet Union saw Polish partisans loyal to the government in exile as more of an enemy to their plans to take control of post-war Poland, than as a potential ally.[72] On orders from Stavka sent on June 22, 1943,[73] Soviet partisans engaged Polish partisans in combat, and it has been claimed that they attacked the Poles more often than they did the Germans. The Warsaw Uprising wasn’t carried out with the encouragement of the USSR, in fact the opposite was the case. The AK carried out the uprising in order to liberate Warsaw before the Soviets could. The first operations in [Operation Tempest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tempest) made it clear to the AK what they could expect from the Soviets: > [@](#): > > In the north, on July 7, 1944, the forces of the Vilnius and Nowogródek Home Army districts (some 13,000 men under Colonel Aleksander Krzyżanowski) launched an attack on German-held Vilnius, although the attack stalled until the arrival of Soviet forces. The AK and Soviet armies then jointly took the city on July 13. Prior to the assault, the surrounding countryside had also been liberated by Polish and Soviet partisans. Cooperation ended almost immediately after the liberation of Vilnius; on July 14, Krzyżanowski and his officers were disarmed and imprisoned, and AK units who resisted being disarmed were violently crushed by Soviet forces, with dozens of Polish fatalities. > > On July 23, Home Army forces in Lwów (now Lviv) began an armed rising in cooperation with advancing Soviet forces. In four days the city was liberated. The Polish civil and military authorities were then summoned to “a meeting with Red Army commanders” and taken prisoner by the Soviet NKVD. Colonel Władysław Filipkowski’s men were forcibly conscripted into the Red Army or sent to forced-labor camps, or went back underground. > > Seeing the fate of the Home Army forces that had taken part in Operation Tempest, the Polish government in exile and the Home Army’s current commander, General Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, decided that the last chance for regaining Poland’s independence was to open an uprising in Warsaw. On July 21, 1944, Bór-Komorowski ordered that the Warsaw Uprising begin at 17:00 hours on August 1, 1944. The political goal was to emphasize for the Allies the existence of the Polish government and Polish civil authorities. Warsaw was to be taken in order to allow the legitimate Polish government to return from exile to Poland. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/48 "2012-11-19T22:48:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The United States never had a military defeat in Vietnam but it also never had a military victory in Vietnam. At some point, you have to wise up and stop engaging in a stalemate that was killing thousands of American troops year after year for no purpose. Your’re partially correct. You can not you point to a single example of communist forces actually winning a battle against American forces. They never did. I would disagree with the second part of your statement. The battle in the i Drang valley (1965) was a victory for American forces from a strategic sense in that a superior enemy force was defeated and sent running. Yet, there was no strategic gain (territory, etc) from the battle. It was a war that could not have been won short of total destruction of the North, and that wasn’t on the table. ---
**Author:** ![GiantRat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@GiantRat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GiantRat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/49 "2012-11-19T22:58:07Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Since when are Laos and Cambodia not part of the region? They certainly are part of the region. But the word “containment” is not the same as “eradication.” The US strategy was based on the Domino Theory, which posited that Communism, allowed to spread unchecked, would consume vast portions of the globe (“Communist International” certainly leads one to figure that as the goal). Essentially, our containment policy sent a message that we would oppose the spread of Communism - with force if necessary. It’s kind of (as such things tend to be) playground politics; “don’t make me do to you what I did to that guy!” Think of containment in terms of fire - when your Vegamite flambe gets out of control in your kitchen, you start by slowing and then stopping the spread of the flames. Complete suppression is the next step. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/50 "2012-11-19T23:25:02Z")
> [@oyster11](#): > > US had many military victories over VC, battles after battles. The VC had none. The Vietnamese won the war. That’s the biggest battle of all. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/51 "2012-11-20T01:59:00Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > The Ia Drang Valley (the battle dramatized in We Were Soldiers) was considered a victory by both sides, but the 2/7th Cavalry suffered a clear defeat at LZ Albany when they tried to leave a couple days later. The book that the movie is based on is a must read. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As a historical precedent, I’ll point to the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. The Soviets encouraged the Warsaw resistance movement to rise up against the Germans. Then they stood by and waited while the Germans eliminated the resistance. The Soviets didn’t interfere while their current enemies and their potential future enemies were killing each other. Dissonance responded well with many points, but I’ll add to it. The situation was so different that the Warsaw Uprising can’t really be used in comparison. By that point in the East Front, the Soviets were winning. They were pushing the Germans back hard and although it still took a while to fight to Germany, they were well on their way. OTOH, there were seven years between the Tet Offensive and the end of the war. They still very much needed the VLF fighters > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I would disagree with the second part of your statement. The battle in the i Drang valley (1965) was a victory for American forces from a strategic sense in that a superior enemy force was defeated and sent running. Yet, there was no strategic gain (territory, etc) from the battle. This is a mischaracterization of the US strategy; which wasn’t to hold the Central Highlands but to take the fight to the NVA there. The French and then the ARVN had been unable to penetrate the area and the NVA had had free reign there. The US had developed the helicopter based air mobility attacks to go on hunt and destroy missions. Hal Moore who was a lieutenant colonel and the commander of the first half of the battle considered the battle a draw even though they inflicted a greater number of causalities on the enemy, it wasn’t enough. The PAVN found a way to fight an army with vastly superior weapons and supplies and still hold on. The problem with the strategy of body counts was that the Communist forces, both the VLF and PAVN were more willing to make greater sacrifices than what the US would bear. Back to the battle at Ia Dang, had they been considered separate battles, the ambush at LZ Albany would be a victory for the NVA. Moore doesn’t come right out and state that in his book, but it’s clear. The NVA inflicted heavy losses on the US forces. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/52 "2012-11-20T06:33:40Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Your’re partially correct. You can not you point to a single example of communist forces actually winning a battle against American forces. They never did. [The Battle of Kham Duc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kham_Duc) > [@](#): > > In the early hours of 10 May, elements of the VC 1st Regiment attacked Ngok Tavak, and they successfully overran much of the outpost. By dawn, the 11th MSF Company was devastated, but they later received reinforcements which came in the form of the 12th Mobile Strike Force Company. Despite having received assurances that further reinforcements would arrive to relieve the outpost, the commander of the 11th MSF Company decided to evacuate his troops and move towards Khâm Đức. By that time, however, the VC 1st Regiment had already turned their attention to the main target at Khâm Đức, and they only left behind some local force units to destroy allied reinforcements. Meanwhile, elements of the Americal Division had been airlifted into Khâm Đức as part of Operation Golden Valley, to bolster the strength of the Special Forces Camp there. On the morning of 11 May, the North Vietnamese 2nd Division surrounded Khâm Đức, and they gradually forced United States-led forces into their bases after several outposts were overrun. Westmoreland then ordered Khâm Đức to be evacuated, so the 834th Air Division was told to make an all-out effort to extract all the people in Khâm Đức, both military and civilian. By the time the evacuation was completed, nine U.S. military aircraft had been shot down, including two C-130s. On 12 May, the North Vietnamese were in complete control of Khâm Đức. The battle was a major defeat for the U.S. military. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/53 "2012-11-20T13:08:02Z")
There [were others](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ong_Thanh). > [@](#): > > Although not every American soldier was killed as Triet had expected, the battle at Ong Thanh was nonetheless a costly affair for the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment. During two hours of fighting the 2nd Battalion lost 64 men killed in action, including Lieutenant Colonel Terry Allen and every member of the Battalion Command Group, as well as 75 wounded and 2 missing.[2] For their efforts in the battle, 13 American soldiers were awarded the Silver Star, while Allen and Welch received the Distinguished Service Cross. Forward Observer Second Lieutenant Harold B. Durham, who was attached to the 2nd Battalion on the day from the 15th Field Artillery Regiment, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions.[2] Despite the losses that had been inflicted on the 2nd Battalion by the Viet Cong, the U.S. military told the media that the fight at Ong Thanh had resulted in a major American victory. > > However, American veterans who had survived from the ordeals of the battle are still adamant they were ambushed and were subsequently defeated by the Viet Cong’s 271st Regiment. In addition, the figure of 103 enemy dead officially provided by the U.S. military may have been inflated, in order to emphasize the scale of the ‘American victory’. This battle has been written about a number of times. Here’s a review of [one of the books](http://donmooreswartales.com/2010/06/28/james-shelton/) > [@](#): > > The ”Black Lions” were looking for a fight. The battalion had been on a search-and-destroy mission for more than a week. Now the men of the 2nd Battalion, 28th Regiment, 1st Infantry Division were exhausted from chasing the Viet Cong through the jungle 50 miles north of Saigon. > > On Oct. 17, 1967, along a jungle stream called Ong Thanh west of Highway 13, the main dirt road connecting Saigon with the Cambodian border, the “Black Lions” found what they were looking for. The 2nd Battalion of “The Big Red 1” ran head on into the battle-hardened 271st Viet Cong Regiment that was waiting for them in the bush. > > When the shooting stopped, 57 “Big Red 1” soldiers from a single under-strength battalion were sent home in body bags. Another 77 were wounded in the half-day jungle fire-fight. The Viet Cong left 103 of its men on the battlefield. > > Brig. Gen. James Shelton (Ret.) of Cape Haze, Fla. published a book, “The Beast Was Out There,” about this jungle battle during the Vietnam War. His book tells the story of the “Black Lions’” defeat by a stronger, more experienced and batter led VC unit 37 years ago during an engagement in the heartland of South Vietnam. > > “What eventually led me to write this book was a wire service article that appeared in many papers around the United States (during the war). The article said the 1st Infantry Division won the battle against the VC,” Shelton observed. “We didn’t win the battle, but the spin doctors put their spin on what happened.” I’ve read another account of it, but I don’t have my copy here to get the title. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/54 "2012-11-20T13:31:51Z")
[We could go on all day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xa_Cam_My#Aftermath), > [@](#): > > The Battle of Xa Cam My was a battle of the Vietnam War fought over two days from April 11–12, 1966. Originally planned as a U.S. search and destroy mission intended to lure out the “crack” Viet Cong D800 Battalion, Charlie Company soon found itself fighting for survival in the rubber plantations of Xa Cam My, approximately 42 miles (68 km) east of Saigon. During this battle 134 men of Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division were ambushed by the Viet Cong. > (. . .) > After five hours of brutal fighting, what was left of Charlie Company formed a tight perimeter, protected by a barrage of artillery fire which came down at a rate of five or six rounds per minute. By 07:00 on April 12, the Viet Cong had disengaged from the battle before other U.S units could arrive. Charlie Company was nearly wiped out with a casualty rate of 80%. The claim that the US didn’t lose \*any \* battles is pretty much a myth created by the army. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/55 "2012-11-20T14:31:04Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Indeed, near history is so often forgotten. > > The FFL wasn’t even remotely close to “the most effective military force in the world” in the Dien Bien Phu days. By and large, it was underequipped and somewhat inexperienced. The French sent them, not because they were so bad-ass that they’d win, but because they weren’t French soldiers, and if they did get wiped out, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. (common theme in FFL deployments, BTW). > > Sometimes I think the FFL has a propaganda machine second only to the USMC’s. They’re good, but hardly better than say… the Ranger batallions, and probably more on par with the 82nd Airborne. Dien Bien Phu is a pretty good example of how being “good” wasn’t really as important as being " the side with the most artillery on the highest ground". General Giap was in this respect a great student of Napoleon. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/56 "2012-12-01T15:39:19Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Completely untrue. Tet hurt the VC very badly militarily as they committed not only their mobile (full time guerilla) forces but also large numbers of local (think farmer by day/drop a few mortar shells by night type of deal) forces. They most certainly did not lose their control over areas of the South Vietnamese countryside or the shadow government in the areas. They lost some ground in the aftermath, but the amount of NLF controlled territory didn’t drop to anything like ‘near none’. Yes, it did. Read the official Communist party history of the conflict: Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People’s Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975 by the Military History Institute of Vietnam, and it makes the same point I made. > [@](#): > > You’re conflating two things, the VC and the NVA. Due to the losses of the VC, the majority of the NLF in South Vietnam from 1968 onwards became NVA. The NVA had troops involved in the war from prior to US intervention in 1965. No, I’m not. You’re wanting to use a broader term than me, which is fine. But as a Southern led and operated organization the Viet Cong was essentially destroyed in Tet, that is why afterwards they were unable to recruit sufficient southerners to maintain operations. That is why the VC leadership were mostly Northern military officers after Tet whereas before it was mostly Southerners, and it is why 70% of the overall VC were Northerners after Tet. Yes, there were NVA operations in South Vietnam prior to Tet, I never said there weren’t. > [@](#): > > It’s equally inaccurate to say that North Vietnam won; the NLF did. That’s like saying the Union didn’t win the Civil War but the “United States” did, it’s ludicrous. The North’s military is what actually captured all the land in South Vietnam and the North’s political leaders are the ones who ran the unified country after the war. Also, I do not believe you are very familiar with Saigon. I’ve been there within the past ten years and many people still call it Saigon. You may not be aware of this, but often times politicians call something one thing or give something a name and many of the locals don’t actually use those terms. Many streets in New York City for example are still referred to by locals as their original, historical street name even though they have been changed in recent years to other things. Hardly anyone stopped calling the Hoover Dam the Hoover Dam while it was the Boulder Dam. From my experiences in Vietnam as a traveler locals seemed to refer to a core part of the city (Ho Chi Minh city is vast, with its jurisdiction encompassing many former towns and such) as “Saigon” but the whole area itself as Ho Chi Minh city. So someone who technically lives in Ho Chi Minh city but not in the central part of the city might say they live in Ho Chi Minh city but if they were going into the center of town they’d say they were going “to Saigon.” (I do not have even a working mastery of Vietnamese language or intricacies of locals, so I may have this “quirk” a bit wrong, but basically yes the locals in Vietnam still refer to a certain geographical area as Saigon and use the term in addition to Ho Chi Minh City, even though I may have the specifics of how they use it incorrect.) Even businesses in the city still use Saigon, I stayed at the Hyatt there and it literally says “Park Hyatt Saigon” all over the place. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/57 "2012-12-01T15:42:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But when you remember that the VC and the PAVN were two separate organizations, it gives you a different point of view on the outcome of the Tet Offensive. > > By 1968, the North Vietnamese government could see it was winning the war and was going to take control of South Vietnam at some point. Now the PAVN was just an arm of the North Vietnamese government but there was a more ambiguous relationship between Hanoi and the Viet Cong. > > While the Viet Cong were part of the NLF and shared the goal of overthrowing the South Vietnamese government, by its nature it was a guerrilla movement. Its role was to resist the central government - they were highly ideological and were trained and experienced in working underground. Government officials in Hanoi must have realized that when they established themselves as the central government over all of Vietnam, the VC would be a loose end. Communist regimes have their own ideological factions and the Hanoi government must have wondered what would happen if the VC veterans decided Hanoi wasn’t following the correct path after the country was unified. > > So the orders went out for a great offensive. The Viet Cong were told to go out into the open and fight the Americans directly. They did so and caused a lot of damage to the Americans. And then the Americans regrouped and wiped out the Viet Cong. And then Hanoi and the PAVN were able to take full control of the final stages of the war without any potential rivals being around. > > I don’t think this was a coincidence. I think Hanoi knowingly sacrificed the VC in the Tet Offensive. It served the immediate advantage of hurting the Americans and the long-term advantage of removing the VC as a future factor in Vietnamese politics. This is a good analysis (also good to point out that PAVN/VC were not synonymous, as **Dissonance** seemed to think), I don’t know that the North was quite so sinister in their planning though. I think they believed there was a true chance that Tet could end the war decisively by being a large military disaster that would force the U.S. out. Instead it was a large military disaster for the VC and a large public relations disaster for the U.S., but not enough to end the war at that time. I think the North probably was thinking along your lines though, sort of “well, if it works it’ll be mostly the VC that did the fighting and they’ll be less effective a fighting force afterward, and if it doesn’t work they won’t be a serious power afterward so it’s kind of a win-win.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/58 "2012-12-01T15:55:15Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > [We could go on all day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xa_Cam_My#Aftermath), The claim that the US didn’t lose \*any \* battles is pretty much a myth created by the army. With all seriousness as someone familiar with how the Army talks about things, most of the true defeats in Vietnam a historian working for the Army or someone teaching at West Point would characterize most of those as “minor actions” “skirmishes” etc. But yeah, it’s asinine to say the U.S. never lost a **battle** , but a lot of people in the Army who talk about things of this nature you need to know what working definition of “battle” they are using before you can really know if their point is valid or not. Politics would come into play too, the word “skirmish” can encompass very large actions that most anyone wouldn’t call a skirmish if the political parts of the Pentagon feel it needs to be called a skirmish. The Battle of Ia Drang is a good talking point though and shows how differently the two sides thought. The U.S. military was primarily lead by guys who graduated from West Point and studied Napoleon, Grant/Lee, and WWII battles. Primarily in all of those wars victory was defined by either holding the field of battle or forcing the enemy off of it, with no real regard to the greater strategic implications or body count. A traditional analysis of Bunker Hill would never call it anything but a decisive British victory. Because of the differing natures of warfare you’d call Bunker Hill a Pyrrhic victory and Ia Drang inconclusive since the battles were functionally different, but the U.S. military leadership was correct to call Ia Drang a victory under how they had always defined victory. The problem is traditional victories didn’t really mean anything in the greater strategic context of the war, the Vietnamese leader in the battle understood that being able to push an American force out of a specific territory or holding some plot of land wasn’t how the war was going to be won. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/59 "2012-12-01T16:12:36Z")
Well, if those goddamn hippies didn’t make us fight with one arm tied behind our back and let use nuke Hanoi, then we would have won the war. grumble grumble Jane Fonda. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379/60 "2012-12-01T16:25:55Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Indeed, near history is so often forgotten. > > The FFL wasn’t even remotely close to “the most effective military force in the world” in the Dien Bien Phu days. By and large, it was underequipped and somewhat inexperienced. The French sent them, not because they were so bad-ass that they’d win, but because they weren’t French soldiers, and if they did get wiped out, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. (common theme in FFL deployments, BTW). Interesting. My BiL’s grandfather - who passed away earlier this year - fought in the battle as part of an Algerian [Tirailleur](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirailleur)(colonial infantry) unit. It wasn’t just the FFL who were there because they weren’t French. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-us-the-only-capitalist-country-able-to-fight-the-viet-cong/641379.md?page=4)