what if the US literally did win by conquering hanoi as originally projected by Westmoerland at the said date?would it have been an easy occupation like germany and japan or a never-ending guerilla war like we have in iraq?
share
the whole point of the Vietnam war was to fight off communism. If the Americans/The West/Capitalism had won the Vietnam war then there still would have been plenty more wars, right up until they reached Russia and destroyed communism.
______________________________________
Bombing for peace is like f#@*ing for virginity.
Yeah, "fighting off Communism" was the perspective of the US, but this is exactly the problem and the reason the US blundered into Vietnam in the first place-- to the Vietnamese, they didn't care about some global spread of Communism, they just wanted to be free of imperial occupation by outside powers. After the French were taken out at Dienbenphu, the US wound up becoming the new "imperial enemy." Maybe the US couldn't have known it at the time, but for most countries, there wasn't much interest in a global revolution. Instead, Communism just gave them a philsophical vehicle to militarily rise up and defeat imperial powers. It hit the French in Vietnam of course. But rebels in for example Yemen and forces in Egypt (the Suez crisis) rose up to defeat the British, with Communist/Socialist ideology featuring there. Same with the Bathists in Iraq in the 1950's when they tossed out the British or Portuguese in Angola IIRC, Communism was more a tool to throw off foreign armies than a global threat that would wind up on Western country's door. The spread of Communism was in fact a major factor that killed the British Empire since it sparked insurgencies all over the place, as well as leaders who took up the anti-imperial banner. That's one of the reasons that Britain joined the international forces in the Russian Civil War in the 1920's to defeat the Bolsheviks (unsuccessfully). The UK itself blundered by entering WWI, which they could have sat out-- that's where the Communist genie was released from the bottle-- and so they and other Western countries tried to stop the Red Army from winning in 1921.
That's why Vietnam's still so frustrating for the United States, b/c from the US perspective it was a global war to fight off Communism, but from the perspective of most countries, it was more of a localized fight to defeat and expel occupying countries. That's why the Vietnamese fought so hard and eventually defeated their enemies, for them, they were fighting for their full independence.
The irony is, the US probably could have beaten the North Vietnamese and taken over Hanoi. Some of the declassified docs showed that the 1970's bombing of Hanoi (after the VC as well as much of the NVA had been decimated in 1968 after Tet, which was militarily a disaster for the North Vietnamese) caused tremendous damage and exhaustion in North Vietnam, and the authorities there were maybe days from surrendering, but they pretended otherwise. While the NVA were tough fighters, what brought them victory was more fear of China and the USSR than anything else. That's where the Korean War really hurt the US-- China set an example by entering when McArthur got close to the river separating China from Korea, with the Chinese forces pushing the US, British and other allied forces all the way back down the peninsula (not sure if the US had ever suffered that before, a big shock esp since it came after WWII).
So US commanders and leaders back home naturally worried that China would do the same thing if US made a direct strike into North Vietnam. Plus, the Russian advisers and special ops forces were pouring billions in funds, weapons and expertise to the NVA, so there was also concern about Soviet retaliation in case the US hit so hard. It was Russia and esp. China that tied the USA's hands more than the NVA itself. Ironically now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US doesn't have that kind of great power opponent, but we're still bogged down there in guerrilla war for a different reason-- the Muslim countries have a history of joining up from the ground up, and sending volunteers to each other when one of them is attacked, and you're talking about over a billion people there. In India's north (in Kashmir), a large number of the anti-India jihadi fighters are in fact not Kashmiri Muslims or even Pakistanis, but Turks, Uyghurs (Muslism in west China) and Arabs who often come from Europe. We're also bogged down for a similar reason-- even if you don't have an enemy great power backing up the guerrillas, a guerrilla war can still be dangerous if you lack local support, and a big demographic/cultural force is supporting the rebel fighters from elsewhere. The jihadis in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir basically have unlimited reinforcements.
@ prakashsant7
Very well written and informative! I would think this would enlighten many readers on here.
Good job
I drive real *beep* fast so try to keep up!!
Winston Wolfe
the world series couldve been boston vs vietnam
shareIf Americans conquered Hanoi, the Viets would just simply move to the countryside and wage a guerrilla war. With the supplies continue to flow in from USSR and China, it would make Iraq look like a picnic.
millions of Vietnamese will die. USA will loose 150,000 soldiers KIA before pulling out in defeat. Communists will eventually unify Vietnam.
"I'm sorry, I don't speak Monkey..."
American and South Vietnamese forces virtually wiped out the Viet Cong after the communists' failed 1968 Tet Offensive. The communists wouldn't have won if the idiotic liberals in Congress hadn't blocked arms sales to South Vietnam in the 1970s.
shareI have to agree with VNAF, eventually we would've won but Congress and the hippies weren't willing to wait.
shareI have to agree with VNAF, eventually we would've won but Congress and the hippies weren't willing to wait.
Define winning.
Or more accurately, state your criteria for "winning"
[deleted]
If th US conquered the north, they would have pulled out within a year and installed a puppet government backed by the south or ceded the north to the south and unified the country. US casaulties would have been relatively night in the occupation. But the story doesn't end there...
The communist forces would have pulled back to the countryside and waged a guerilla war until they won. Ultimately, the corruption in the southern regime would have been the undoing of the American plan. The South would not be able to control/occupy the north, espeically with an ongoing conflict with the Viet Cong. The communist/northerners would have continued to fight until they got control of the north, and maybe the entire country. They were determined fighters fighting for independence and had little reason to stop until they got what they needed. I think this would have been fairly similar to what occurred in China in the late 1940s, and by and large would have occurred without noticeable support from the USSR.
The Soviet Union meanwhile would have pulled their support from the north (no sense backing a loser that just lost a war) and supported a regime in a neighboring country or two (Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand etc) and the US would have been stuck fighting a gureilla war in another country under similar circumstances. The US would be too over-stretched to provide anything but minimal assistance to the South Vietnamese and would be unable to prevent the northern communists from retaking the country.
I think the world would be pretty similar as it is today. US KIAs would have occurred in a different SE Asian country, and they would be similar in number to those of the Vietnam War (aprox 60,000). And there would have been comparable SE Asian casualties, just in different countries to where the deaths actually occurred.
Due to MADD, the US and USSR could never really fight each other directly without catastrophic nuclear ramifications. And the only way the Soviet Union could succeed would be through expansion and exploitation of developing nations. Thus they would continue to prop up regimes/support incursions and would not stop until the Soviet Union itself began to fall apart. The US would justify their ongoing interventions as good fights to stave off communism, and the iconic dominoe would switch from Vietnam to Thailand or something to that effect.
So you'd have the same story but a different landscape. Just my two cents. We'll never know for sure what would have happened...
We know now that the USSR's nuclear capabilities were vastly overestimated for a long time. For instance, during the Cuban missle crisis, the USSR had only a few true ICBM's and these were of the type that used liquid fuels and had to be launched from above ground and took quite a while to be readied for launch, thus making them very vulnerable. The whole point of installing medium range missiles in Cuba was to make up for the USA's vast superiority in ICBMs, submarine launched ballistic missiles, and of course, long range bombers.
By 1966, the Soviets had narrowed the gap somewhat, but I don't think it was enough to risk general war with the USA. Perhaps a more likely scenario would be something along the lines of what happened in 1950 when the UN forces moved into North Korea and the Red Chinese countered with conventional forces. It seems likely to me that President Johnson's timidity in utilizing American air forces the way President Nixon used them in 1972 was completely unwarranted, however. We could have easily bombed Hanoi, mined Haiphong, and generally eliminated the North's ability to support the insurrection in the South (as well as their ability to support main force NVA forces there) with a relatively short but intense bomber offensive. Had this put an end to the war in Vietnam, the whole question about whether similar wars would have sprung up elsewhere is beyond my ability to predict.
The fact is, if Congress had simply not tied the hands of the President following the end of the American participation in the war, I think that it is quite possible the South would never have fallen. As shown during the Easter Offensive of 1972, South Vietnamese ground forces were capable of holding when supported with overwelming US air power. Had President Ford been able to stage Linebacker type raids in 1975, especially with the new generation of US airplanes like the F-14 and F-15 then coming into general use, I believe we could have kicked hell out of Hanoi and stopped the offensive relatively quickly. It is, in my opinion, to our ever-lasting shame that we allowed Hanoi to attack the South without raising a finger in 1975.
Of course, the whole debate over whether we should have ever have entered the war in the first place remains...debatable. As we see in Iraq today, it is impossible to set free men free. They must set them selves free. This, I believe, is the great lesson of Iraq and Vietnam. Neither country was filled with countrymen willing to die for the reasons Americans went to war to free themselves in 1776. But in Iraq now as well as Vietnam in the 60's and 70's, once we committed ourselves, we really had no other choice but to see the mission through to a successful conclusion. 58,0000 Americans died in Vietnam basically in vain. And a whole hell of a lot of South Vietnamese died in the process, too. Unfortunately, I don't see simillar commitment on the part of most Iraqis today. One wonders if the Iraqis as a people are worth the American lives and treasure we have spent for their sakes. For the moment, it doesn't appear so.
Good post Ivrepoman. The majority of what you said in your post is why I detest peace activists and hippies. I don't give a $h!t if you support war or not, you MUST support your own countrymen when they are off to fight, right or wrong, and support them to the end, TO VICTORY!
share[deleted]
Yep, and if you won't, you're a baby step away from treason.
"'Peace, love, dope!' NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
Interesting.
I wonder what you would do if you were living in Germany in 1941. Would you support killing millions of innocent people and support you country to VICTORY???
"I'm sorry, I don't speak Monkey..."
Absolutely not. I am a patriot, not a nationalist. Were I a '40s German citizen, I would have been horrified had I known that "lesser" people were being exterminated. I'm just saying people who disparage the troops along with the war should be ashamed of themselves. Interesting that you are using such an absolute argument: if you support the soldiers, you must be supporting the war.
"'Peace, love, dope!' NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
I am a patriot to and I believe in supporting the troops because there lives have been put on the line for there country. But for the troops just make sure that you always know what your fighting for. Not just because someone tells you to.
You in it to when it!share
If we won the war we would have turned the government into a Diet system or something along our lines. We would have become allies and the situation is over.
shareSure i would, since in 41 the slaugther of civilians wasnt started (it started in 42) so the only question you actually ask is "If i was a german living in germany (a country that had been humiliated by Poland, France, USA, Italy and England in the last war) would i support my country in Victory".. and to that my answer is: why yes of course..
shareThe slaughter of civilians, started in the very first minute of the war in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84), or actually even before it started (in Germany, including gassing people in the Aktion T-4).
Poland? In WWI one part of Poland was German, the other Austro-Hungarian, and the third Russian (and Russia lost to Germany completely by 1917).
If I don't like the war I'll say whatever I want about it, it's my right as a citizen to criticize our government. Call me a Liberal or a hippie all you want. I embrace it, I'll call you a flag waving moron if that will cheer you up ? Vietnam was an unwinnable war, same in Iraq. You cannot defeat a people who refuse to quit. You *beep* can never seem to grasp that
The war in Iraq is being won.
Vietnam was not won because mor%ns like you did not let enough time pass. It would have been won by us, eventually.
And just as you claim that criticizing the war is your God-given right, so is my right to call you a mor%n. Or cretin.
If you peace activists would have been active during WWII in 1942, we would have never won it.
The war in Iraq is being won ? someone forgot to tell the Iraqis because they keep on fighting. This is a lost cause, this war, that war, you crawling out of your cave. You don't even understand that people like Hal Moore think that Vietnam and Iraq are unwinnable endeavors and you're too stupid to read that part of the story. Maybe because you are too lazy or stupid
Even if the vietnam conflict was won, what would the cost have been? Thousands more lives millions more dollars?
Incase you haven't noticed, because of the wars the US has been in, the money spent on weapons and technology, they are now becoming a bankrupt country, just like what happend to Russia trying to keep up with the US.
Seriously, 128million for an f-22 raptor? or 24million for an su-34.
"The war in Iraq is being won. "
First piece of ignorance right there.
"If you peace activists would have been active during WWII in 1942, we would have never won it."
Second piece of ignorance right here.
You act like peace is a bad thing that must NOT be tolerated at all costs.
Lol... you trigger happy violence lovin' red-neck you.
signature :
...something deep and overwhelming...
It is being won.
However, the same was told about Afghanistan until few years ago (2005/2006).
Si vis pacem, para bellum
shareDidn't remember when do i heard it, nor where do it heard it from. But these word stuck in my head when i think about Nam
"Unless the American prepare to eat rice for a thousand year, they will never win this war"
Iraq have already proofed that an occupation army is no use for insurgence, Even if we have all the military hardware at our disposal and force the NVA north of Hanoi, the war will not end there
Technically speaking, the reason why Johnson, Nixon don't want to bomb the north is because of the Russian and the Chinese, if we did destroy the whole operation of NVA, decimate their man power and destroy all of their equipment, the American will inturn face the might of Chinese, worst still, the American will face the total might of Chinese in their own backyard.
That is the exact same thing happens in Korea, why are we losing the Winter Offensive to occupied NK (I didn't say we lost the war, but we did, indeed lost the offensive in winter 1952) Chinese are very adaptive and they, like their Russian Brethen, will not back down by the sheer number of their KIA/WIA, if they did the same trick in Nam, then our Fighting man will lose spirit like they do in Korea and when the troop lost spirit, they tend to not getting any support back home.
Put into the fact that, Westmoreland underestimate the small unit tactics which can inflict on a large army conducting Large scale operation. Of course we've killed a lot of them, but in the end, we can only sent about 1 million soldier there, top, North Vietnam Population? 23 Millions. That is before the Volunteer fighter from China and the south Vietcong.
Unless the US were to engage a total war and ready to occupied Vietnam for 100 years (1000 years remark was indeed, very farfetch), we won't win Vietnam, ever.
How can you destroy a belief that stuck deep inside citizenary? By destroying the whole nation, kill every last one of their inhabitant. The is simply NOT DOABLE....
Minor point: The correct acronym would be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) MADD is the modern activist group Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
share[deleted]
Losing the war had everything to do with the liberals and the anti-war movement. YOU need to study up on YOUR history. Bui Tin admits this himself. North Vietnam paid very good attention to world news and the United States. They planned their actions based on the weakening structure in America. Propaganda won that war for the communists. You're the one revising history here.
I fail to understand why people in our current times don't compare Vietnam to Korea. The South Korean government was also corrupt & f'ed up for many years. Look at the country today. A federally-elected presidential republic with a blossoming economy. It has an admirable human rights record. Not perfect, but is any nation? Then compare it to North Korea. The principles were there, and this is what people should argue more often. In time, they formed a "more perfect union". Amongst many other problems, the United States government allowed slaves, and didn't allow women to vote. Over time, things changed. We were backing the lesser of two evils. People refuse to see that. So what would have happened had the U.S. not became involved in Korea? Nobody on the entire peninsula would know anything that the Kim family didn't teach them. You know as well as I do what a horrible thought that is. Was it worth it? It's a matter of personal opinion. I believe so. You may think differently.
Vietnam & Korea were fought over the containment of communism. Yes, you're damn right we tried to instill imperialist democracies in South Vietnam & Korea. But why would you want the latter? After seeing what happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, etc. why WOULDN'T you fight against communism? And then look at what happened in Camobodia & Laos after the war. Again, why wouldn't you fight against this? People act like we launched ourselves in to the middle of the Cold War. The truth is, we were already involved, whether we liked it or not. Idealistically, we would never had to have worried about the Soviet Union, China or the whole damn Cold War. But we don't live in an idealistic world.
The war was won in Vietnam and lost in DC. Precisely.
Romnry/RYAN 2012 - RYAN/CHRISTIE 2020 - CHRISTIE/JINDAL 2028
What do you mean? 150,000 US soldiers weren't KIA during the Viet Nam War.
shareIf we would have rolled over the North around '66, the VC would no longer have had the N.V. government to support them, so while there would have still been some issues with insurgencies, it wouldn't have been as bad as it had been in our timeline.
And the body could would likely have been a good bit lower, so, yes, we should have invaded the North.
LOL
shareWrong question. Instead the question should be "what if the US let communist run rampant throughout every country it wanted to overtake"?
Well, the answer is right there in the question. It would have run rampant overtaking all in it's path until something as strong or stronger stood in it's way. It's always been that way with communism. It always will be.
There are those who say it was a waste of a war but the war already existed before we arrived, and you have no idea of the resulting death that would have occurred in the long run had we waited to let communism spread deeper through Asia and down into the Philippines and the pacific, placing despots as bad or worse than the current leadership in North Korea ... ultimately all wielding nuclear weapons like Korea does.
But no, a line was drawn, and we have those great American boys in Vietnam and Korea to thank. God bless them.
My God you are Ignorant .... What are you - 12 ? ....... "There are those who say it was a waste of a war but the war already existed before we arrived"... Yes it did indeed , a war of liberation from the Colonial French , who , after the Vietnamese themselves got rid of the Japanese during WW2 , unbelievably expected to take over again . Ho Chi Minh repeatedly appealed for help to the AMERICAN president Harry Truman but was ignored . *beep* your stupid , you must be a Yank !
............"It would have run rampant overtaking all in it's path until something as strong or stronger stood in it's way" .......actually there were repeated attempts throughout the 70's to spread Communism in Thailand , even several battles with insurgents smuggled across the Mekong River from Laos - and you know what ? The Thai people did'nt fancy it . Simple . If they did then the warmongering Yanks would have bombed there as well . Communism is an Ideology you incredible Idiot , if the people believe in it there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do about it . I dont myself (more of a Eco Sustainability Socialist type - but there is no way your tiny mind is ready for that) ......sorry to be abit Rude but your Education is so awful you really should'nt be trying to tell anyone about anything . Learn stuff . Ciao .
Well the Vietnam war was lost on the american side the minute news papers started showing pictures of little children burned by Napalm and civilians being executed, a democracy cannot allow that to happen, and hence aid to south was cut, the population in the west started to question the american effort and support for the North started to rise.
And by the way, no Vietnam didnt kick the japanese out of their country, Japan surrendered to the allied and hence the Empire of Vietnam (as it was known) also fell. But it is true that US didnt want to free Vietnam since there was noone to free, they supported Japan and like Siam was a puppet state in the Asian axies.
Incoherent Gibberish .............
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . .
Dont worry i know there was long and diffecult words in there, but it was also to people with intelligence, that actually go beyond propaganda and try to read about history them self and not addressed to you.
shareIncoherent is a long word .
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . .
[deleted]
If the US won, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much as much southeast asians in the US today. It'd be pretty different.
shareI completely support the well being and the safety of US troops... as well as have the most gratitude for the service they perform.
However...
The evil communists overran Saigon right when the US 'advisers' left... and now Vietnam has striving economy, a large middle class, iPods, and internet! So the free world did not collapse with the Communist victory, at least long term.
All in all you're just a nother brick in the wall.
after the Vietnamese themselves got rid of the Japanese during WW2
__________________________________________________________________________
"Rather after the Americans themselves got rid of the Japanese during WW2"
__________________________________________________________________________
Classic Ignorance ! The Japanese in WW2 were defeated by the ALLIES . Let me list them for you - British , Indian , Chinese , Australian , New Zealand , Russian , and Insurgents in every occupied land. The French collaborated with the Japanese forces much like they did with the Germans in Europe , so it was left to the plucky Vietnamese to resist on their own , which they did magnificently. You have to realise that the Americans (when they eventually joined in) only fought the Japanese (very well) in the Pacific , never on the mainland (like the Brits in Burma - for 2 years longer). History is not a Hollywood War Movie mate !
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
Japan in WW2 was defeated by US, and exactly by the atomic bombs, forcing the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. They also did all of the main fighting south of Japan (besides the Dutch losing quickly) and all attacks on Japan (bombing, invasions of the islands). Australians and Kiwis and various local guerrillas were only in the support roles and none on the sea. Japan is not "on mainland".
Anyway. The Vietnam WW2 history was quite complicated and so for example Japan (after invading in 1940) supported "the plucky Vietnamese" against the French (Huynh Phu So rings the bell?), destroyed the French rule altogether themselves (on March 9, 1945, killing many in the campaign lasting to May - including executions) to establish the "independent" Empire of Vietnam, and in the end gave their arms to the Viet Minh when forced to capitulate by the nuclear strikes (some even stayed to train them).
_____________________________
Japan is not "on mainland".
_____________________________
Never said it was , but the bulk of their troops & nearly all the fighting since 1937 certainly was ! Like i said - your perception of History & Geography is skewed by Hollywood !
As for your ideas about Vietnam - pure fantasy - let me quote Wikipedia :
World War II (not the Movie)
During World War II, Japan occupied French Indochina. As well as fighting the Vichy French, the Việt Minh started a campaign against the Japanese. Due to their opposition to the Japanese, the Việt Minh received funding from the Americans and the Chinese.
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
Of course in your world Japan was defeated by the Viet Minh.
Yay, Wikipedia. "Let me quote Wikipedia" too:
Axis' Vietnamese friends
Axis' limited presence in Viet Nam inhibited its ability to compete with the French. The major arm of Japanese efforts was the Kampeitai, the Japanese secret police. Ostensibly brought to Viet Nam to seek out agents of the Allies, their real purpose was to support potential pro-Japanese nationalists and protect them from the French.
In 1941 the Japanese possessed no clear view of a future Indochina. Expecting to win the war, they certainly had no intention of permitting the French to remain after a Japanese victory. Nor was a truly independent Viet Nam a part of their postwar planning. Vietnamese Nationalists who had hoped for an early independence under Japanese protection were, like their counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia, bitterly disappointed. The Japanese were content to let France continue the financial burden of administering the colony.
(...)
In 1943 and 1944 the Japanese government itself became alarmed at the extent of Kampeitai support for Vietnamese independence groups. Kampeitai activity was sharply curtailed, leaving the French free to crack down on the pro-Japanese groups. But was already too late. Increasingly anti-French, the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao were now too strong to eliminate by the colonial regime. With their strong' roots in the peasantry, they emerged as the only groups capable of vying with the Communists foil control of postwar Viet Nam.
(...)
Roosevelt insists on Vietnamese independence
(...)
Allies supports Hồ ChĂ Minh
(...)
Allies strikes in Asia
(...)
The final capitulation of the Japanese Empire in August 1945 eliminated the last force between the Viet Minh and independence. Japanese troops still occupied Indochina. But in what was perhaps a final attempt in defeat to keep "Asia for Asians" they surrendered to the Viet Minh, rather than to Allied forces. No doubt a vast quantity of weapons fell into Viet Minh hands as a result of the Japanese method of surrender.
(...)
The Viet Minh had taken control of the country virtually without opposition; a Viet Minh army of only two thousand men
In early March, Japanese forces were redeployed around many of the main French garrison towns, and on March 9, 1945, the Japanese delivered without warning an ultimatum for the disarmament of French troops. Those that refused were immediately attacked and in most cases massacred. In Saigon the two senior Vichy officials, General Emile-René Lemonnier and Resident Auphalle, were executed by decapitation.[1] The French upcountry garrisons fared better, however, and, under the leadership of Major-General Marcel-Jean-Marie Alessandri, a column of 5,700 French troops fought its way through to Nationalist China.[2]
Vietnam was not a colony at this time. The area known as Cochinchina was a colony proper. However, the regions of Annam and Tonkin were French 'protectorates'.
During the Second World war, after the fall of France and establishment of the French State, the French had lost practical control in French Indochina to the Japanese, but Japan stayed in the background while giving the Vichy French administrators nominal control. This changed on 9 March 1945 when Japan officially took over. To gain the support of the Vietnamese people, Imperial Japan declared it would return sovereignty to Vietnam.
(...)
In August, Vietnam went through a period regarded as one of its most eventful phases, amidst the backdrop of rapid change in global politics. On the one hand, the Allies began to put into effect their postwar plans for Vietnam, which included the disarmament of Japanese troops and the division of Vietnam into spheres of influence. The Japanese military and civilian personnel in Vietnam were hamstrung by the unconditional surrender of their government and the possibility of Allied retribution. With respect to the Vietnamese, the Japanese were split psychologically and ideologically. Some Japanese favoured the Vietminh, releasing Communist political prisoners, arming the Vietminh front, and even volunteering their services.
During World War II, Japan occupied French Indochina. As well as fighting the Vichy French, the Việt Minh started a campaign against the Japanese. Due to their opposition to the Japanese, the Việt Minh received funding from the Americans and the Chinese, though the Chinese Nationalists would imprison Hồ ChĂ Minh for more than a year during the fight against the Japanese military dictatorship because Ho was a follower of the communist ideology. When Japan surrendered in August 1945, the Japanese handed over control of some public buildings in Hanoi to the Việt Minh, now led by Hồ ChĂ Minh, after turning in the Vietnamese nationalist leaders of the Việt Minh to the French colonialists. After the nationalist organizations proclaimed the independence of Việt Nam, Hồ proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945.
By 1945, the war was going very badly for Japan. For two years, the Japanese had suffered an unbroken string of defeats, in the South West Pacific, the Marianas campaign, and the Philippines campaign. In July 1944, following the loss of Saipan, General Hideki Tojo was replaced as prime minister by General Kuniaki Koiso, who declared that the Philippines would be the site of the decisive battle.[1] After the fall of the Philippines, Koiso was in turn replaced by Admiral Kantarō Suzuki. The first half of 1945 saw the Allies capture the nearby islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Okinawa was to be a staging area for the Invasion of Japan itself.
The Allied submarine campaign and the mining of Japanese coastal waters had largely destroyed the Japanese merchant fleet. Japan, which has few natural resources, was dependent on raw materials imported from the Asian mainland and the conquered territory in the Dutch East Indies - particularly oil.[2] The destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet, combined with the strategic bombing of Japanese industry, had wrecked Japan's war economy. Production of fuel, steel, rubber and other vital supplies were only a fraction of their pre-war levels.[3] The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had ceased to be an effective fighting force. The only Japanese major warships in fighting order were six aircraft carriers, four cruisers, and one battleship, none of which could be adequately fueled. The navy still had some minor warships, but their use would also be limited by the lack of fuel. They could "sustain a force of twenty operational destroyers and perhaps forty submarines for a few days at sea."[4]]
Can you not cut & paste vast amounts of texts from elsewhere - this is a Movie discussion board for Gods sake ! I cant even be bothered to read all that as i already knew more History/Geography than you by the age of 14 .
Anyway , back to the POINT (which you cant seem to focus on)and in your own words :
"Of course in your world Japan was defeated by the Viet Minh."
Hallelujah ! The Boy is nearly there ! YES - In Vietnam Japan was defeated by the Viet Minh . God how long did that take . Of course everywhere else they were defeated by the ALLIES (including a late showing from the Yanks who resorted to WMD's) but everyone on this board are talking about VIETNAM . Sheesh !
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
Not "from elsewhere", but from your favourite source of information - the Wikipedia.
Of course in real world France in Vietnam was defeared by Japan (in 1940 and in 1945) and after this Japan was defeated by America (in Japan later in 1945) and the local garrison gave their arms to the fellow Asian Viet Minh as a final "*beep you" to the Allies (some of the former Japanese soldiers also joined the VM).
The other Allies:
-Chinese: raped by Japan (literally and lost their city capital to Japan), generally stalemate, killed more of their own(!) soldiers than died fighting Japanese and each other (http://www.gendercide.org/case_conscription.html)
-Dutch: eliminated quickly (Indonesia)
-Australians and NZs: some ground forces in the early US-led campaigns, then Borneo
-British Empire: quickly destroyed everywhere but in Indian subcontinent, protracted war in Burma until the end of the war, provided limited sea support to the American re-conqest of the Pacific
-local guerrillas everywhere: minor nuisances (Viet Minh very minor compared to say, the Filipinos), didn't win on their own anywhere
-USSR: "a late showing" indeed
-USA: destroyed the Japanese Imperial Navy in a long series of the biggest naval battles in modern history; won in New Guinea, Aleutian Islands, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, Gilbert and Marshall Islands, Mariana and Palau Islands; liberated Philippines; directly invaded some of the Japanese home islands (Volcano and Ryukyu Islands); led the naval blockade of Japan; carpet-bombed Japan; atom-bombed Japan; killed most of the Japanese killed in the war and forced them to surrender on the deck of American battleship USS Missouri.
I won't discuss it with you anymore, maybe someone else will.
One more thing, learn some punctuation.
Good - lets (no punctuation) hope you at least learnt something from your desperate research ie : The World is not U.S. Centric & alot goes on you never hear about in the Movies. Nice discussing with you but my original point stands (who did the Japanese surrender to in Vietnam ? - it's in your post) Ciao .
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .
what if the US literally did win by conquering hanoi as originally projected by Westmoerland at the said date?
I think it would also be interesting to ponder the effects the victory would have had on America. President Johnson would have been abe to remove a large portion of our forces stationed there, thus greatly reducing American casualties. With the war essentially over, Johnson wouldn't have spent so much money and would have been able to see his Great Society through. He would have been easily re-elected in 1968 and could have continued his quest to build a greater America. The chaos, increase in crime, and social deterioration that occurred in the late 60s and early 70s probably would not have transpired.
Johnson may have gone down as one of the greatest presidents ever.
Thoughts?
"Freedom is never free"
Yes there also probably have been no riots nor hippies perhaps not even watergate.
shareGermany was not an easy occupation. We dealt with bombings and snipers for 10 years in West Germany after the war ended.
If we had won Vietnam, we would have continued to handle international conflicts in the same way, until we did lose a war. It's like going to the casino, if you win $5000, it's only a matter of time before you go back and lose it again.
"Not all who drink are poets...some of us drink because we're not poets"
No Operation Bolo.
shareGermany was not an easy occupation. We dealt with bombings and snipers for 10 years in West Germany after the war ended.
In fact it was. There were no verifiable acts of armed resistance in Germany after VE Day until left-wing terrorist groups began operations in the late 1960's.
This is an interesting question and one that can't be answered except by offering an observation: You question assumes the typical western idea of winning. Capture the capital and territory and win the war. This is how wars had been fought in Europe for centuries. Vietnam was a war for territory and even if the US had leveled Hanoi and Haiphong, government would have done what they did during the Japanese and French occupation of Indochina and that's move into the countryside. Ho Chi Mien fought the Japanese as an OSS front after the 1941 conquest. The US assured Ho that it would support Vietnamese independence if they helped defeat Japan. After the war, Truman and later Eisenhower thought it more important to support French interests and reneged on the promised support and so Ho continued his fight against the French until 1955 when the Paris Treaty divided the country. The government of the south n ever had the support of the majority of the South Vietnamese people but it was supported by the urban intelligentsia. Southern peasants felt greater kinship with the north. This isn't a matter of opinion but fact. Many prefer revisionist history assuming that if we only would have stayed the course we would have 'won.' But without the full support of the South Vietnam peasantry, there was no winning and had we take the northern Capital all that would have done was expose us to more intensive irregular warfare. In such a war, it is necessary to ask what would winning look like. In Vietnam, we would have had to kill all Communist leaders and stamp out all communist ideas. This alone would have proven impossible short of mas slaughtering because socialist ideas in a dirt poor nation had already taken hold. Why mass slaughter? Where were the defeated insurgents supposed to go? They were home, they were fighting in their homeland. They had no place to go and they could have surrendered or opted to fight regardless of the cost. The American military could have taken Hanoi. No doubt about it. But what would have been the point? After Tet in 1968, the North's presence in the south was badly weakened but they hadn't given up. What they had done was demonstrate a clear will to die by the thousands if necessary. The top echelons of US leadership were forced after Tet to accept this fact. In a war of attrition we were going to lose because not because we placed a greater value on the lives of our people but because the north had nothing to lose by continuing to fight forever. By 1970, they had been fighting continuously for 30 years. Ho Chi Mien was fully prepared to continue fighting for another 30 and another 30 after that. Why? When one fights for a cause and for their country, death not only becomes acceptable it often becomes necessary. During our revolutionary war, the reason we defeated the best trained and equipped army in the world was largely due to our willing to die for acause and for our land and families. I fail to see why it is so difficult to compare the Vietnamese to American revolutionaries and Americans to the British. I realzie it is not an analogy many are willing to accept but it seems clear enough tp me.
share[deleted]
yeah and the number of innicent civilians died.. did you consider that?
american pigs
Good heavens! "innocent civvies" died during the war? I'm shocked I tell you--shocked!
So...when the The Sudanese, Rwandans & the Yugoslavs were ethnically cleansing each other, what was your stand?
Did you want 'somebody' to 'do something'???? Or did you have reservations that 'doing something' MIGHT cause some civilian casualties so you wanted to 'sit it out'?
Please enlighten....
NM
America installs a puppet right wing dictator like in Chile and Guatemala and the people suffer for another 30 years?
Of course nearly forty years after teh war ended, the Communist government of Vietnam is still a major human riights violator - though a bit less so than in 1975 now that they've murdered or driven out neaarly all the elements that might oppose them.
And that other poster would do well to remember that Chile ended up having one of the best integrated economies & best infrastructures in all of Latin America; Pinochet did his 'Park Chung Hee' bit, took the flack & left the country better when he stepped down to 'face the music';
shareThe US assured Ho that it would support Vietnamese independence if they helped defeat Japan. After the war, Truman and later Eisenhower thought it more important to support French interests and reneged on the promised support and so Ho continued his fight against the French until 1955 when the Paris Treaty divided the country.
Why did Truman and Eisenhower renege on the promise to back Ho Chi Minh
Because Ho Chi Minh was a Communist. At that, Truman didn’t giver the French much aid until the late 1940's. Originally, they would not permit the French to use US supplied weapons to re-establish their empire.
Much the same happened in 1954. Eisenhower knew that there would be no free election in the Communist occupied zone and if the Reds one this election, there would not be another free election in the foreseeable future - kinda like the way things are now. The US could live with a dictatorship instead of a democracy if that's what the Vietnamese ended up with (as it does today). They couldn't countenance the spread of Soviet influence and a pro-Soviet regime in a strategically sensitive area.
Ask the French. In short: guerilla war.
share