The “deeming it no longer worthwhile” part is what’s known as losing.
This. Vietnam was a strategic objective, to stop the spread of communist states. The US lost that fight at the time.
This talk about the Viet Cong is a misremembering of history. It was the Viet Minh that defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. After that the leadership of the Viet Minh largely started ruling North Vietnam. The Viet Minh then tried to conduct various intimidation/propaganda campaigns in the South to get the South to rise up in support of their overall goals, but for various political reasons the Viet Minh did very poorly at this and became deeply unpopular both in North and South Vietnam. They were done by 1960 and replaced by in the north by a more effectively ran communist party. In the South, the Viet Cong then sprung up as an organization made up of South Vietnamese advocating for open elections on whether or not to join with the north and the removal of foreign soldiers.
The Viet Cong as it was (an organization that developed organically after the Viet Minh was rejected by most in the South, and an organization made up mostly of South Vietnamese wanting to join with the North) effectively died after Tet. Even former commanders in the Viet Cong talk about Tet as a great failure and the end of their effectiveness in the war. Prior to Tet, the Viet Cong controlled some parts of South Vietnam as liberated areas, but after Tet they controlled essentially none. As an independent faction in the war, the Viet Cong essentially ceased to exist. After Tet almost the entirety of the Viet Cong leadership became agents from the North, and a good bit of its membership (something like 70%+) were actually Northerners.
It was the North that kept the fighting going until the peace treaty and the withdrawal, and the North that moved in and took over after the U.S. left. To say the Viet Cong won the war is just not accurate, the North Vietnamese did.
The destruction of the VC as a representation of Southern desires to join with the North does not mean, that after Tet, there was not significant support in the South for a unified Vietnam, or a Communist Vietnam. But as VC commanders have said years later, so many died during Tet that they simply no longer had the core infrastructure to recruit new people, and many of those in the South “willing to fight” were killed during Tet and the fact that so many of them died made joining the VC a lot less alluring for Southern Communists. That is why after Tet the VC was basically a subordinate part of the North Vietnamese military and not really properly looked at as an independent faction of the war.
most people here are using Viet Cong, Viet Minh and North Vietnamese interchangeably to mean the communist forces the US was fighting. thanks for the details though.
That’s why its’s best to use NLF (National Liberation Front); it’s all inclusive.
That must be why Ho Chi Minh City is still called Saigon.
-
It’s clearly not a derailment since the US didn’t ‘fend off’ the VC/NLF. See the aforementioned Ho Chi Minh City.
-
No, the US wasn’t the only capitalist country there. Aside from the ANZACs who you try to brush aside, South Korea had 320,000 men serve in the war with peak strength of 50,000. Thailand and the Philippines also sent forces, as did the Republic of China (Taiwan), although they did so mostly in secret.
Then do us all a favor, oyster. Dispel our ignorance and reveal your knowledge. Tell us what you know of the Vietnam War.
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’.
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.
It’s equally inaccurate to say that North Vietnam won; the NLF did.
All to avoid saying that we were actually fighting the “Vietnamese”.
And the Vietnamese won in the end.
Um, no. That’s like saying we only use the word Confederacy to avoid saying we were actually fighting the “Americans”. You might have noticed we were fighting alongside some Vietnamese against other Vietnamese.
They also lost in the end.
I think we need to know more about your definition of “fight.” No other Western country had the resources in the 60s to fight a large scale war like the US did.
I hear this opinion a lot, but IMHO, it rewrites history. The US population was generally supportive of the war at first, but as time went on and the promised victories failed to materialize, it lost the support of not only did a significant percentage of population but also journalists including Water Cronkite. After his on-air editorial in which he said that the US was mired in a stalemate, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly stated, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”
IMHO, we can also say that few countries could have fought the mujahideen as well as the Soviet Union did in the 80s. I don’t believe that the USSR ever suffered a military defeat in Afghanistan, yet they left. Obvious not losing battles isn’t the only yardstick.
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.
Not when it’s a stalling tactic. As “coincidence” worked out, Communism didn’t spread to the rest of the region - it was contained.
hilarious.
Since when are Laos and Cambodia not part of the region?
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.
The U.S. actually had quite a few defeats in Vietnam. Lots of firebases overrun, lots of offensives stopped cold, lots of landing zones abandoned after getting shot to pieces upon landing. The Battle of A Shau, operation Paul Revere IV, the massacre at Nui Ba Den, Ong Thanh, Ngok Tavak, Khe Sanh, Kham Duc. 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.
Even if the US were to have fought effectively enough (which I’ll argue below that they did not) they failed to fight efficiently enough. That it, they were unable to hold off, let alone completely defeat the NLA and NVA at a cost low enough for the American people to tolerate. As posted upstream, there was nothing which prevented the British from sending another army to fight Washington. The French could have continued in Vietnam, as could the USSR in Afghanistan. Armies on all sides of both WWI and WWII suffered from even worse defeats or setbacks but decided to press on. Countries quit it wasn’t worth it, which is the same thing which the US finally decided.
I’ll also disagree that the US fought failed to fight effectively enough. As a personal anecdote, it was when I took a tour to the Cu Chi tunnels when I realized one reason why the US lost. We rode a bus from Ho Chi Minh City to an area which the US forces couldn’t hold and traveled a shorter distance than I was commuting to work at the time.
In a game of “whack-a-mole” it matters not how many times you smack the mole, the only way to win is to find a way to prevent them from popping up, and the US failed to accomplish this goal. The US forces lost, regardless of the outcome of any particular battle.
That’s what I was getting at in Post #4.
The dividing of Vietnam was meant to be a temporary measure until a referendum could be held. With US compliance the South’s president Diem rigged the referendum, eliminated opponents and declared an independent state.
It was a war of independence against a colonial power.
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.