Combat Stragety and Results

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

gambit said:

Utter BS. The flow of refugees was consistently North to South, never opposite. That in itself was a clue on how the Vietnamese really felt about the communists. Ho was not the only one who fought against colonialist powers like France and Imperial Japan. There were plenty of other non-communist allied nationalists whom the US had relations during WW II. Ho managed to kill most of them off with Chinese and French assistance.

Click to expand...

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that the NVA were able to carry on as a military fighting force even after sustaining millions of casualties? You simply can't do that without a powerful core of popular support from which to draw ideologically motivated recruits.

Of course there are plenty of refugees. They were most likely in the same situation as your family too: people who found themselves on the wrong side of the Communists. No one ever claimed that the Communists were gentle in their revolutionary goals. However, you can't dispute that their goals were supported by a large number of the population, mainly the poor and the disenfranchised.

I thought NV doesn't count at all in the category of fighting a tech advanced enemy? That's what this is all about.
People say the US didn't fight any meaningful adversary since WW II. So if NV doesn't count for the US, why should it count for China?

Click to expand...

Well, I am trying to point out that China and the US are on an equal footing. The most advanced adversary each of the two have faced is the NVA, which is, as you have mentioned, still relatively unadvanced.

I'm glad we agree the communists won the Vietnam War unequivocally.

Gambit, you keep harping about military battles and such but when I say the US had no idea how to fight the Vietnamese communists I am referring to the total war they launched against the South. You're right to note they were multi-faceted with the Viet Cong and NVA, but underlying it is a large base of popular support that is evident in the way the war was fought and won. If you examine the different styles of war the communists and South pursued you will see what I mean. The communists involved ordinary people in the fight throughout the war, from poor peasants hiding weapons in rice baskets to old men bringing weapons down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to barbers taking jobs in American bases to snoop out the layouts. They had a large brigade of female soldiers as well. How do you think they set up the Tet Offensive without massive support in the South? The Viet Cong weren't uniformed conscripts like the ARVN relied on but volunteers willing to risk their life for the cause.

From your story it sounds like you find it inconceivable anyone would support the Vietnamese communists but we can't let what happened after 1975 blind us to how people felt then. I remember wondering how the Russians could support Stalin in World War II after everything he did to them but when you look at how the Germans treated Slavs it becomes clear. Ho Chi Minh and the communists had a decades-old compelling message that resonated with local grievances against rent-collecting landowners, the authoritarian Catholic elite with its strong links to foreign powers, and resentment of the way the South and Americans fought the war.

Ho Chi Minh himself was far more important a leader of Vietnamese nationalism than anyone in the South. He was in Versailles in 1919 lobbying for an free state of Vietnam, famously incorporating a lot of the language of the US Declaration of Independence in his efforts then and in 1945. Even the US supported him while he was fighting the Imperial Japanese. The Ho Sainteny agreement reinforces the story of Ho Chi Minh as a principled, patient nationalist . He kept trying to negotiate and work out an agreement with the West but they kept throwing it back in his face. No wonder he became convinced war the only path forward. But as you can see, Ho had more nationalist credibility than Diem.

Utter BS. The flow of refugees was consistently North to South, never opposite. That in itself was a clue on how the Vietnamese really felt about the communists. Ho was not the only one who fought against colonialist powers like France and Imperial Japan. There were plenty of other non-communist allied nationalists whom the US had relations during WW II. Ho managed to kill most of them off with Chinese and French assistance.

Click to expand...

Once again you're forgetting the nature of the war. If the refugees hated communism so much why didn't they stay and fight throughout the war, and in 1975-forward? Ho Chi Minh and the communists didn't flee to China, they kept infiltrating, recruiting, ambushing, dying, and coming back for more. Who formed Diem's power base? Elite land-owners and Catholics who count themselves in the minority and were hated anyways because the exploitative feudal society they ran and blatant favoritism shown toward Catholics.

In 1955 South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem canceled elections because he knew the communists would win. President Eisenhower said "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh." Diem was a real piece of work. He did everything he could to make himself and the government unpopular. Eventually not even his own military and American backers could take it anymore and overthrew him in coup. Well if Diem was short on credibility and integrity, the revolving door of generals after the coup was downright embarrassing to the South. Can you imagine how that looks to a Vietnamese peasant? They're wondering what the hell is going on in Saigon. Meanwhile those communists up north seem to have their act together, plus they want to overthrow the repressive regime in the South. You have to realize that is attractive to a lot of peasants, and rural areas were by far the majority of Vietnam. Even today Vietnam is still about 70% rural.

You don't have to prove your anti-communist credentials to me, I'm sold, but you have to admit the communists had a ton of popular support throughout the country throughout the war, more so than Diem and supporters of the South. If the South had more support than the communists they would have started a guerrilla war against Ho in the North, and kept fighting after the fall of Saigon instead fleeing as refugees. But neither thing happened. Why couldn't they muster up the support of villagers to create their own Ngo Dinh Diem Trail into the North? They had the weapons and the money....what's missing here?

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

solarz said:

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that the NVA were able to carry on as a military fighting force even after sustaining millions of casualties? You simply can't do that without a powerful core of popular support from which to draw ideologically motivated recruits.

Click to expand...

A little known fact is that the NVA and the VC often hold hostage the families of young boys, not young men, to compel them into the ranks. It happened in the North as well as in the South. In South Viet Nam, the outer provinces suffered the most this type of brutality by the VC. My father was an agricultural engineer, the sort agragrian and developing countries needed the most, who often traveled to these outer provinces and have no shortages of stories of families forcibly broken up by the communists. The percentage figures of this type of conscription compared to those who were truly motivated was never fully studied, but anecdotal stories were too much to ignored by the military, civilian professionals and even the clergy.

solarz said:

Of course there are plenty of refugees. They were most likely in the same situation as your family too: people who found themselves on the wrong side of the Communists. No one ever claimed that the Communists were gentle in their revolutionary goals. However, you can't dispute that their goals were supported by a large number of the population, mainly the poor and the disenfranchised.

Click to expand...

Ever ask yourself WHY they were on the 'wrong side' of the communists? What constitute this 'wrong side'? The contradiction is obvious, if there was a majority support for the Viet Minh, then why the need to be so brutal in the treatment of the people anyway? The truth is that one does not need to have popular support to achieve political power and sustain it. One just need to be brutal about one's methods. More Viets died, unnaturally, AFTER reunification than from the war. Vietnamese were forcibly relocated from the urban to the collective farms, just like how Russians and Chinese were, and in their ignorance of farming, many died from starvation and diseases.

Sorry...But yours is the typical 'liberal' misinformation about the Vietnam War.

A little known fact is that the NVA and the VC often hold hostage the families of young boys, not young men, to compel them into the ranks. It happened in the North as well as in the South.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Where in the south would the VC have enough prisons to hold hostage thousands of family members? Vietnamese had big families so if even a few thousand of their recruits, which would represent a tiny portion of all NVA and VC fighters, were serving as conscripts, they would have to be holding tens of thousands of people hostage somewhere.

Another reason to be skeptical is fighters, when captured, had every reason to say they were forced to be soldiers by the evil Viet Cong in order to escape all manner of torture and punishments levied on communists. This was noted in Iraq where the myth of a large foreigner presence was perpetrated by Iraqis themselves to escape the wrath of the US army. Interrogators were always asking about foreign fighters and what were Iraqis supposed to say, "No it wasn't the foreigners, it is us who are attacking you"?

For all your anecdotal evidence there is plenty of stories from idealistic Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers. Check out .

Geographer said:

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Where in the south would the VC have enough prisons to hold hostage thousands of family members? Vietnamese had big families so if even a few thousand of their recruits, which would represent a tiny portion of all NVA and VC fighters, were serving as conscripts, they would have to be holding tens of thousands of people hostage somewhere.

Another reason to be skeptical is fighters, when captured, had every reason to say they were forced to be soldiers by the evil Viet Cong in order to escape all manner of torture and punishments levied on communists. This was noted in Iraq where the myth of a large foreigner presence was perpetrated by Iraqis themselves to escape the wrath of the US army. Interrogators were always asking about foreign fighters and what were Iraqis supposed to say, "No it wasn't the foreigners, it is us who are attacking you"?

Click to expand...

Unbelievable...And talk about naivete. Hostage here does not mean imprisoned but being under threats. The young boy either go with the 'recruiter' or have his family or family members be hurt or even killed at a later time or even the entire family killed at that moment. The communists have little to lose. Kill a few families off this way and there will be plenty of conscripts in the future. Like how businesses can be held 'hostage' by organized crime with 'protection' money.

Geographer said:

For all your anecdotal evidence there is plenty of stories from idealistic Viet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers. Check out

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Let me know if you want an excerpt. Bui Tin was the man who accepted South Vietnam's surrender and was the NVA's chief propagandist, aka 'official liar', and he made no evasion about what he and the communists were.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

gambit said:

A little known fact is that the NVA and the VC often hold hostage the families of young boys, not young men, to compel them into the ranks. It happened in the North as well as in the South. In South Viet Nam, the outer provinces suffered the most this type of brutality by the VC. My father was an agricultural engineer, the sort agragrian and developing countries needed the most, who often traveled to these outer provinces and have no shortages of stories of families forcibly broken up by the communists. The percentage figures of this type of conscription compared to those who were truly motivated was never fully studied, but anecdotal stories were too much to ignored by the military, civilian professionals and even the clergy.


Ever ask yourself WHY they were on the 'wrong side' of the communists? What constitute this 'wrong side'? The contradiction is obvious, if there was a majority support for the Viet Minh, then why the need to be so brutal in the treatment of the people anyway? The truth is that one does not need to have popular support to achieve political power and sustain it. One just need to be brutal about one's methods. More Viets died, unnaturally, AFTER reunification than from the war. Vietnamese were forcibly relocated from the urban to the collective farms, just like how Russians and Chinese were, and in their ignorance of farming, many died from starvation and diseases.

Sorry...But yours is the typical 'liberal' misinformation about the Vietnam War.

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about none so blind...

Conscripts who are forced into combat will desert at the first opportunity. If what you say about the NVA is correct, their morale would've crumbled at the first US aerial bombing, instead of holding out for 10 years while sustaining millions of casualties. There is not a single army in the history of warfare that is capable of losing every battle and still keep fighting, when it is composed of mainly forced conscripts. And you claim to have served in the military?

Secondly, you seem to have missed the part that the majority were the poor and disenfranchised. The communists did not need to be brutal. The brutality came from that majority which have been exploited and brutalized for generations under the elite, be it landowners, wealthy merchants, or government functionaries.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, although you seem intent on doing so, but I will leave it with one question: how come no one ever mentions the brutality and inhumanity of the way those in power treated those beneath them before the rise of Communism? The brutality of the communist revolutions lies not within the communist ideology, but in the resentment fostered for generations by those that communism elevates.

In other words, it's not the communist official who orders the villagers to lynch the landowner. It's the villagers themselves who, seeing the landowner who once raped their daughters and wives and whose thugs beat to death their parents, spouses, or children, who is now powerless and kicked off his estate, decide to exact some mob justice.

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

solarz said:

Wow, talk about none so blind...

Conscripts who are forced into combat will desert at the first opportunity. If what you say about the NVA is correct, their morale would've crumbled at the first US aerial bombing, instead of holding out for 10 years while sustaining millions of casualties. There is not a single army in the history of warfare that is capable of losing every battle and still keep fighting, when it is composed of mainly forced conscripts. And you claim to have served in the military?

Click to expand...

Yes I do make that claim. The US Army at the time of the Vietnam War was what? Conscription? Draft card burning? Ever heard of "Hell no we won't go"? The ARVN at that time also came from conscription as well as from many who were genuinely patriotic and anti-communist in their patriotism.

solarz said:

Secondly, you seem to have missed the part that the majority were the poor and disenfranchised. The communists did not need to be brutal. The brutality came from that majority which have been exploited and brutalized for generations under the elite, be it landowners, wealthy merchants, or government functionaries.

Click to expand...

Right...And who instituted the land reform program demanded by the Chinese that led to famine in North Vietnam?

solarz said:

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, although you seem intent on doing so, but I will leave it with one question: how come no one ever mentions the brutality and inhumanity of the way those in power treated those beneath them before the rise of Communism? The brutality of the communist revolutions lies not within the communist ideology, but in the resentment fostered for generations by those that communism elevates.

In other words, it's not the communist official who orders the villagers to lynch the landowner. It's the villagers themselves who, seeing the landowner who once raped their daughters and wives and whose thugs beat to death their parents, spouses, or children, who is now powerless and kicked off his estate, decide to exact some mob justice.

Click to expand...

I was in East Berlin when it existed. The difference was night-day compared to West Berlin. What was 'The Wall' for? Do you really the great lie that it was to keep the imperialists out? It is funny and telling that you place no doubt on the claims made by the communists that every landowners or members of the 'elite' were oppressive and -- raped their daughters and wives and whose thugs beat to death their parents, spouses, or children, -- but say nothing about 'the boat people' or the 'reeducation camp' after reunification.

This thread started when gambit disputed the breadth of the communist victory in Vietnam. He wrote:

Overall, the reason why the communists 'won' in Vietnam, and I place conditions on that victory, was because of the differences in political goals between the communist North and the USA/SVN alliance. Political goals dictate military actions and successful military ojbectives increases support for those political goals...

It was in 1975 when the US Congress, under pressure from the psychologically worn out American public, decided to withheld financial support for the South Vietnamese that the US rhetorically 'lost' Vietnam.

Click to expand...

He was basically stating that the US and South Vietnam were doing fine until those liberals he keeps harping about pulled the plug on our involvement in the war. Then after he agreed that the communists had, in fact, managed a complete victory in the war, he disputes that they ever had much popular support.

They resisted torrential bombing campaigns that dropped more ordinance on the Vietnamese than all the bombs dropped in World War II. They fought to a standstill 500,000 troops from a superpower, plus their ARVN, Australian, and Korean allies, fighting a style of war that frustrated the American military from the conscripted private to General Westmoreland and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. There are the objective facts. So how did they manage such a complete victory?

The only explanation gambit has offered up is the Viet Cong and NVA filled its ranks by threatening the families of its fighters, as if the South wasn't as ruthless with its conscripts. Can anyone really take such an explanation seriously? Gambit, you seem to fighting a difference battle here, trying to convince us the communists were bad and those ignorant peasants should have supported Diem, et al. if they knew what was good for them. Historians have to divorce themselves from those kind of judgments because they're irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. Feel to contribute to the discussion on whether or not the communists in Vietnam from 1955-1975 had a large amount of popular support, and to what degree this had on the communists' victory in the war.

gambit said:

Yes I do make that claim. The US Army at the time of the Vietnam War was what? Conscription? Draft card burning? Ever heard of "Hell no we won't go"? The ARVN at that time also came from conscription as well as from many who were genuinely patriotic and anti-communist in their patriotism.

Click to expand...

You seemed to have missed the part where I said: "Lose every battle".

We get it, you don't like communists. I never denied the brutality of the communist revolution, but you seem to brush off the brutality of the pre-communist society as if it was of no consequence to what happened next. You are clearly prejudiced, and I have no interest in arguing with you about this any further.

Now please stop with the political stuff before this thread gets locked.