vietnam myths page?

[Herrmannek]

there was a one, about random myths in vietnam war like how many black, age of people, combat days and ****.. anyone have link to it?

[wierrd_fish]

Was this the one that you where thinking about? http://www.vietnam-war.info/myths/

[nognig]

This is one of the better articles on the reality of the vietnam war.

Vietnam War Myths (http://www.lindasog.com/military/vietnam.htm)


Only about 5,000 men assigned to Vietnam deserted, and just 249 of those deserted while in Vietnam. During WW II, in the European theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of desertion. On a comparable basis, the overall WW II desertion rate was 55 percent higher than in Vietnam.

There always has been, and always will be, American opposition to war. The Revolutionary War had the highest, (estimated at 80 percent) and that was because it was fought on home soil. Opposition to WW I was 64 percent. During WW II it peaked at 32 percent. The number for Korea was 62 percent, and 65% opposed Vietnam. What makes Vietnam so different is the dodging anti-war disaster. Of the 2,594,000 who served in Vietnam, only about 25 percent, or, 648,000+ were drafted. Compare that to the 16,000,000+ who dodged and it works out to 25 dodgers for every draftee who went.


NN

[Herrmannek]

Thanks, oryginaly I was talikng about the second one... But i haven't seen there note about soldiers having 240 total days of fighting versus 40 days in wwII that was mentioned in first article, but AFAI remember it was proved false, and vietnam war wasn't so intense as that statistics says...

[Bryson C]

Interesting reading guys, great links.

[b.scheller]

During WW II, in the European theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of desertion. On a comparable basis, the overall WW II desertion rate was 55 percent higher than in Vietnam.

It seems, that out of that 20,000 only one unlucky American G.I was executed for desertion, Eddie Slovik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik).

[ogukuo72]

I especially agree with the one about the Domino theory.

Not to say that the Vietnam War was popular here in Southeast Asia, but we sure are glad that the US chose to fight for South Vietnam rather than give it up as so many Americans in the media and on the left suggested we should have done.

Being closer to the action, we know how nasty communism is for third world countries, and we want none of it. Is it any wonder that those countries that remained non-communist (e.g. Malaysia and Singapore) has the highest growth rate in the region in the 1970's, 1980's, up to the mid-90's, while countries that became communist such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, remained the poorest in the region?

[Lokos]

I was disgusted by the euphemism regarding Indonesia's 'expulsion' of Communism. Specifically because it involved the slaughter of something like 600,000 people.

And, ogukuo, the Domino Theory works only if Communism was a monolithic force in geo-strategic terms. To any student of politics, though, such a suggestion would draw naught but laughter. And lots of it. The very theory is mythical in its presumptions and its assertions.

Lokos

[KEEPER0311]

This is one of the better articles on the reality of the vietnam war.

Vietnam War Myths (http://www.lindasog.com/military/vietnam.htm)


Only about 5,000 men assigned to Vietnam deserted, and just 249 of those deserted while in Vietnam. During WW II, in the European theater alone, over 20,000 US Military men were convicted of desertion. On a comparable basis, the overall WW II desertion rate was 55 percent higher than in Vietnam.

There always has been, and always will be, American opposition to war. The Revolutionary War had the highest, (estimated at 80 percent) and that was because it was fought on home soil. Opposition to WW I was 64 percent. During WW II it peaked at 32 percent. The number for Korea was 62 percent, and 65% opposed Vietnam. What makes Vietnam so different is the dodging anti-war disaster. Of the 2,594,000 who served in Vietnam, only about 25 percent, or, 648,000+ were drafted. Compare that to the 16,000,000+ who dodged and it works out to 25 dodgers for every draftee who went.


NN

Im suprised that only 25% of the people that served in vietnam were draftees, i accpected a higher number. And the fact the almost 20,000 americans deserted during WW2 also suprises me.

[nognig]

Thanks, oryginaly I was talikng about the second one... But i haven't seen there note about soldiers having 240 total days of fighting versus 40 days in wwII that was mentioned in first article, but AFAI remember it was proved false, and vietnam war wasn't so intense as that statistics says...

Is this what you were looking for?

Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]

MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded who survived the first 24 hours died. [VHPA 1993]

The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]


Source (http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html)

NN

[b.scheller]

Who honestly quotes Westmoreland, as a reliable source?

[Herrmannek]

Thanks, oryginaly I was talikng about the second one... But i haven't seen there note about soldiers having 240 total days of fighting versus 40 days in wwII that was mentioned in first article, but AFAI remember it was proved false, and vietnam war wasn't so intense as that statistics says...

Is this what you were looking for?

Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]

MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded who survived the first 24 hours died. [VHPA 1993]

The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]


Source (http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html)

NN
Yes. I read somwhere that this myth was actualy true. And vietnam war wasn't much more intense than other wars...

[nognig]

Who honestly quotes Westmoreland, as a reliable source?


The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border) [Westmoreland]


I have a feeling that we can trust Westmoreland on this one.

NN

[nognig]

Myth: The fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

Yes. I read somwhere that this myth was actualy true. And vietnam war wasn't much more intense than other wars...

I guess it depends on your definition of "intense". In WW2, the average soldier saw more "set-peice" battles. Take this town, engage this unit, etc. Time was taken to prepare and time was needed to move into place.

In Vietnam, you might be dropped by helicopter into a battle, pulled out hours later, only to do it over again in a few days, for months on end. Depending on which units you were talking about, I could see that one would say Vietnam was more intense. I think the guerilla/ambush type warfare also contributes to the appearance of a higher intensity.

NN

[Kilgor]

And, ogukuo, the Domino Theory works only if Communism was a monolithic force in geo-strategic terms. To any student of politics, though, such a suggestion would draw naught but laughter. And lots of it. The very theory is mythical in its presumptions and its assertions.

Lokos

Whilst there were many flavours of communism as you point out lokos, organisations like the comintern, who prime objective was to spread communism far and wide. You can understand the concern amonst the western powers about the soviet unions determination to spread communism, which so openly and often proclaimed it would do.

[Lokos]

:|

You can understand the concern amonst the western powers about the soviet unions determination to spread communism

From 1917 to 1924 the aim was world revolution. Stalin, having come to power, then initiated the doctrine of 'Communism in one country' - he had seen the impracticality of the former policy. That doctrine remained in force throughout the Cold War. Soviet support of Communist movements around the world was largely clandestine, and usually concerned only with states in direct contact with its borders. The promotion of Communism in Russia's 'near abroad' can and should be attributed to the Buffer State Doctrine, not to some ideological need for a worldwide revolution.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

:|

The promotion of Communism in Russia's 'near abroad' can and should be attributed to the Buffer State Doctrine, not to some ideological need for a worldwide revolution.

Lokos

Which of course sounds alot like "containment", which NATO followed.

After what happened in Korea, when NK attacked with soviet arms, pilots and advisors you cant blame the US for being just a little suspicious. At least for the south koreans they never had to endure the absolute hell of the north thanks to containment.

[Lokos]

'Containment' and the Buffer State Doctrine are very different kettles of fish. Except in extremely general terms, wherein both are defensive measures to a greater or lesser extent.

At least for the south koreans they never had to endure the absolute hell of the north thanks to containment.

True enough.

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

Well, they might or might not be the same, but I think the larger point is that the communist system led to long term poverty and large scale political oppression. In Cambodia, it even led to genocide. In China, it led to large scale starvation in the 1950's Great Leap Forward, and, of course, the Cultural Revolution. In Russians, tens of millions died from starvation in the 1920's and 1930's.

In comparison, countries like South Korea under the capitalist system might not have been perfect, but they did a lot better. South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, etc are economic power houses, and our people enjoy high standards of living.

If we have been under the communist system, we would still be dirt poor, like Vietnam and Laos.

[Lokos]

I am not arguing that Communism would have been 'good' for any country in question - or generally - but that one myth should not be replaced by another, and/or that myths in regards to the same concept should not be concurrent or even existent in the first place.

Lokos

[b.scheller]

Can, it really be said that containment occured, what about Cambodia? If containment, as they say was successful, did Cambodia turn communist, simply because it was too late?

I don't think, containment is the right word, at any given time, people in a country will want communism, while there are those (even workers and peasants) who prefer liberalist democracy (U.S type).

It's really, hard to say, how much of the population wanted communism, and at what cost. Look at Eastern Europe, the perfect example of where a evil system was forced down people's throats. They rejected it, but were forced to take it, from their evil neighbour.

Can, it really be said that containment worked? No, it cannot. There is no proof, that people in any given state, gave up their idea of equality in the proletariat over democracy. Just, because a state oppresses something, doesn't mean, its encouraged by its citizens. I.E Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Spain, El Salvador and others.

In my opinion, it's impossible to prove that containment worked. I really, doubt that by the U.S actions, any given country was scared to fight with the U.S just because, they might attack if they chose an unpopular path. Vietnam, turned communist and is still quasi-communist to this day.

[ogukuo72]

You have a point.

Containment as a concept certainly seemed endangered in the 1970's, with first the American failure in Vietnam and Cambodia, and then the period of detente, where a number of governments in Europe, such as the German and British government, sought to improve relationship with the Soviet Union. At the same time, a host of African nations suddenly discovered an enthusiasm for socialism and communism.

Here's what I think: the American failure in Vietnam and its internal political fissure were perceived as weakness by its Allies, its opponents (the Soviet Union), and the neutrals. As the balance of power seemed to shift, nations began to change their calculations, and decided to move closer to the centre, if not towards the Soviet Union. It did not help that under Jimmy Carter, the Americans were busy disarming and cutting back their influence around the world. The European nations had genuine concerns about whether the US would be ready to intervene on their behalf should they be endangered.

Then two things happened which changed the picture: the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the election of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The first frightened the Europeans back into the fold again, as the Soviets suddenly did not seem so benign after all. With the threatening Soviet intervention in Poland, it became clear that detente would not mean the same as a protection against Soviet influence and domination, but rather, a way of letting the tiger in.

The second injected a new vigour into the US. The Americans became busy rearming themselves, and first demonstrated at Grenada that they were not afraid to use a sledgehammer to crack any nut that should threaten western interests.

With the election of Margaret Thatcher, the British experienced a similar renaissance after the Falklands War and the crushing of the unions. The election of a conservative PM also made it possible for the US to deploy new weapon systems such as Pershings and Tomahawks into the theatre.

With stiffened backbones, the Europeans came fully back into the fold, just in time to be on the winning side when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.

The centre of gravity will always be in Europe, but American success or failure in the rest of the world has an influence in how Europeans think and act. With the exception of the UK and France, most European nations were disinclined to be responsible for their own security, and are largely dependent on diplomacy. This means that they will clumber onto any bandwagon that they think is the strongest.

Thus world wide containment is the only way to ensure that the Europeans do not turn completely to jelly fish and sell out to the communists.

[XS203598]

If you can get a copy of Chance And Circumstance: The Draft, The War and The Vietnam Generation, it has most of the facts. The authors are L. M. Baskir and W. A. Strauss. It was published in 1978.

[Beppo]

Here's a site about a great book on Vietnam myths..I'm finishing up the book now...

http://www.stolenvalor.com/

[XS203598]

Here's a site about a great book on Vietnam myths..I'm finishing up the book now...

http://www.stolenvalor.com/

That book is not about myths, it's about liars.