• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

America's Involvement in the Vietnam War: Why?

Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
437
Reaction score
3
Points
18
America and other allies aided South Vietnam against the communist North in the Vietnam war (1954 to 1975). From what I have briefly read and been told was the logic for America's involvement was it was apprehensive Vietnam will consequently form with China and USSR to form a super-power communist allegiance posing a threat to the United States. My question is how?

How does a group of communist countries pose a threat to a capitalist nation? I could visualize if it was religion vs religion may amount to war but communist vs capitalism, how does that pose sufficient threats to risk your countrymen's lives and to spend $738 billion on the war? They can justify that amount of money and domestic casualties if they were to send men in outer space to stop an Armageddon astroid but to go to war to change the economic system of another country because in 'theory' they will be 'teamed up upon' does not make sense to me.

Eventually America withdrew its' troops and my guess is the North Vietnamese took over the country. Was and is there any conflict or threats between America and Vietnam after the war? My presumption is 'no'. Thus, there would be no difference if America did not go to war because there are no threats whatsoever. On the other hand, since I do not understand this, I believe I could have missed a lot of information out on why USA went to war.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
The involvement was based on a theory called the domino effect.

In the years after World War 2, the west had already seen the Soviets bring all of Eastern Europe and North Korea under communists rule. The fear was that communist parties in Italy and Greece would further extend Soviet creeping influence in Europe.

That is why the USA gave billions in Marshall Plan aid, to help a war weakened Europe rebuild, be less prone to left week revolutions, and of course return to strong market economies that would be markets for American exports.

In 1948 Stalin attempted to blockade Berlin and force the western powers out. Then to Americas great shock, the whole of China fell to the commies in 1949. Then in 1950 North Korea invaded the south and the US and its allies had to go to war to prevent the whole of Korea falling to the communist block. Communism was spreading and the fear was that once a country fell to communism, nearby countries would be at risk of falling over, and communism would spread further, knocking over pro western regimes like a line of dominoes.

350px-Domino_theory.svg.png


Now to Vietnam. France was already struggling with a communists movement in the North of Vietnam in the 1950s, and Britain was fighting an insurgency in Malaysia. The 2 countries had different outcomes. The french were defeated, leaving North Vietnam in the Soviet sphere, while in Malaysia, the British managed to isolate the Communists (who were mainly ethnic Chinese) from the Malay majority, ensuing that the insurgency did not get enough popularity to take hold.

But communism was still spreading, and in 1959 Cuba fell to Castro, the reds were now on Americas doorstep. in the 50s and sixties, Soviet allied movements spread to central Africa and many regimes in the Middle East were falling under a left wing socialist Arab nationalist movement.

So you can see why US foreign policy really feared this Domino effect, it seems at the time that communism had an unstoppable momentum, and at this rate more and more states would fall.

So the response was called containment. The US couldn't roll back communism without the risk of setting off a third world war, if the Soviets intervened. The best bet was to stop all future communist expansion, before things got out of hand. So with North Vietnam threatening the South, as well as Laos, Cambodia and the whole region, the stage was set. It was this far and no further.

With the french out and South Vietnam's own government increasingly unpopular and weak, America found itself ever more committed to keeping the South in the western sphere, first with advisors and material aid and then with ever increasing amounts of boots on the ground.

This containment happened elsewhere as well, but not at such a cost. The US isolated Cuba, shored up anti communists in Central and South America, and shored up its forces guarding Europe, Japan and Korea.

We of course know that the massive US involvement in Vietnam was never going to be enough. All the firepower, and the men were not enough. The Southern government was just too unpopular and corrupt to galvanise enough solid indigenous support to combat the more popular left wing insurgency.

But the dominoes didn't always fall elsewhere, communism was largely contained. The Soviet system, however had huge successes post war and was a system that really had to be reckoned with. Right into the late seventies, the communist block was still going strong.

But by the eighties the cracks were appearing and its economic system could not keep up with the west's economic growth, ability to finance more advanced weapons and the new explosion in computing (see the Farewell Dossier. But that's another story
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
Did A level history, which included American foreign policy and modules on Marxists ideology and the Soviet economic system
 
OP
S
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
437
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Another question I always had was 'how could the USA lose the war?' Obviously, they could win by nuking the entire north. They probably chose not to due to morality issues, I don't know. Instead, they sent their troops in the jungles to do the nitty gritty work. As I have heard, there were frequent ambushes and the old saying goes 'you cannot kill an enemy you cannot see'. Hence, they lost the war in that regard. Nevertheless, how did they lose to North Vietnam while succeeding in other wars like Iraq?
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
As I said, America's involvement was not universally popular, they shored up an unpopular regime and failed to win the hearts and minds of the locals, unlike the tactics the British used in Malaysia, which was fought in similar jungle terrain. (I am not saying us British are always so great, but the Malay campaign was one thing we did get right).

As for Irag, the US easily won the battle against in Iraqis in the nice open terrain of that country. But is very debatable as to if America and its allies 'won'. We defeated Saddam, but now you have got an Iraq with a less than popular government under the influence of the Iranians, and half the country now under the control of a violent Islamic 'state'.

At least the Kurds in northern Iraq are controlling their own territory, and at least they can run a functioning state and have no love for ISIS and its poisonous misguided take on Islam.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
453
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
The same as Sheldon Cooper - East Texas
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 2014 i5 5k 32gb 1tb fusion, second TB display, 2014 MBA
As a person who walked around the jungle for a year, I can give an answer from the bottom looking up. Not about the rightness or wrongness of the conflict, but as to the asininity of the strategy.

In a nutshell, it was micromanaged from the top and half a world away. Marines are taught to move, pursue, get as close as possible to the enemy. Standing still or digging in just makes you a target and allows them time to prepare.

So, somebody’s brilliant idea was fire bases, rather than pursuit and kill. In other words, have our troops build an enclosure and stay in it. Kind of like the Alamo, and it worked just about as well. It was usually a circular base with lots of barbed wire. Know what else is circular? Well, CDs and DVDs, tires, clocks - oh yes, and paper targets that you shoot at for practice.

The fixed positions accomplished two things - it allowed the enemy to know at all times where we were, and prevented us from finding out where THEY were. And it gave them a perfect circular thingie. You know, like to shoot artillery into and not even have to re-aim the guns every day.

Yes, there were patrols - lots of them, but since we were leaving from a known location, how hard it is for a single observer to notice and call back with the news that company was coming?

Now, lets add in the really stupid stuff. Like harassing fires. Each unit of artillery, from 81mm up had to shoot a certain number of rounds per night - you know, because there is always a chance that a round hitting somewhere after being fired toward a thousand square klicks of jungle might actually hit something. In actuality, a grid was given for the night, and every hour or so a round would be fired into it. Night after night, month after month and so on. Oh yes. And the zoomies would do the same thing every night - Navy, Air Force and Marines. Drop a stick of bombs into this grid or that grid, chosen at random, apparently. Not because someone radioed in that they had a target. No, just because someone on high said that so much fire had to be placed somewhere each day.

Of course we didn’t have enough boots, flak jackets, belts and so forth. Probably because the money was going for the tons of ammo just being flung off into nowhere.

Now, on the occasion that we were actually allow to act like Marines and chase someone, guess what? You can’t cross that line on the ground. Sorry, rules are rules. Step over it and you’re out. It isn’t fair to to tag someone after they have touched their home base. We don’t want the world to think we are fighting unfairly. So we stopped at the DMZ and watched as they relaxed in their camps for a good meal after a good day of fighting.

I could go on - M16s that didn’t shoot, M14s that did but for which there was no ammo and few magazines, C rations stamped 1944, body counts that were tallied by estimate of how much shooting there was (that was a real hoot) - but you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
And to get a better view of history, study up on ** Chi Minh. If only he had been set up to establish a democracy after WW2 in the so called French Indo-China as he and Truman wanted, the world would have been different. But de Gaulle, supported by Stalin who was always divising the allies against each other, wanted it back and things degenerated from there.

Interesting to read of ** Ci Minh's troops rescuing the "Tiger Squadron" U.S. pilots shot down against the Japanese expansion into China and his work for the then OSS, forerunner of the CIA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina_in_World_War_II
 
M

MacInWin

Guest
I was there in the air war. Flew off carriers on both Delta station (south) and Yankee station (North). There were huge areas of the country that were off-limits to bombing. Guess where the NV stored equipment and ammo? Also, we would see ships approaching Haiphong harbor loaded with equipment, but because they carried foreign flags, we could not attack them there, we had to wait until the stuff was off the ships and exited the off-limits areas. We finally decided to mine Haiphong harbor, which started to choke off the North. The rail line to China was totally destroyed and the major roads were as well, so the North was slowly being strangled for everything. Kissinger gave it all away in Paris when we were within 5-6 weeks of them having to surrender or starve. Frustrating for those of us there at the time.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
Thanks to those vets that put in a perspective from being actually there. I have learnt a bit more about the war from another perspective,

But I guess, despite the bravery of US forces, the war was costing the US huge amounts of money and men, both killed and wounded. The war was unpopular with the Vietnamese (well most of them - not all) and increasing at home.

It was nothing like World war II, where American and allied forces were greeted as liberators (being liberated by the Russians isn't a ideal outcome - just ask the Poles) and different than, say, the Falkland conflict, which was a short precise campaign conducted by an Army that had the full support of the local population.

The military are always required to obey their masters, but the politicians should always think twice before using sending their men into a conflict where the local population maybe hostile and resentful.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
Points
8
Location
Kentucky
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro, iPhone 5S, iPad Mini Retina
Let's pray we will never be at war again and may we also learn from the past! God Bless those who served and are serving!
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
First off, thanks to those who served in that era. As someone with numerous relatives who served during that time I've always found the way that some vets were treated upon there return a disgrace.

@louishen Excellent historical overview. I've had two years of history in high school (American and World History) as well as a full year of American History in college. In both vases we reached the Vietnam era at the end of the course and did not get the opportunity to spend nearly as much time on it as I would have liked. I'd be willing to bet that many Americans have some wildly inaccurate perceptions of that era.

@cptkrf re: "I could go on - M16s that didn’t shoot, M14s that did but for which there was no ammo and few magazines, C rations stamped 1944, body counts that were tallied by estimate of how much shooting there was (that was a real hoot) - but you get the idea."

I've read a lot about the Vietnam War and never know that bit about the body count.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
214
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini: OSX 10.15.6 Catalina, 8GB Ram, Samsung Series 5 SC570 monitor, Seagate external drive.
I was notified I was being drafted during LBJ's escalation..1967.
Didn't agree with the war & was opposed to the Draft (slave labor).
My choices were:
1. Flee to Canada.
2. Refuse & do a couple of yrs. in Federal prison.
3. Commit suicide.
4. Go in, hope I'm not killed & make the best of it.
I chose #4
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
Sadly participation was not supported by the public at large in the US nor here. It was unfair the treatment veterans returning, particularly conscripts, received. Bags of faeces thrown over them etc etc etc. And what did it all achieve? There was no domino effect and Viet Nam has emerged as a manufacturing base for the west.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
453
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
The same as Sheldon Cooper - East Texas
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 2014 i5 5k 32gb 1tb fusion, second TB display, 2014 MBA
I was notified I was being drafted during LBJ's escalation..1967.
Didn't agree with the war & was opposed to the Draft (slave labor).
My choices were:
1. Flee to Canada.
2. Refuse & do a couple of yrs. in Federal prison.
3. Commit suicide.
4. Go in, hope I'm not killed & make the best of it.
I chose #4

You forgot one. (That was a long time ago and my memory isn't exactly up to DDR3 specs anymore, either:)

5. Marry really quick and get her pregnant.

Saw it done a few times among friends and acquaintances. Of course, some of them realized - too late - that they would rather have faced the 'Cong.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
453
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
The same as Sheldon Cooper - East Texas
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 2014 i5 5k 32gb 1tb fusion, second TB display, 2014 MBA
I'd be willing to bet that many Americans have some wildly inaccurate perceptions of that era.

Since most ideas about the war come from Hollywood, your bet is a sure thing. I have often wondered if WWII movies seem as stupid to those vets, as Vietnam flicks are to us.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
214
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini: OSX 10.15.6 Catalina, 8GB Ram, Samsung Series 5 SC570 monitor, Seagate external drive.
You forgot one. (That was a long time ago and my memory isn't exactly up to DDR3 specs anymore, either:)

5. Marry really quick and get her pregnant.

Saw it done a few times among friends and acquaintances. Of course, some of them realized - too late - that they would rather have faced the 'Cong.

You're right.
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
Since most ideas about the war come from Hollywood, your bet is a sure thing. I have often wondered if WWII movies seem as stupid to those vets, as Vietnam flicks are to us.

Probably so. I can understand having differing opinions about political aspects of the war that I understand. My problem is that lots of facts are otherwise misunderstood. Some of the things that many people might consider North Vietnamese victories were in fact stalemates at best.
 
M

MacInWin

Guest
The turning point was the Tet Offensive the VC launched in January, 1968. It was a military disaster for the North but a public opinion victory for them. The US was surprised at the ability of the NVA and VC to mount the attack, and although at the end the NVA and VC made no progress, gained no territory and lost an estimated 42,000 killed and more casualties wounded, they won the public relations war. South VietNam president Thiêu thought that the US knew about the attack in advance and didn't tell him, so he lost confidence in our commitment to his country. In March, President Johnson halted bombing of the North, which further increased Thiêu's suspicions. In the US, Walter Cronkite, news anchor for CBS and one of the most respected newsmen in the country, announced on air that he no longer thought we could win and that we could only get out by negotiation, not victory. That announcement basically tipped the public sentiment scales against the war, with the confidence in the military declining from 74% before the offensive to 54% after. The rest, as they say, is history. Despite the fact that just after the offensive the NVA and VC were at their weakest, President Johnson lost the will to take the fight to them. In WW2 when the Germans mounted the Battle of the Bulge, it, too, was a surprise, but the reaction of the Allies was to push the Germans back, continue the offensive and bring the war to a conclusion. In Vietnam, the reaction was the reverse, with the consequence that the North overran the south after our unilateral withdrawal. It was the start of the decline of the influence of America in that part of the world.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
Yes you are right MacInWIn. America was more or less winning the war on the ground, it was public opinion that forced a wind down and withdrawal. That's bad if you want to win a war, but good in a very real sense.

You can continue to suffer casualties in a remote conflict that your citizens can't really get behind if you are a dictatorship. But the uSA is not Nazi Germany or the Soviets.

That's a good thing, democracies cannot pursue wars that are an electoral liability. Sometimes that makes them appear weak, just look at appeasement in the 1930s and the appeasement Putin has got over Ukraine (although now he really has gone too far and is now like the naughty child who has broken his parents vase - he hopes that if he does nothing or just blames the dog, he'll get away with it).

But pushed too far a democracy can fight all the harder. Hitler was not overly concerned that the US entered WW2, he thought the Americans were all cowboys, gangsters and playboys with no real stomach for a fight. The Japanese admiral at Pearl harbour had a more sober assessment, he is reported to have said after being congratulated for the attack, " all I have done is awaken a sleeping giant".
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top