Did America gain anything by fighting Vietnam? Was it worth the cost?
America did gain the reputation for standing by an ally. Even though the Republic of Vietnam eventually lost, nobody can claim the United States failed to make every effort to support them over several years. So when America tells an ally like NATO, Israel, or Taiwan that we will fight for them if push comes to shove, we have some credibility.
Whether this credibility is worth the price we paid for it is an issue I can’t answer.
I would argue that the aim of deterring the domino effect was achieved. How real the threat ever was I don’t know. But I am sure that numerous’ liberation’ and ‘independence’ forces throughout the world took a long hard look at where they drew their support from after seeing the American actions in Viet Nam.
I dont know. Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia all went communist in the late 70’s, so the domino effect happened anyway.
Blake, we learned, in my understanding, that the domino theory didn’t hold true. We thought that if South Vietnam became Communist, then all of the countries in Southeast Asia would fall.
Little Nemo, we already had the reputation of standing by our allies.
No, it was not even worth the cost of one life, much less 56,000 in American lives alone.
What about trilateral negotiation with China and the USSR?
Sorry I thought I put this in my OP.
Humility? Or perhaps not…
I tend to view all these were all as a continuation of the same war, rather than new outbreaks. US troops, either officially or otherwise were all invlved in those arenas during the ‘Viet Nam’ war.
Knowledge that no matter how powerful and technologically advanced we are that a poorer, smaller army trained well and using its techniques could bring us to our knees. Its’ a lesson that has resonated through the Pentagon for the last quarter century.
Especially when there’s little public support for a war and the powers that be aren’t actually willing to make an effort for victory.
Marc
Nevertheless, the Pentagon learned new tactics, concepts, and doctrines - and learned how to make better equipment - so as to make Vietnam a much better proposition should we ever have to do something like that again.
Of course, if we got into the same strategic-political position, it wouldn’t help that much, but nevertheless the lessons we learned are important.
I have to be quite honest with you and tell you that this reputation doesn’t really hold outside the borders of the United States. Few people have any illusions whatsoever that the USA would do anything to help anyone except in their own self-interest. After all, you didn’t see the U.S. running to help Israel in 1973. And the general (and largely correct) perception is that South Vietnam was a puppet, not an ally, which is a different thing.
I don’t think the USA would bother to help MY country unless there was something in it for them, and my country’s about as close an ally as you have. I don’t recall the U.S. rushing to help us in 1939 when we were fighting and dying by the thousands to stop Nazism.
Of course, I think that’s true of ALL countries - it’s not unique to the United States by any stretch of the imagination. Would Italy come running if we needed help? Fat chance.
RickJay:
While I generally agree with your post, I’m not sure that this is fair. IIRC, the first action where you could say Canadians were dying by the thousands fighting Nazism was Dieppe in 1942 - the first Americans to die fighting in Europe were a part of the raid as well. Following that, we have the invasion of Sicily and Italy in 1943, by which point the US was well involved. Prior to Dieppe, there were a few minor raids (including the ludicrously planned post-Dunkirk trip to France in which the First Canadian Division lost all of its trucks), but you can’t really say thousands were dying, especially in 1939.
Is RickJay not British?
Not with troops, no, but there was a hell of a lot of US materiel shipped over there when the need became clear. I see Lord Derfel has replied to the rest of your historical “facts”.
As to your general comments about the US not acting except in its own cravenself-interest, that doesn’t explain Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti to name just a few. It also doesn’t get very far into certain other countries (not singling any out) content to let the US act (as in troops fighting and dying) on behalf of their own craven self-interests.
yojimbo, he’s a Canuck - from Tronna, I understand.
As to the OP, no, there was no real gain and no results worth the cost, either in “blood or treasure” as the saying goes. There’s a fascinating chapter about the US and Vietnam in Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly that pretty much covers how the key decisions were made.
The war itself was a fiasco, and vietnam would have won indepenence eventually, whether it took the actual 30 years that it did, or another 20. The vietnamese were prepared to continue fighting forever until they won independence. The United States would never fight indefinitely without end, so the United States was destined to lose the war.
It also “proved” the difficulty in trying to occupy a country where the people do not want a foreign army in their land and who are prepared to fight and die.
The domino theory was not believed by anyone in the administration by the early 1960’s, Johnson nor McNarrah believed in the domino theory, despite what they said in public(see the white house tape transcripts in the books: “REaching for Glory”, and “Taking Charge”). In all private conversations, Johnson repeatedly believed/said that the fall of vietnam would not cause other countries to fall, and they didnt.
The domino theory was for public consumption to get support for the war, but no one in the Johnson administration believed it, nor was it true.
In the larger sense, it caused millions of vietnamese to settle in Canada and the United States, and it also paved the way for dramatically increasing trade between the United States and Vietnam. Vietnam now is a low cost producer for many products for sale in the United States.
IIRC there was a lot of oppositions to these actions, and the idea of humanitarian intervention, by the Republicans.
Cheers ElvisL1ves I’m mixing up user names. I was sure it was RickJay that I shared a few beers with. Must be another Rick. Oh and The March of Folly is a great port of call for this issue. Great book.
**
That’s true. On the other hand don’t we have mutual defense treaties that are within the interest of the US to honor? Obviously we’re not going to risk our necks for just anybody.
**
Since we’re talking about self-interest here… You guys didn’t fight to stop Nazism. You had the opportunities to stop Germany in the 30’s. You sat back and did nothing when they started building up their military, you didn’t do anything when they annexed Austria, and I don’t recall you doing anything when they invaded Czechoslovakia.
Of course we had our heads in the sand and back in 1937 Roosevelt signed the Act of Neutrality to keep us out of the war. On the other hand it isn’t as if we were really neutral. We were selling planes to France and in 1941 we had the lend lease act which helped provide your country with much needed goods to continue fighting the war.
No, it isn’t unique. For the most part I think we’ve got a pretty good record of backing our allies up when we’ve promised to do so. Of course there are cases where our half-assed efforts really didn’t do much to help anyone. Cuba, Viet-Nam, and Iraq come to mind.
Marc
Exactly. Countries act in their own perceived self-interest. Explain how your comments here in any way support the claim that the U.S. is reknowned for helping its allies whenever danger strikes.