The Vietnam War

[ogukuo72]

I just commented on the revisionist view that the atomic bombing of Japan was wrong.

I would like to make another point: not everybody thought the Vietnam War was wrong in Asia. Indeed, many of us here in Asia are grateful that the United States fought the Vietnam War - at great cost to the US.

I remembered that when I was young, there was a genuine dread of communism in this part of the world, and when South Vietnam fell, and Cambodia turned Rogue, it really did seem as if the communism war machine might turn up at our door steps very soon. It was a horrific possibility that we did not want to contemplate.

If the US had not intervened in 1965, South Vietnam might had fallen ten years earlier. In 1965, my country just became newly independent. Our economy was weak, and we had no armed forces of our own. The ten years that American intervention gave us was precious time to build up our economy and our armed forces, so that we could weather the subsequent storm.

The fact that Vietnam became an important base for the Soviet Union in South East Asia, and the subsequent invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam only confirmed in our minds the dangers posed by Vietnam to the region.

So, many of us in Asia, never subscribed to the idea that the Vietnam War was an unnecessary war. Or that it was a racist war. Or that American lives were sacrified uselessly. For us, it was a necessary war, and American lives had brought us protection at a crucial period of our history. For that, I believe many of us owe the US our gratitude.

[California Joe]

That's a hell of an interesting viewpoint.

[budanski]

Very True,

It seems that most who doubt this great nation neither lives here or were born here and take things for granted. Speak to anyone who sacraficed to make it here and you'll see that all are grateful in what this country has to offer and not take it for granted.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

That was very interesting. I've never heard a view on vietnam quite like that.

[Ichhabe]

I maybe should'nt help fueling American self esteem but it is a very good story; In 1974 he was picked up by a Norwegian ship in the South East Asian sea. He was a boat refugee from Viet Nam and the first thing he was handed when aboard was a bottle of Coca Cola. He was only 7 years old and never tasted it. For him it was the taste of Freedom. And up until today, it still taste like freedom he says.

[ogukuo72]

It's a good story Ichabe. And I think it illustrates a very good point too. I heard a similar story told to me many years ago by my Czech political science lecturer. He told my class about how he was allowed out of Communist Czechkoslavakia <sic?> for a conference once. He brought back a bottle of Coca-Cola. It was placed on his living room table for all his family to come and admire. Finally, it was opened, and everybody got a sip to discover how it taste like.

But such stories illustrate why we Asians never saw the Cold War in the same way as Americans. We Asians are literally on the front lines of the Cold War. If the Americans lost, then it would be the Asians who would suffer the brutality and deprivation of a communist regime. This was what happened to South Vietnam and Cambodia.

Being on the front line, we also have no illusions about the nature of communism. We never saw it in the fuzzy wuzzy terms that some leftists in the US seem to see it in. We have relatives in Vietnam and in China, who could tell us about what life was like in communist countries. Comparing it with even the third-world lifestyle we enjoyed back in the 1970's, it was truly terrible.

The pervasive fear of saying the wrong things... the lack of basic goods that make life easier like medicine ... all these are real stories from real people that we hear. Being Asians, we were also the first to hear about Khmer Rouge's killing fields, and the cultural revolution. Just recently, I spoke to an old man from China about the latter. He was a Christian, and a teacher. It was a dangerous thing to be a Christian and a teacher during the cultural revolution. He automatically became a class enemy. He was beaten up more than a few times, and paraded once through his home town.

So you see, when some of you Americans say that you are fighting for freedom in Vietnam, you really are. You are fighing for our freedom. This has nothing to do with American self-esteem. It is a cold hard fact.

What leftist American historians would like you to believe is based on a view point that is located in the comforts of the universities in America, far away from the front lines of the Cold War.

[Merik]

Wow. I am a huge Vietnam history buff and I have never in my life heard a anywhere near that. I have a question though. Where are you from and what country are you talking about? Tawain? I only ask because this would help me put more perspective into it.

I truly appreciate and respect your comments on your perspective of the Vietnam war ogukuo72. Next time my Government teacher brings the Vietnam war(which he opposes openly) I will defienatly bring this point of view up with him.

[ogukuo72]

I'm in Singapore. If you have trouble finding it on the map, it's at the tip of the Malaysian peninsular, right smack in the middle of South-East Asia.

What amazes me sometimes is that no one in the US seemed to have bothered to ask Asians here how we really feel about the Vietnam War.

[Ratamacue]

What amazes me sometimes is that no one in the US seemed to have bothered to ask Asians here how we really feel about the Vietnam War.

Are you speaking in reference to the media? Because if that's the case, then you need to realize that the US media is generally very leftist and would not want to hear that the Vietnam War was a noble war.

[martinexsquaddie]

did'nt vietnam invade cambodia to deal with the khemer rouge?
generally doing planet earth a favour

[warchild1/27scout]

i might be one of the few but ive always believed we won that war. the goal was to stop communism and maybe at that time it did'nt seem like it but we slowed down the communists momentum and if you look back now the vietnam war was one step in ending russias push to bring communism around the globe. i dont want to toot my horn but i told a vietnam war vet that i thought we won that war and he said he'd never thought of it that way and i think it made him feel better because all he ever heard was the liberal media's version of what occurred and now in america with fox news and all the other side is finally getting told. thats why so many liberals put down fox news and they look like the excercist because they vehemently hate another opinion even when they try to teach tolerance they just want you to tolerate thier view and no one elses. thats why they hate george bush so much. he is a strong conservative leader and they can't stand it.

[ogukuo72]

You might have a point there. Militarily, of course, the Americans have always won. But it really doesn't matter whether they really won or not. It was a worthwhile fight, and veterans who fought in that war shouldn't have to feel ashamed of having fought it. It just isn't right.

It's better to have lost well than to have won badly, no?

[Saranof]

Yes, as the media is "leftist", that means they are wrong and the government is right.

[Ratamacue]

Did I say that? I said that the majority of the media is biased to the left side, and therefore would not care about the opinions of Asians that were threatened by Vietnam.

Also, just so you know, at the end of the Vietnam War, the US government was more left than right. You really need to stop putting words in other people's mouths. You're not really as clever as you think.

[Merik]

Rat who are you talking to like that man?

[thatguy96]

Wow, I taught the Vietnam conflict (from 1945-1975) while I was in highschool (peer teaching...and interesting concept yes), and this is the first I've ever heard of anyone in South East Asia saying that war was "good" the way it was being handled.

I've never gone looking for blame when it comes to the whole matter (blame doesn't serve any purpose, and clouds the truth), but I would have to say I disagree with you about American lives being wasted.

Yes, I'm definitly in favor of having set goals beyond "preventing the encrouchment of communism," along with a more coherent policy, which allows soldiers to do their job and do it in such a manner that the task at hand (in this case defeating the insurgents and protecting the soveriegnty of a nation, in spite of the evidence of mass corruption and dictatorial practices by its leaders contrary to the spirit of US democracy).

I would think somehow that Singapore, a city-state of sorts, would have much more to fear from the civil wars raging in its neighbors (Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia) than from a civil conflict directed by fervent nationalists primarily to reunify a nation (albeit under another dictatorship; in an added note we don't have any idea how a unifyed Vietnam would have existed under "Uncle Ho" as he died before the war ended in 1975).

As for expansionist tendencies shown by Vietnam, especially citing their invasion of Cambodia, I think one should look at exactly what happened. The Vietnamese military invaded, for the most part, to fight communist insurgents in Cambodia, not support them. In addition, they acted to stop a horribly and randomly brutal dictator Pol Pot (killing people for having beards), when the rest of the world sat by and watched him kill 2 million people senselessly. A humanitarian action if I ever saw one (of course this by no means cancels out the sins the Vietnamese government has to answer for when it comes to repression of its own people).

Lastly, Vietnam spent the immediate postwar period well into the early 80's fighting off China, who was much more of an expansionist threat. Given that Vietnam was more preoccupied with stabilizing its neighbors and protecting its soveriegnty from another totalitarian dictatorship, I strongly believe they had no time nor energy to move south through Malaysia to Singapore.

These are my opinions, take them as such, I do not mean to offend anyone or to dishonor the dead on either (or any) side. I believe, despite how I may sound, that you are totally entitled to your beliefs.

[ogukuo72]

Thatguy96, you are not wrong either. History is never black and white, and there are multiple perspectives. I'm trying to relate just one of those perspectives that had been neglected somewhat in Americans' view of the Vietnam War. I especially want to make it clear to American Vietnam War veterans that their fight was a worthwhile one.

My description of the fear of communism and Vietnam in our region is an accurate one. And although the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia did put a stop to a brutal regime, it was seen as evidence of Vietnamese expansionist tendencies, not as an altruistic act. I remember how boatloads of refugees from Vietnam came to Singapore, and were intercepted by our navy. They sailed on boats that were hardly sea-worthy, overloaded with their few possessions.

Vietnam's lovey-dovey relationship with the Soviet Union was seen with a lot of suspicion, especially as the USSR and its satellites were seen as a source exporting subversion and terrorism. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - following so closely after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia - was perceived to be characteristic of the expansionist doctrine of these regimes.

In view of this, China was actually seen favourably as a counter-balance to Vietnam, by checking its ambitions, especially when it moved closer to the US after Nixon's China trip.

I don't believe it's a commonly known fact that South-East Asians countries spent almost the entire 80's trying to get Vietnam to leave Cambodia, so much so as to support the anti-Vietnamese insurgents in Cambodia - which included the Khmer Rouge forces - pretty much as the US supported the Afghanistani insurgents in the 80's.

One last point: I think the War needed to be fought, to check communist expansion. However, this does not mean that it had been well fought. I believe that the troops were let down very badly by their military and political leaders. The former used wrong strategies. The latter failed to manage the home front support properly.

[Tom.G]

Does any one have any info about the Tet Offensive/Khmer Rouge?

Please send it to me at tom_gunit@hotmail.com

[Merik]

Depends on what you want to know about the Tet offensive? Or do you want to know about mini-Tet in 1969? The Tet offensive in 1968 was basically a pre-imptive(spell-check please?) strike by the communist forces of the NVA and Viet-Cong insurgents onto the American and South Vietnamese forces right at the Tet holiday. Some say there were obvious signs it was coming but everyone there knew something was awkard in the sense of increased forces by the enemy. The Viet-Cong, or VC, managed to to infiltrate Saigon and the American embassy there where many firefights arose. The worst of Tet however, was in the ancient city of Hue. Imagine a place that is old and historic as London is to the UK, or Parise to France, and completly level the place by conventional weapons. Oh and massacre several thousand innocent citizens at the same time, well not massacre but execute. Khe San was another battle fought during Tet. My numbers are off but I believe it was 7 months of continuous fighting there while being held under siege. Look the subject up on Google or MSN, etc. under "Tet 1968" and see waht you get.

[thatguy96]

During Tet-68 (as what we now call the "tet offensive" was labeled) the Viet-Cong/North Vietnameses (many claim that cooperation was both definite and nessecary to operations of Tet-68) claim to have had captured/controllled 52 important southern cities and townships, wiht Hue being one of the most significant. In hindsight many historians believe that the Vietcong underestimated (ironic as this may seem) how rapubly US forces would respond (especially with regard to what was labled a "suicide" attack on the US embassy in Saigon). A US rapid reaction force, apparently deployed from forces in Saigon as well as forces at the Bein Hoa firebasse, effectively controlled the situation in Saigon.

However, at Hue, the situation prove more dire, with US and ARVN forces spending roughtly a week removing Veitcong forces from the area entirely. Also, the "victory" at Hue was deemed a tactical one rather than an outright victory, since the Vietcong retreated, leaving numerous casualties among "allied" troops and with the virtual destruction od the citry and the thousands of civilian deaths. It is said that ARVN soldiers wept for the death along with civilians following the battle. In a side note, the last ACH-47A mission was flown in support of forces in Hue, when the crew of either "Easy Money" or "Birth Control" (I forget which), who had to be extracted by the other ACH-47A which had also been assigned to the operation (perahps I'm wrong on this whole encounter...I'm not at all sure now).

Tet-68 claimed many lives on all sides an also marked the last significant operation by the VC (most of the post-68 operations were conducted outright by the NVA). For most historians, Tet-68 also marks the turning point in the war for US popular opinoin, where the the US populace starts to actively quetion the purpose and exactly what the point of US involvement in South East Asia really is (this is the truth whether you agree with it or not, US popular opinion swayed clearly in favor of a stoppage in the war in Vietnam after 1968).

It should be simply said, as I will now, that conflict in South East Asia between the years 1945 and 1975 was much bigger than we or anybody else imagineed, and fighting for or against communism (on the part of the US or communist China for example) was a poor way of looking at what was essentially a civil war, exploited by the West and Communist powers as a battleground for their own respective ideology. It may appear that communism won in Vietnam, but a more truthful statement in hindsight is that Vietnamese nationalism won out in the end over any foriegn involvment, US, Chinese, Russia, what have you.

*The following disclaimer is added to note that, for good or bad reasons, the above post was made under the influence of alcohol, and the author reserves the right to say that spelling mistakes "DO NOT MATTER" and that the information may or may not be exactly correct.

[txajas]

Did I say that? I said that the majority of the media is biased to the left side, and therefore would not care about the opinions of Asians that were threatened by Vietnam.


Like what? FOX News... jeezus. Please elaborate how today's US media is biased to the left, I just fail to see how constant "virtual" blowjobs and soft balled questions to the administration can be viewed as "left" biased media. Is FOX and ClearChannel just not right wing enough for you? If that is the case my friend, I am afraid you have never been exposed to real left wing oriented media. LOL. The whole "liberal bias" of meida is getting really old really.



Also, just so you know, at the end of the Vietnam War, the US government was more left than right. You really need to stop putting words in other people's mouths. You're not really as clever as you think.

Whaaa the Nixon/Ford administrations were left wing now?

[ogukuo72]

Book Review: Vietnam the Necessary War, by Michael Lind
C-Span has run and rerun tapes of a live debate (with callers) between Michael Lind, author of Vietnam, the Necessary War and Tim O'Brien author of July, July. Lind, who is defending the purposes behind the war is no conservative war-hawk. He wrote a book about how he has rejected conservatism and adopted a center-left perspective in line with Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. He is a convinced advocate of Truman's policy of containment. He rejects a McArthur style "there is no substitute for victory" and a worldwide fight against Communism. He embraces limited wars as in Korea, Vietnam, and the Afgan vs Soviet war - because in these three cases, the great communist powers of Russia and/or China were actively involved in the war for expansionist objectives. He rejects involvement in Communists insurgencies where Russia and China were not seriously involved or have no strategic interest..
Lind has studied the treasury of documents released by Russia in the nineties which decisively proves that Russia and China were deeply involved in Vietnam from beginning to end. Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese leader, was a member of the Comintern and was co-conspirator with Russia and China from beginning to end. Lind rebukes the war-hawk conservatives who wanted to invade the north. He has found records which reveal Mao Tse Tung's plans to send troops into Vietnam if America invaded the north - just as he sent troops during the Korean War. Lind rebukes the anti-war liberals for undercutting America's purposes in the Vietnam war and contributing to the defeat. He also blames American generals for fighting the war incorrectly and stupidly..
George Kennan crafted the policy of containment during the Truman administration. America and NATO were pledged to contain the expansionist designs of Russia and China by fighting limited proxy wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The objective was to hold back the tide and buy time until Communism collapsed from its own dead weight - as it did in Russia in 1990 and which it is now on the verge of doing in North Korea.
After the American defeat in Vietnam, America lost prestige and world Communism gained prestige. Communist insurgencies increased around the world - until Russia got bogged down in the proxy war in Afghanistan. President Reagan sent covert aid to the Afghan rebels. Then Russia lost the war, lost prestige and the red tide waned throughout the world.
The C-Span debate was a classic of facts versus feelings, and moral clarity versus moral confusion. Tim O'Brien, a Vietnam veteran's comments were deeply colored by his emotional horror of war which he ventilated at great length. He was morally confused in his attribution of evil motives to America and benign motives to the Communist dictators. When he debated with Mr. Lind on the facts, O'Brien seemed to reinterpret the facts in a "blame America" leftist fashion. Lind generally stuck to a big-picture perspective supported by hard research. He rebuked Americans of the left and right for losing sight of the big picture. He kept a steady focus on the persistence and conspiratorial nature of Communist expansionism, the horror of living under a Communist dictatorship, and the nature of the strategic global struggle of the cold war.
Vietnam, the Necessary War is a must read for Vietnam veterans who have not yet healed from the experience. Although we were defeated we bought eight years of time in delaying the spread of Communism. Vets, your labor and suffering were not in vain. I also recommend the book to history buffs, strategic big-picture guys, and those who are sick to death of left wing propaganda about Vietnam. If you are a diehard hawk or dove - you won't like it. As for Tim O'Brien's book July, July I recommend it for a bird cage liner or kindling to light your fireplace.
Book Review by Fred Hutchison


Saw the above on the Amazon website. Read the book already. It's pretty good. Highly recommended for all those who wish to look at the Vietnam War from a new perspective.

[paulbo]

We chinese have already changed so many things, and we r still changing in our world. Every chinese knows that we do have lots of problems, whatever they r, the fact is how to find a way to succeed in the face of those problems. 55 years is not enough for us!

There r a lot of people still think that we r a communist country, and we r in an abyss of suffering, especially Americans. That's really funny, and we love to see people who has no idea who r we, cause one day when they know it, everything is late. Vietnam is a very good sample for the world, they lost 10 years, but we had developed 10 years from 1978 to 1988. Actually we used same way as US did to Russia during the cold war.

We sent troops to Norh Korea officially during the Korea War, we did sent troops to North Vietnam unofficially during the Vietnam War! We helped Vietnamese to maintain the famous "canal" from north to south, and in fact most of US military planes were shot down by Chinese troops instead of Vietnamese. We had speical Vietnamese classes in our military academy at that time, most of Vietnamese military officers were trained by Chinese! We gave them food, weapons, oil, everthing they wanted, now u know, who u Americans were fighting to.......not Vietnam!

[FuzziWuzzi]

If that's the case, no hard feelings about "'Long Tan"...Aye, old dig !
http://www.egon.nu/img/arkiv/koala/full-metal-1.jpg

click on link below for battle of Long Tan
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/long_tan.htm

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/diggers/smith-long-tan-sm.jpg

pictured above is Major Harry Smith MC, who commanded Delta Six at Long Tan

[ibstolidude]

We gave them food, weapons, oil, everthing they wanted, now u know, who u Americans were fighting to.......not Vietnam!

WOW!! what a revelation...all this time and no one ever knew!

talk about blind sided!! Jeeeezzz!

:roll:

[Merik]

Paulbo I dont want you to think like I am an asshole here, but it does sound like you are saying that you are proud of the Chinease in the fact that they fought us during Korea and Vietnam.

Even the fact that they did doesnt change the numbers being that in both wars the casualties were horribly tremendous for the enemy compared to our 38,000 and 60,000 lives lost. I remember reading that for every American or allied life lost during the Vietnam war there was like 4 or 5 Vietnamese, Chinease or whatever lost.

AnyhooI just wanted to get that off my chest. Ya'll have a good ol day, Texas style!

[Maj Kong]

For another point suggest reading Unheralded Victory. Written by a former Marine Vietnam vet who is now an officer in the Australian Navy. Basically shows we kicked the Communist's butts militarily.

Also, don't be so smug PaulBo...all our planning wargames involve PRC and NK. I'm an ABC and believe me - no qualms with fighting China.

[ogukuo72]

ABC = America Born Chinese?

[96B]

Like what? FOX News... jeezus. Please elaborate how today's US media is biased to the left, I just fail to see how constant "virtual" blowjobs and soft balled questions to the administration can be viewed as "left" biased media. Is FOX and ClearChannel just not right wing enough for you? If that is the case my friend, I am afraid you have never been exposed to real left wing oriented media. LOL. The whole "liberal bias" of meida is getting really old really.

If you believe the media is not vastly left wing liberal than you are sadly nieve. Why do you suppose only negative news comes out about Iraq? Why do you suppose there is always criticism and negativity toward any conservatives? Is it just a coincidence that many of the Democrats oppose the war and it seems resemblant of what the media is always showing? Fox News is to you as CNN/MSNBC is to us, there is really no such thing as unbiased media.