How North Vietnam Won The War

[Midav]

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,


"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."



Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?


A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.


Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?


A: Keenly.


Q: Why?


A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.


Q: How could the Americans have won the war?


A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.


Q: Anything else?


A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.


Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?


A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.


Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?


A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.


Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?


A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.


Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?


A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.


Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?


A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.


Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?


A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.


Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?


A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.


Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]


Q: What about the results?


A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.


Q: What of Nixon?


A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.


Q: What else?


A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13121

Just thought this interesting to get the view from the other side.

Also relevant for the war on terrorism today.. the will to continue the fight.

[Uninen]

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?


A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

:cantbeli:

That is so full of BS, as is the rest of the article also....

Bombing killed masses of civilians and it did really hurt. Why do you think they had all these "peace talks" that included "bombing halt"?

[Pooga]

Yep. That's what happens when your President tells his enemy exactly when and where he will bomb. :(

By the way, if Susan Serandon posed with an RPG and an insurgent, she'd most likely have to live in Iraq for the rest of her life, because Americans wouldn't want her back.

[Kilgor]

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

history repeats itself...

[Midav]

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?


A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

:cantbeli:

That is so full of BS, as is the rest of the article also....

Bombing killed masses of civilians and it did really hurt. Why do you think they had all these "peace talks" that included "bombing halt"?

:cantbeli: He's talking about the war effort. With or without your help, we will, it was told to the Chinese. Just read.

He is also stating democracy is one of the factors what helped the US lose the war. Again, read and understand.

[AFACadet]

VERY accuate and interesting (and yes Uninen, that includes ALL the parts about airpower).

[Uninen]

He's talking about the war effort.

Yeah, and im saying that the bombing did hurt theirs, as it did.

That is why the "hoax talks between", so that they could recover and repair and build up again the destroyed stocks.

[Pooga]

Bombing hurt things like rail heads and coal stockpiles, where a Thud or two would be lost every sortie.

Bombing was a sliver when it could've been a severing.

[Midav]

It may have, yet they were willing to take a whole loy more people killed than we were.

The cease fires were nothing but a ploy.

I see the same bs happening in Fallujah right now.

****.. learn from history, people.

Either fight a war the way it's meant to be fought, or get out.

...

[Pooga]

More like—either fight a war the way it's supposed to be fought, or don't fight. :|

[AFACadet]

Bombing didn't affect the North Vietnamese like it Did During Linebacker I and II because

1) The stupid civilians were picking all the targets

2) The stupid civilians were making stupid ROE so the best targets were unharmed (Until Linebacker)

3) The AF and Navy didn't know how to correctly use the airpower (partly based on numbers 1 and 2 and partly because of the WWII/Korea mindset

4) We didn't have the weapons we needed

5) The Air Force and Navy didn't interact

6) The Air Force, Army and Navy didn't work as one

7) Until Linebacker I and II, the US was using airpower in a carrot and stick approach. That's the last way you want to use airpower.



Linebacker I and II showed a glimpse of what would happen if airpower was even used semi correctly in the strategic sense at the start of the war.

[Uninen]

It may have, yet they were willing to take a whole loy more people killed than we were.

Basicly..... cause it was their nation they were fighting for.

[SeanAshi]

Smoking dope all day long didn't help them either...

[Maverick77]

Those mother****ing hippies made almost 60 thousand men die for virtually nothing when you look at it.



The hippies have too much control over the government.

Do not let it happen again in Iraq Americans.

[Midav]

It may have, yet they were willing to take a whole loy more people killed than we were.

Basicly..... cause it was their nation they were fighting for.

The south was also fighting for their nation. Take that into perspective.

After the US military left, there wasn't much hope.

[Midav]

Btw, I apologize mods for posting this in the general forums to begin with.

Made a mistake.

[ArmedPacifist]

Those f*** hippies made almost 60 thousand men die for virtually nothing when you look at it.



The hippies have too much control over the government.

Do not let it happen again in Iraq Americans.

Right On! Democracy is gay, lets all unite and let the government control all of our lives, and dictate how we feel on political issues, come on comrades, join us for this wonderful revolution! :roll:

Your pathetic.

[stuntman]

Midav Great post thx!
So basicly we were winning? Or coulds of?

[Midav]

The military did its job. The politicians, on the other hand, screwed it up.

Have heard from too many vets that once a hill or area was taken, they had to pull back, only to return and fight for the same territroy again weeks later.

Lot's of targets were forbidden to be struck.

Many targets were hand picked by the president and government, not the military.

Military noyt being listened to.... etc.

Yes, in the end, the US lost. No if, or, but.

However, the guys and gals that served over there did their job.

[Macs.]

But don't forget that Vietnam was a dirty war with thousands of civilan deaths, including childrens,womans and old people. Massacres, etc.

This article about the "Tiger Force" is really shocking:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169

Vietnam was a unnecessarily war.

[Maj C]

That "Tiger Force" stuff reeks of not being true...it sounds like another Operation Tailwind or No Gun Ri story because it has not turned into anything.

[Midav]

But don't forget that Vietnam was a dirty war with thousands of civilan deaths, including childrens,womans and old people. Massacres, etc.

This article about the "Tiger Force" is really shocking:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110190169

Vietnam was a unnecessarily war.

Any war fought is dirty.

I will not generalize for the actions of a few.

Most didn't have a choice wether they should go to Vietnam or not... they were sent their by their government and they did their job.

In the end, it was the government that let them down.

[Brozozo]

Great read...some of the best I've seen in a while!

[Uninen]

It may have, yet they were willing to take a whole loy more people killed than we were.

Basicly..... cause it was their nation they were fighting for.

The south was also fighting for their nation. Take that into perspective.

After the US military left, there wasn't much hope.

Not really, you see only after French already lost the war against the Vietnamse, only then was the land partioned into two parts....

After French defeat it should have been all over. But no......

In effect, South Vietnam was never real, just a western puppet to "hold off the domino effect" or whatever....

:|

France occupied all of Vietnam by 1884, ruling it as a colony as a part of Indochina, until expelled by Japan in World War II, After the war, France, with the collaboration of the USA, attempted to regain control of the country, but Nationalist forces, that had originally fought against the Japanese invasion, declared independence. The French were defeated in 1954 by forces under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, notably in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. With the French defeat in the battle and its surrender the First Indochina War (1946-1954) came to an end. At a Geneva Conference Vietnam was partitioned, ostensibly temporarily, into a Northern and Southern zones

Uncle Ho and his Vietnamese country men had already won, yet this was done... :cantbeli:

[AFACadet]

Bet ya'll didn't know this:

"When Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independence of Vietnam from the French rule on September 2, 1945, he borrowed liberally from Thomas Jefferson, opening with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal." During independence celebrations in Hanoi later in the day, American warplanes flew over the city, U.S. Army officers stood near the reviewing stand, and a Vietnamese band played the "Start-Spangled Banner." Toward the end of the festivities, Vo Nguyen Giap spoke warmly of Vietnam's "particularly intimate relations" with the United States--something, he noted, "which it is a pleasant duty to dwell upon."1 The prominent role played by Americans at the birth of modern Vietnam appears in retrospect one of history's most bitter ironies."


1 Quoted in R. Harris Smith, OSS: The Secret History of American's First Central Intelligence Agency (Delta ed.; New York, 1973), p. 354.

That's the opening to the book "America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975" Fourth Edition.

I highly recommend it--one of the best, most accurate, and well researched books of the history of the Vietnamese conflict from all sides and starting hundreds of years into the past to set the stage for the more well known aspects up to the 90s.



We had the guys in our hands right after the war then FDR went up an died, his plan to have a free Vietnam goes with him, Truman takes over and coun't care less about a place called Vietnam, wants to get closer to France after they give yet another hissy fit, and makes probably one of the worst choices EVER in American History.

Wow, it would have been a different world without the American part of the Vietnam war and having Vietnam be (a hopefully democratic) very close alley of the US.

[Tane Angle]

Two thoughts-one, the Big Army should not have been in Vietnam. SOF, most especially the White Star teams, did a tremendous amount.

The second is that SACSA and company should have been given a freer hand. Son Tay showed what our SOF could do-we could get a SOF all the way to the Hanoi region, hit a target, and get everybody back out in one night. We should have been allowed to conduct deep-penetration raids, not just because of what they directly accomplished but because Son Tay gave the North Vietnamese-and many of our other enemies at the time, from what I understand-quite a start. It showed that we could hit what we wanted to when we wanted to, and as a result they pulled a very significant number of troops off the line to guard targets they expected would be hit, such as the dams.

Our SOF were not allowed to conduct more raids of this sort though. Had they, our SOF would be ten years ahead of where they are now in experience, particularly our helicopter units. We would have had a force ready and waiting for the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980, instead of doing it relatively piecemeal and ad hoc like we did.

Now granted, the Vietnam War was before my time, and people like XASA and 11F5S are far more knowledgeable on that war. I don't know if they want to talk in this thread or not, but maybe they will share their vast intelligence with us. And I could be very wrong on these things, as I was not in Vietnam, so all I know is from what I've read and from the veterans from SE Asia who mentored and taught me for a long time following the Vietnam War. Reading, one has to take things with a grain of salt, of course, though the veterans are pretty reliably accurate.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Midav]

Not really, you see only after French already lost the war against the Vietnamse, only then was the land partioned into two parts....

After French defeat it should have been all over. But no......

In effect, South Vietnam was never real, just a western puppet to "hold off the domino effect" or whatever....

Just Like N. Vietnam was a puppet to the Communists.

So, they both were fighting for their nation.

Much like E and W Germany. N and S Korea.

Depending on whom you talk to, one or the other is the "legit" government, society and people.

[hist2004]

The Vietnam War was the most self-restricted conflict in the history of our nation. Politics dominated all military decisions.

the Big Army should not have been in Vietnam

It must be remembered that the U.S. was fighting not only Viet Cong guerrillas, but also full NVA regiments and divisions that were infiltrated
down the Ho Chi Minh Trail from the early 1960’s onward. Special Forces alone could not have conducted the war.

because Son Tay gave the North Vietnamese-and many of our other enemies at the time, from what I understand-quite a start.



Yes, this woke the North Vietnamese up as to our potential and resolve, but let’s not forget the political climate of the time. The U.S.
was always wary of widening the war, which would draw the Soviet Union and China deeper into it.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Uninen]

Just Like N. Vietnam was a puppet to the Communists.

You did read AFACadets post did you? Cause his post seemed to say that USA FORCED THEM TO BECOME ONE, by its own actions, the North Vietnamese Including General Giap were YOUR buddies at first, and only turned on you after you abbandoned them, and started supporting Frances war against them.

IE There was a moment in history when "communist leaders" of Vietnam, were at your side.... you just didnt care for them.

You had single democratic Vietnam at your hads (back in 1945), yet you turned that option down, and started to support Frances war to regain its colony.......

[Midav]

Hindsite is 20/20.

Also, that's one side of the story.

FDR died before the containment of Communism, before the cold war started.

He died before the Korean war was even a thought.

WWII was close to ending.... a conflict that had cost more human lives than any other war in hsitory. Of course FDR wanted peace and anyone in his shoes would probably think the same.

Yet, that was all before the cold war.

Some history on Giap:

Born 1911
General and Commander PAVN
Politburo Communist Party 1951-1976
Minister of Defence 1946-1980

General Giap was considered to be one of the most interesting characters of the Vietnam War. He had received no formal instruction in military science, but was by no means ignorant of the art of war. He admired Napoleon and T.E. Lawrence and described himself as a self-taught general. Born in the region close to the DMZ (An Xa) and attending Quoc Hoc Academy in Hué, he was expelled following a student strike and later earned a degree in law at the University of Hanoi, which was a French institution.

Giap's first command was a group of 34 guerillas, which he led to some small victories; at the end of his career he commanded the world's third largest army and was hailed as the architect of Vietnam's victory. After the French banned the Communist Party, Giap fled to China where he became a key deputy of Ho Chi Minh and was given command over the Viet Minh guerrilla forces fighting the Japanese from 1940 to 1945. The Communists seized control in 1945 and Giap became one of the top figures in the newly formed government.

During the war against the French, Giap shaped the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) into a potent fighting force. His historical reputation results from his victory at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954. Using siege tactics, Giap defeated the French with an extraordinary logistical buildup and effective use of a well-protected artillery. He achieved French surrender just days before the Geneva Conference, which would negotiate the French withdrawal from Vietnam, but would leave the country divided.

In the late 1950's through to the late 1960's, Giap remained a key military figure but became embroiled in a fierce debate over the strategy for reunification. Eventually this power struggle would lead to the Communist Party demoting and ridiculing him. In 1967, Giap was the designer of the Tet offensive; this proved to be his last great military involvement, retiring in 1973 after the failed Ester Offensive. Reportedly suffering from illness, Giap resigned his position as minister of defense in 1980 and lost his seat in the politburo in 1982, after which he became chief of the Science and Technology Commission. In July 1992, he was awarded the Gold Star Order, Vietnam's highest decorative honor.


http://www.vietnampix.com/popgiap.htm

Some history on Ho Chi Minh:

Ho Chi Minh , 1890–1969, Vietnamese nationalist leader, president of North Vietnam (1954–69), and one of the most influential political leaders of the 20th cent. His given name was Nguyen That Thanh. In 1911 he left Vietnam, working aboard a French liner. He later lived in London and in the United States during World War I before going to France near the end of the war. There he became involved in the French socialist movement and was (1920) a founding member of the French Communist party. He studied revolutionary tactics in Moscow, and, as a Comintern member, was sent (1925–27) to Guangzhou, China. While in East Asia, he organized Vietnamese revolutionaries and founded the Communist party of Indochina (later the Vietnamese Communist party). He also established a training institute that attracted many Vietnamese students, where he taught a unique blend of Marxism-Leninism and Confucian-inspired virtues. In the 1930s, Ho lived mainly in Moscow and China. He finally returned to Vietnam after the outbreak of World War II, organized a Vietnamese independence movement (the Viet Minh), and raised a guerrilla army to fight the Japanese.

Ho proclaimed the republic of Vietnam in Sept., 1945, and later agreed that it would remain an autonomous state within the French Union. Differences with the French, however, soon led (1946) to an open break. Warfare lasted until 1954, culminating in the French defeat at Dienbienphu. After the Geneva Conference (1954), which divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, Ho became the first president of the independent republic of North Vietnam. The accord also provided for elections to be held in 1956, aimed at reuniting North and South Vietnam; however, South Vietnam, backed by the United States, refused to hold the elections. The reason was generally held to be that Ho's popularity would have led to reunification under Communist rule. In succeeding years, Ho consolidated his government in the North. He organized a guerrilla movement in the South, the National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong, which was technically independent of North Vietnam, to win South Vietnam from the successive U.S.-supported governments there (see Vietnam War).

See biographies by J. Lacouture (1968), D. Halberstam (1971), J. Sainteny (1972), C. Fenn (1974), D. O. Lloyd (1986), and W. J. Duiker (2000).

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823874.html

The main people already stood against what the US stood for.

Those same people were to have the leadership roles in Vietnam.

[AFACadet]

The one on Minh leaves a huge amount of holes.

Ho didn't become communist after everyone rejected him at Versillies (sp?) after WWI.

He also stated many times he was willing to thow out communism if the US would help them. He said would rather have been allies with the US than China or the USSR.

We probably could have changed history if we had done that by the late 50s, but after that it was too late.

[Midav]

There are also a lot of if's and's or's but's in any story.

Just depends on who we listen to or what we want to believe.

What is certain, Ho, Giap and a number of others in the Vietnamese leadership became communist decades before the US entered the war.

The idea was to deafeat that ideology, much as the communists wanted to defeat the democracy.

The cold war summed up.

He was founder of the French communist party. he traveled to Moscow many times.

He visited the Chinese communists many times etc...

What makes anyone think that just because he said he would do this and that, while he did the opposite?

I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words, especially in this case.

[AFACadet]

There are also a lot of if's and's or's but's in any story.

Just depends on who we listen to or what we want to believe.


He didn't tell the US that, he wote that in personal letters to other Vietnamese throughout the 40s and 50s or in his other own personal writings.

That's the way it was. Its not based on some arm chair historian who had some agenda to write.

I can't place everthing I've seen or heard about the man for you to examine, there's just too much there, and most itsn't available on the net.


EXTREMELY quick summary
1) Grew up liking the West
2) Slowly relized the bad situation with France and Vietnam
3) Worked on getting Vietnamese independence from France
4) Rejected by the West after WWI
5) Went to the newly formed USSR because they would not reject him, he like many of their ideas about the pesants rising up and such because Vietnam was much the same
6) Continued his communist studies
7) Saw all the help the US gave the area during WWII, saw they were different than France, admired pretty much everything about the US had very high hopes for a close friendship
8) If the US was going to help, was ready to cut ties with the USSR
9) FDR died--along with the plan to help Vietnam stay an independant country
10) US still helped Vietnam, but the French started coming back slowly
11) French started hating our guts because the Vietnamese liked the US much better--France was saying our goal was to make them look bad because we were able to give a lot of aid and such
11) Europe started yelling that we were getting to distant from them
12) We decided to get close to the Europeans by helping France, which ment giving them their colonly back. Their conditional liking of us came back
13) France once again yells at the US after they get their butts kicked time and again in Vietnam--even going so far as saying it was our fault they lost (we didn't support them enough)
14) By this time, Ho saw we weren't going to be helping them which he continually said pained him a lot
15) By the time we ourselves got drawn into the war, the communists had an ally

[Midav]

I can counter every sible one of those lines with items I have already posted, especially with this: Actions speak louder than words.

If Ho was trully so interested in associating himself with the US, especially that he wanted to receive help, why did he continue to associate himself with the communists?

This is the same guy that helped found the French communist party and studied in the USSR and China much longer than he ever did in the US.

He even was a teacher that taught Marxism.

That ideology in by itself counters what the US stood for during the cold war.

Had Ho actually meant what he wrote, he would have changed his ideals.

I'm sorry, but I can't be told different.

An example: You know, just because Hitler wanted a closer association with Britian in his diaries, doesn't mean the two agreed with anything else.

Had he followed the ideals of Chamberlain, everything would have worked out ok and perhaps an alliance may have ensued in the latter years of Hitler's ruling.

Again, actions speak louder than words and we know how that one ended.

Another good example is the history of the Vietnamese flag.

The Red background with the star is associated with communism.

http://flagspot.net/images/v/vn-1945.gif

Adopted Sept. 1945.

http://flagspot.net/images/v/vn.gif

Present flag adopted 1945.

For 59 years, this emblem has been associated with present day Vietnam.

Good night.

[AFACadet]

You haven't studied enough to get all the answers.



Ho's number one goal was to have an independant Vietnam. He did everything to make that happen. He admired the US more than he did the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union was the only one to help him the way he wanted (which itself was only part of the Soviet Unions final goal).



I would really reccomend picking up "America's Longest War." It does a good job of getting down to the bottom of the Various aspects of the Vietnam War and cuts through all the myth and legend.

It really is vastly more complex than you are making it or can probably even relize right now. Most accounts of Vietnam just don't get it or take one small aspect of the war.

To really get down to it, you have to look at the whole progression of the Vietnamese history in order to get an accurate picture. Once you do that, everything becomes much more clear.

As for reading his personal documents and learning from a guy who has studied the Vietnam War all his life, I can't help you there.

[Midav]

I appreciate the tip and have read numerous books on Vietnam, thank you.

Ho did like the US.. at one time.

However, it basically comes down to ideologies and why the Soviet Union, China and E. European states supported N. Vietnam compared to the US/West in general.

These were his ideals and taken from a 1930 meeting:

Ho Chi Minh (1890-1968) drafted the following program on February 18, 1930, for a conference of Vietnamese Communists who met in the British colony of Hong Kong.


Workerss peasants, soldiers, youth, pupils!

Oppressed and exploited compatriots!

The Communist Party of Indochina is founded. It is the party of the working class. It will help the proletarian class lead the revolution in order to struggle for all the oppressed and exploited people. From now on we must pin the Party, help it and follow it in order to implement the following slogans:


1. To overthrow French imperialism, feudalism, and the reactionary Vietnamese capitalist class.

2.. To make Indochina completely independent.

3. To establish a worker*peasant and soldier government.

4. To confiscate the banks and other enterprises belonging to the imperialists and put them under the control of the worker*peasant and soldier government.

5. To confiscate all of the plantations and property belonging to the imperialists and the Vietnamese reactionary capitalist class and distribute them to poor peasants.

6. To implement the eight*hour working day.

7. To abolish public loans and poll tax. To waive unjust taxes hitting the poor people.

8. To bring back all freedom to the masses.

9. To carry out universal education.

10. To implement equality between man and woman.


Nguyen Ai Quoc (Ho Chi Minh)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1930hochiminh.html

Some are good points, however, do you honestly believe the US government would have associated itself with communists?

Today, it's terrorists.

Yet, just a few short decades ago it was communists. McCarthyism was big. Korea was ongoing. Cuba was fixing to explode. On note: Castro sought US help once as well. Prague uprising just years before. Many things were ongoing.

The days of the cold war......

[FLaKKeY]

its not like hes not goin to be bias.. we all know hes crap..
if the americans had escalated the war by using nukes on hanoi they would have easily won.. and forced north vietnam to surrender but indoing so they would have brought ussr and china into the war, which they didnt want... Bombing of cambodia and laos had better effect then hes going to be put up to...

[Midav]

That is correct.

There was a time when it was considered to use three "small" atom bombs on N. Vietnam, but that idea was axed.

Wouldn't have been a smart move :cantbeli:

One of the reasons why N. Vietnam was never invaded, was to keep the USSR and China out of the war, which might have triggered WW III otherwise.

A similar approach was used at the end of Korea when Chinese forces were being pushed back.

McArthur also wanted to strike at China, but we know how that ended and why it did so heh.....

That's another story, however.