Slowly and slowly - the truth about the Vietnam War is breaking our from the smears, lies, and agendas that the Left pushed for so long.
The truth about what happened in '75 especially. We covered it with Jim Zumwalt the other week on Midrats when discussing his new book, Bare Feet, Iron Will ~ Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields
.
.It came up in the towards the end of last Sunday's Midrats with James S. Robbins, author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point
, while discussing his review of Phillip Jenning's new book on the Vietnam War, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War
. Here is a bit from his review;America won the Vietnam War. You hadn't heard? Then check out "The Politi- cally Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War," Phillip Jennings' new entry in the popular Regnery series. Mr. Jennings wrote the book with a specific purpose: "To settle scores with the pernicious mythmakers of the Vietnam War." These include journalists, politicians and academics, who both created the myths of Vietnam and profited from them. For this group, Mr. Jennings has three words: "Shame on you."To round it off - Jim let us know that this fall will see him put out another book - this one on the Tet Offensive; This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive
...
This book offers common-sense, factually-based rejoinders to the mythmakers who continue to misrepresent the causes and course of the Vietnam War. It is ready ammunition for anyone faced with defeatist arguments comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan, Iraq or any other conflict. The book is also a public service. Former South Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States Bui Diem said, "History is written by the victors, but over time the truth comes out." This book is part of that continuing process of discovery. There is much yet to be learned - and unlearned - about America's just and heroic involvement in the Vietnam War.
. You can pre-order it.Good. Very good.
So, to add to A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam
, Bare Feet, Iron Will ~ Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War - you can add the next book by James S. Robbins; This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive. Truth. What a concept.UPDATE: Based on reader input - a second page of book recommendations have been added.
20 comments:
North Vietnam strategic objective: unification - achieved.
South Vietnam strategic objective:independence - failed.
Soviet strategic objective: weakening of the US - achieved.
Chinese strategic objective: more influence in SE Asia - mixed results, as shown in 1979 border war with Vietnam (with Vietamese using some leftover US supplies, no less!) and fall of the bloody Khmer Rouge Maoist utopia.
US/Australian (not many remember Kangaroos had stake there too, and more important because on their doorstep almost) strategic objective: preventing of dominoes efect - mainly achieved, with Thailand, Malaysia etc. not falling into Soviet camp.
Surprise - everybody wins, save poor South Vietnam.
I was always of the opinion it was the South Vietnamese's war to win or lose. Nothing in the last 37 years since I left has shown me how the US, or Korea or Australia or any of the other nations I served with "lost the war". If it's your ground it's yours to win or lose. IMHO
It doesn't come up often, but when I inject a bit of reality concerning Tet, the response from younger people is always incredulity when they learn what really happened. From the older Left, it is either an embarrassed silence, or more often the sort of condescending look reserved for the delusional. Truth will come out, but only after those who have a vested interest, usually in protecting their own less than honorable actions, are no longer around . For instance, Operation Keelhaul was effectively buried for over 50 years, though it is now occasionally mentioned.
Our will was broken, we left, therefore we lost, regardless of how the military did. War is not primarily about the military victories, it's about the will and spirit of the people and the armed forces.
Cdr,
Remember McMaster's book on the start of the VietNam war, _Deriliction_of_Duty_. I just read it, and it has lots of lessons for today.
Add Mark Moyer's "Triumph Forsaken" to that list. He has used the now-available regimental histories of the North Vietnamese Army and does a great job of showing that this was a standard military invasion by the North (with Chinese help), not some indiginous insurgency.
Eric, I agree with you. The most important mission for the US/ROK Marines/Aussies was to train, equip, and advise the ARVN and South Vietnamese Police.
The measure of the success or failure of the US/ROK Marines/Aussies (and Thais, Philipinos, Kiwis) is how the South Vietnamese security forces performed.
Does this book discuss this subject?
<span>What is actually in this book?
Ewok40K, what was South Korea's objective in the Vietnam war? 313 thousand of them fought in it. Did South Korea achieve its objective?
Many would tell you that America won the Vietnam war; including in Singapore. They see the Vietnam war as a way to allow freedom and free markets to strenghten in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Philipines, etc. This was achieved.
The Soviets lost the Vietnam war. The Soviets bankrupted themselves financing the North Vietnamese; which contributed to their recession that lasted over for decades. The Soviet economy shrank gradually in the 1970s and 1980s.
China lost. China and Vietnam are historic rivals. China benefited from a disunited Vietnam; so that China could play both sides against each other. China lost in Cambodia. China also won the 1979 war (which was far more intense, vicious, and resulted in far more loss of life per day than the NVA/ARVN war); but at a great economic cost.
China was bankrupted by funding the North Vietnamese 1962-1975. This lead to the economic collapse in China 1967-1977 . . . also called the cultural revolution.
Did South Vietnam really lose? Does't South Vietnam economically dominate Vietnam today? Doesn't the South Vietnamese diaspora play an outsized role in investment and business in Vietnam today? Aren't they deeply admired and respected in Vietnam today for having made it outside Vietnam and for now contributing to Vietnam's success?</span>
<span>What is actually in this book. ?
Ewok40K, what was South Korea's objective in the Vietnam war? 313 thousand of them fought in it. Did South Korea achieve its objective?
Many would tell you that America won the Vietnam war; including in Singapore. They saw the Vietnam war as a means to allow freedom and free markets to strenghten in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Philipines, etc. This was achieved.
The Soviets lost the Vietnam war. The Soviets bankrupted themselves financing the North Vietnamese; which contributed to their recession that lasted over for decades. The Soviet economy shrank gradually in the 1970s and 1980s.
China lost. China and Vietnam are historic rivals. One reason Moa reached out to Kissinger is because he wanted a disunited Vietnam; so that China could play both sides against each other. China lost in Cambodia. China won the 1979 war (which was far more intense, vicious, and resulted in far more loss of life per day than the NVA/ARVN war); but at a great economic cost.
China was bankrupted by funding the North Vietnamese 1962-1975. This lead to the economic collapse in China 1967-1977 . . . also called the cultural revolution.
Did South Vietnam really lose? Does't South Vietnam economically dominate Vietnam today? Doesn't the South Vietnamese diaspora play an outsized role in investment and business in Vietnam today? Aren't they deeply admired and respected in Vietnam today for having made it outside Vietnam and for now contributing to Vietnam's success?</span>
Eric, you are dead right that it was always South Vietnam's war to win or lose. The most important mission of the US, ROK Marines, Aussies [and Thais, Kiwis, Philipinos] was to train, equip, advise and fund the ARVN and South Vietnamense police. The best measure of how successful the US/ROK/Aussie military effort was or was not is how the ARVN and South Vietnamese security forces performed.
Did the ARVN grow in capacity and quality? Does <span>Phillip Jenning's new book discuss the ARVN?
</span>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433271184?ie=UTF8&tag=cdrsalamander-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1433271184
I remember having a hard time believing it at first... it went against the way every textbook, every documentary portrayed it when I was growing up. When I finally came to accept and understand the actual timeline of events (especially the important bit between 1972 and 1975), I was furious.
I still get angry whenever I hear the old lies about Vietnam, because I was lied to for most of my life... and because, after helping to repulse a conventional invasion (with tanks, not guerillas), our government (with the tacit support of our people, apparently) deliberately sold the people we had promised our sacred honor to down the river. For nothing.
And millions of innocents were slaughtered as a direct result.
I am reminded of Trevor Dupuy's Understanding Defeat, wherein he remarked that you had to define victory in order to define defeat. He ended up defining victory as Ewok did above, and pointed out that both sides could successfully achieve their objective in the same campaign. Dupuy used the example where blue's objective was to gain territoy, while red's was to trade space for time.
You can argue South Vietnam many ways. Ewok mentioned one (South Vietnam ultimately defeated), but another point of view says that when the US left the war in 1973, South Vietnam was standing on it's own two feet. Ergo, the US was successful in its objective. To a certain extent the argument is an exercise in logic-chopping.
Like several others here, I was astounded when I discovered what actually happened during Tet, compared to the common wisdom. That damn fool Cronkite didn't know what he was talking about. Later I was truly upset when I found out that the United States Congress refused to provide any aid to South Vietnam in 1975, not even supplies (which IIRC they were obligated to do by treaty).
Ewok, the US may have been strategically weakened by Vietnam, but there's a counter-argument that the Soviet Union was hurt even more by the way they poured billions of dollars of hardware & supplies into the North, considering their vastly weaker economy. Add the Soviet fiasco in Afghanistan, and it's arguable that those two adventures helped lead to the collapse of the USSR, since the latter invasion lasted 9 years, and ended only two years before the regime's dissolution.
Oh well, it took Soviets much more time to bankrupt themselves, and not the least radical lowering of oil prices in 1980s, hurting their only reliable $$ source. And being defeated in AFG was another reason. US was weakened in various ways, one was political and domestic, another was tech upgrades skipped due to war funding. On the other hand experiences of Vietnam war made Reagan revolution possible, with teen series fighters and infantry training being most commonly known areas of improvement. Another case of "both sides victorious" could be Finlands 1940 winter war with Soviets - Soviets got border shift away from Leningrad and bases in Finland, Finns retained independence. Soviets of course might be seen as losing due to loss proportions, but they learned their lessons on winter warfare and used them on the Germans year later at Moscow, and another year later at Stalingrad. By contrast whole WW I can be seen as "everybody but US loses". Germany collapsed, Russia went into civil war then Stalinism, Hapsburgs dissolved into dozen states, French and UK bankrupted themselves, everybody lost millions of soldiers, and seeds of WW2 were sown almost immediately after first ended.
Peripherally related, but there is some interesting info floating up about the Kent State shootings.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/new-light-shed-on-kent-state-killings/
Lots of questions, not the least being why now. Certainly the troops did not react well, but neither were the students, as a group, the naifs they were portrayed to be. The leaders, than and now, were not the sort to allow the opportunity to create a crisis pass.
Guest, I always say: The TRUTH is a Person, and HE didn't stay buried forever. Eventually The Truth comes walking out of that hole in the ground, shoving aside that rock and the sentries put watch to keep it concealed. It may take 3 days or 3 centuries, but when placing bets, always put your money on Truth.
"Ride The Thunder" for those who still believe the South Vietnamese wouldn't fight.
Ewok, I would posit that WWI set the stage for EVERY war we have had since. Name any one conflict now and you will find its genesis in the carving up of empires and nations (Ottoman, etc.) following WWI. WWI: The gift that keeps on giving...
>:o
Well, for us in Poland WW I and breakup of empires was one in a million chance for renewed nationhood - its all about perspective, ne? Turkey, arguably is better off as secular nation state than as sick empire. UK, France, Italy and Germany have found their place in European Union. I was never big on empires, especially multinational ones, they tend to fracture too easily in crisis. It is when nations form larger unions upon basis of voluntary cooperation, that larger political entities become feasible, with USA as first example (original 13 colonies were quite literally states) and EU slowly following US footsteps.
Lets not forget the Morley Safer Peabody Award winning story about the US Marines burning the huts of the peaceful village of Cam Ne. It was true, the Marines did set fire to the huts with their cigarette lighters. What the story did not report was the following facts:
1. The Marines had been taking heavy fire from snipers out of Cam Ne for days.
2. All of the friendly villagers had long since moved out of Cam Ne.
3. After burning the huts, the Marines found concrete bunkers that had been camoflaged by the thatched huts, and that they were all conected by a honeycomb of communication trenches and tunnels.
4. Cam Ne was not a peaceful village, but a VC stronghold.
Networks paid their correspondents in those days, by what was used on the air. Obviously the more sensational the story, the more likely it would be used.
The Vietnam war was lost in the halls of the United States Congress. Democrats decided to give the country to the communists after we had achieved victory. The 1973 Paris peace accords formalized that victory. Unfortunately the battleground then moved to Washington where the Democrat leadership decided to renege on our treaty obligations to supply the Republic of Vietnam with arms and supplies, thus assuring a victory when the communists violated the treaty and again invaded the South in 1975. A victory for American leftists as well as the Vietnamese communists. The fact that millions paid with their lives and tens of millions were forced to live under totalitarianism seemed a small price to the American left.
Amen , like stories of Katyn and WW I Ormian's massacre in Turkey attest, there is no successful hiding of so many skeletons in the closet
Post a Comment