Did US Soldiers that Died in Vietnam "Die in Vain?"

Other Wars Vietnam War
#21

You know I was watching “Forrest Gump” the other night, and I think the scene of the ambush in which Forrest’s platoon is wiped out is as powerful a war scene as any in cinema. I kept thinking about this thread. But I have a problem with these sorts of questions that seek to impose an absolutionist, black-and-white explanation for what is a massively complex, and painful, era.

I think one has to look at this question on two levels, the macro and the micro. Taking on the “micro” level first, I should have to say that yes, 58,000+ and several hundred thousand (if not millions) of Vietnamese perished in this conflict that was in many ways mutually destructive and has been described as the “war everybody won, and (paradoxically) everybody lost,” died in vain. They were ultimately undermined by a cynical political establishment in Washington, DC (the Pentagon Papers clearly show that the war was unwinnable in any conventional sense), as we were undermined by a corrupt, unpopular Saigon regime(s) and a series of politicians that had been essentially the ‘collaborators’ with the French with little credibility. However, on the macro level, I think one can draw some silver linings out of the dark clouds of US war dead, along with the billions$ tossed away.

The United States would ultimately win the Cold War, or at least avoid a global nuclear exchange. Did Vietnam ultimately play a role in this? Perhaps. While many conservative US politicians seek to refight the war, and frame it as a national shame in which is almost characterized as a sports contest that we lost, Vietnam showed, the USSR & China, that the US was willing to sacrifice a good deal of its blood and treasure on even fruitless, lost causes. It showed that the US would never abandon more fertile allies such as the ones Europe and south Asia. I think the Soviet perspective, contrary to what many would believe, is that the US also had the genesis of combat hardened army (despite the enormous damage wrought on it by the war) and an experienced officer corp. The US also developed a new age of high tech. weaponry such as laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, and revised, more realistic tactics, which would again serve a a deterrent to potential aggression. So it’s all a mixed bag I suppose. But that being said --the US should have extricated itself far sooner that it did…

#22

i have to say this the developing of weaponry by the such way is irrational;)
In fact the USSR also developed its AAA-systems. In Vietnam were firstly succesfully appicated the Strela-1 - the soviet analog of the Stingers.
So the from the military sence this bloody war ( there were 2 millions of perished Nick , not one;)) was a deadline.You could modernize the wearpon as much as could but the political price were a very hight.
US loses was a great but not war sence- it was a political loses.

#23

Off topic here, chaps, but surely the causes of the collapse of the former Soviet Union are at least as complex as the issues raised over Vietnam. To say that the US won the cold war, is a sweeping over simplification. Perhaps, an example of post-cold war propaganda? :smiley:

#24

If it had, the benefits you see in its engagement would have been reduced in proportion to however early it got out.

Anyway, when should the US (and Korea and Australia) have got out?

The best time to have got out was before any of us got in. 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

With hindsight, the worst time to get out was anywhere before Tet in '68, when it would have left strong VC and NVA forces to attack the SVN forces. As it was, the US, SVN and allied forces mauled the VC and blunted the NVA in and soon after Tet.

After Tet, the reasons for getting out were political rather than military.

Paradoxically, if the US etc had got serious after Tet they might have won. Assuming they rejected militarily suicidal ideas like not crossing the DMZ.

But they couldn’t win, because they were fighting for a bunch of corrupt arseholes, just like supporting Chiang and the Nationalists in China in WWII was doomed to suck the guts out of the external forces in support of people not worth supporting who were playing their own internal games with their own and other peoples’ lives and money.

I still think that the Americans who died in Vietnam died in vain.

This can be argued any number of ways, but here’s a clear and simple argument.

The original and maintained American strategic aim was to maintain the status quo in SVN.

It, and the crooks and thugs who ran SVN, weren’t a status quo worth maintaining.

To put it in different terms, a cop who dies stopping a crook to protect the community hasn’t died in vain.

A cop who dies protecting a crook because his corrupt superiors have deceived him into doing it has died in vain.

The Americans who died in Vietnam were like the latter cop.

#25

Just to clarify that point.

I’m not trying to diminish the individual commitment to duty, the courage, or the sacrifice of the people who died in either case.

It’s just that I think only one of those cases can be regarded as the loss of a life in defence of something good or worthwhile, which qualifies as not dying in vain.

#26

Yes. But sometimes also inevitiable…

In fact the USSR also developed its AAA-systems. In Vietnam were firstly succesfully appicated the Strela-1 -…

True, there is little question that the USSR benefited from analysis to tactics and weapons systems on both sides…

However, the USAF finally discovered that making high-speed nuclear delivery aircraft that lacked maneuverability and versatility was a serious mistake (AKA The F-105 “Thud” Thunderchief). The F-15, F-16, F-14, & F-18 are all direct results of the realization of this sort of inflexibility and simplicity…

And in a real war, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces would not have benefit of a worldwide air-traffic control net that would inform them of inbound B-52 flights…:wink:

#27

You know, there is a theory (which plays into Garrison’s JFK Assassination conspiracy theory) that John F. Kennedy was considering withdrawing any significant US support for the Saigon regime after “Pres.” Ngo Diem was assassinated in the first of many coups. And that Johnson intensified the conflict only in order to push through his “Great Society” liberal reforms. This was so he couldn’t be labeled a “pinko” or soft on communism effectively removing any real domestic political opposition which had been otherwise discredited as latently racist…

When should we have gotten out? I’d say about 1944-45, when we enabled a (reluctant) French command to reenter Indochina. Because you know, Ho Chi Minh worked for the OSS (CIA forerunner) and was first and foremost a nationalist…

Or Eisenhower could have just allowed free elections in 1958…

It is not hindsight, it was lack of foresight…

#28

I agree. But didn’t the Soviet system really begin to feel its endemic failures by the mid-sixties?

And aggression was not an option in solving these problems…

#29

Kennedy is usually presented as not understanding that he’d approved the assassination.

We’ll never know.

We’ll also never know how the Diem Catholic suppression of the Buddhists and the Catholic Kennedy’s thoughts combined before JFK decided to cut them loose.

When should we have gotten out? I’d say about 1944-45, when we enabled a (reluctant) French command to reenter Indochina. Because you know, Ho Chi Minh worked for the OSS (CIA forerunner) and was first and foremost a nationalist…

Or the other Allies should have just treated the defeated Vichy French (as distinct from elements of the French people) from 1940 as the selfish frogs they were, trying to hang on to their navy and colonies while keeping a foot in both the Allied and Axis camps in the hope of coming out of the war intact.

The French surrender of Indo China to Japan was critical to the Japanese invasion of Malaya and, in turn, to the Japanese conquests of the Philippines etc.

I think the French have the distinction of being the only Allied nation to collaborate with the enemy; regain a colony they’d surrendered to the enemy; and then promptly lose it to the indigenous people who went on to defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

#30

I didn’t read all the respones here, so hope I’m not repeating something that was mentioned.

I think they did not die in vain because you have to look at Vietnam today and see that it’s a very successful and prosperous country. The Vietnam war spurred globalization to that region and at the end of the day you have people more interested in their economy and business, not civil wars and war lords.

Maybe Iraq will be the same some day and the current war is just a catalyst.

#31

That may be true, but it’s not what America was fighting for and not what its men died for.

If anything, it’s what the NVA and VC died for, not that that was what they were fighting and dying for in an earlier era of rigid communist theory and practice.

As usual, lots of little men die in droves so a few big men can profit. On both sides.

#32

I would also like to that the communists never really stamped out American culture, nor the distinct South Vietnamese way of life…

Ho Chi Minh City? Who were they kidding?

#33

I think the overall perception was that Kennedy and Diem had some personal ties that belied politics and genuinely liked each other. I think what Kennedy hated his Imperious “court” of advisers such as the “Dragon Lady,” Madame Nhu…

He wanted Diem out, alive. But the cold blooded, needless, murder only perhaps reinforced his notions that Diem wasn’t the real problem in Saigon and that the whole system was rotten.

We’ll never know for sure if this is just a romantic JFK-apologists take --since he was murdered not long after…

And make no mistake, JFK’s Catholicism was purely symbolic. He was as horrified as anybody at the anti-Buddhist pogrom.

Or the other Allies should have just treated the defeated Vichy French (as distinct from elements of the French people) from 1940 as the selfish frogs they were, trying to hang on to their navy and colonies while keeping a foot in both the Allied and Axis camps in the hope of coming out of the war intact.

The French surrender of Indo China to Japan was critical to the Japanese invasion of Malaya and, in turn, to the Japanese conquests of the Philippines etc.

I think the French have the distinction of being the only Allied nation to collaborate with the enemy; regain a colony they’d surrendered to the enemy; and then promptly lose it to the indigenous people who went on to defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

The Vichy French actually attempted to resist Japanese demands, but they didn’t have much choice…

I’m not going to solely blame the French for this. Even the French commander that ‘retook’ Vietnam in 1946, Gen. LeClerc, expressed serious reservations about reestablishing a colonial outpost, and his mandate also had the intent of negotiating with the Viet Minh after securing Vietnam rather than just reimposing French colonialism.

What happened after was a comedy of errors that the Viet Minh are not absolved from, and one that led to 30-years of bloodshed.

In any case, it was Washington, DC and London that allowed the French to attempt to feebly recapture the pre-War greater glory of France…

#34

Tell me more, Nick.

#35

Ho Chi Minh had the same thoughts regarding warlords and mandarins.

What the war did promote in the south, was corruption on a huge scale - and about ten varients of syphlus.

As for justifying Iraq, that’s absurd. If Iraq does emerge from the current quagmire in any form that is considered civilised, I doubt that it will be as a direct result of what we in the West are doing today. More likely it will be in spite of what is happening.

Globalisation, is ruining the natural habitats of most of the countries of South East Asia which have embraced it. It is also doing a pretty good job of destroying the planets ecosystems.

#36

I thought you already knew…

Perhaps. but the US didn’t lose the Cold War, either. Did they? Despite being tied up in major land combat for almost eight years (1965-1973)…

#37

Maybe, maybe not - would be interested in hearing your your opinions.

Perhaps. but the US didn’t lose the Cold War, either. Did they? Despite being tied up in major land combat for almost eight years (1965-1973)…

No, they didn’t lose the cold war, neither did they win it, in the usual sense of the term. More to the point, the Soviet Union lost it.

Egorka once accused me of habit. At first I misundertood his point, then I came to realize that he was speaking of cultural habit. Again, that is something that I rebel against, but I still find myself, at times, of being guilty of it. it’s really about stepping back and taking a broader view.

#38

No Nick , may be it hard believe for you but the most progrees of USSR was in the 1970-yy. In this period the Soviets had a great political world influence.
The crisis come to the surface in beginning of the 1980 when the Soviets were tied with the unpopular war in Afganistan.
I personally think that there were no REAL crisis in USSR. It was simply political and informational provocation.
I think the market reforms that could get out the soviet economic from the hole - could be much effective if the ComParty could saved the power at least till the end of 1990-yy.

#39

True he Vietnam obviously showed the unreability of such aircrafts like F-104 and Mig-21 , and later generation of fighters goes another way.

And in a real war, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces would not have benefit of a worldwide air-traffic control net that would inform them of inbound B-52 flights…:wink:

I’ve read in the mid of 1970 the Soviat Strategic Rocket Forces were rise to the giant sizes- the more then 1000 of strategical rockets.
This is mean the absolut paritet with USA ( who had the air quantity superiority a that time).
So B-52 really would not play any significant role in possible nuclear conflict.

#40

The point is, chaps, the Soviet collapse was due to economic factors induced by over-extended foreign and domestic policy, which was exacerbated by the arms race.