Thoughts On The Vietnam War
When travelling through communist Vietnam, I am continually surprised to discover just how many of my fellow travellers manage to miss the fact that the North conquered the South, preferring the "no wonder they went communist with the bastard Americans stomping on the oppressed masses of Indochina" take on history. I feel pretty confident in saying that most Southerners in 1975 didn't want to labour under the yoke of Northern communism, despite the unpleasantness and gross incompetence of the regime in Saigon - which I believe was the primary factor contributing to the South's defeat, as opposed to the widely-peddled myth of Northern military invincibility.
The North's path to victory was simple - they simply had to expend their resources carefully and dig in for a long war of attrition. In military terms, I don't believe overall Northern strategy and tactical prowess was anything more than mostly competent throughout the conflict. In fact, the two great conventional battles instigated by the North both ended in failure for the Communists. Firstly, consider the Tet Offensive. In this comprehensive rout, the Viet Cong force (the Communist guerillas based in the South) was virtually wiped out. Still, it's a battle that's spun as a great military victory in Vietnam (and throughout much of Western history) today. Needless to say, I haven't met a single Viet who's able to provide an adequate reason as to why, if Tet was such an overwhelming military success, it took a further seven years to conquer the South.
The Easter Offensive conducted by the North in 1972 also ended with Northern strategic objectives stymied - thanks to overwhelming American aerial bombardment of the North, rather than anything the hapless South could manage. It should also be noted that the eventual fall of Saigon in 1975 was a relatively benign affair as far as national coups de grâce go -the North made some pretty minor prods at a few Southern positions in early 1975, which capitulated with surprising haste. Within a few months the rotten edifice in the South had collapsed and was simply ploughed into the ground by the North.
To win the war, the North had to be the most committed combatant - not such a tough ask when your native opponents are led with such breathtaking incompetence, and their foreign allies are subject to the fickle whims of the democratic process and a hostile media. That's how the North conquered the South - not via overwhelming military genius and bravery. They simply had more staying power than the Americans and a vastly more disciplined political and military leadership than their counterparts in Saigon.
Okay, rant over.
The North's path to victory was simple - they simply had to expend their resources carefully and dig in for a long war of attrition. In military terms, I don't believe overall Northern strategy and tactical prowess was anything more than mostly competent throughout the conflict. In fact, the two great conventional battles instigated by the North both ended in failure for the Communists. Firstly, consider the Tet Offensive. In this comprehensive rout, the Viet Cong force (the Communist guerillas based in the South) was virtually wiped out. Still, it's a battle that's spun as a great military victory in Vietnam (and throughout much of Western history) today. Needless to say, I haven't met a single Viet who's able to provide an adequate reason as to why, if Tet was such an overwhelming military success, it took a further seven years to conquer the South.
The Easter Offensive conducted by the North in 1972 also ended with Northern strategic objectives stymied - thanks to overwhelming American aerial bombardment of the North, rather than anything the hapless South could manage. It should also be noted that the eventual fall of Saigon in 1975 was a relatively benign affair as far as national coups de grâce go -the North made some pretty minor prods at a few Southern positions in early 1975, which capitulated with surprising haste. Within a few months the rotten edifice in the South had collapsed and was simply ploughed into the ground by the North.
To win the war, the North had to be the most committed combatant - not such a tough ask when your native opponents are led with such breathtaking incompetence, and their foreign allies are subject to the fickle whims of the democratic process and a hostile media. That's how the North conquered the South - not via overwhelming military genius and bravery. They simply had more staying power than the Americans and a vastly more disciplined political and military leadership than their counterparts in Saigon.
Okay, rant over.
posted by James Waterton at 11:57 pm
5 Comments:
Amen.
It's astounding the number of imbeciles who still quote the Tet Offensive as an example of the military might of the Communists
I was always under the impression that the Tet offensive was supposed to be a "shock and awe" campaign. More for morale than miltary reasons.
Oi, Oi, Oi - time to let us know how things are going James, like whether you're still wearing the ice cream t-shirt, whether the pretty young lass has escaped yet, and whether you're eating enough greens.
I was always under the impression that the Tet offensive was supposed to be a "shock and awe" campaign. More for morale than miltary reasons.
Nope, it was meant to overwhelm the USA/SV forces and prompt a mass uprising of the proles.
Militarily, it was a catastrophic failure. The North did what the yanks and SVs hoped they'd do: come and fight a conventional battle 'in the open'.
The counterattack by USA & SV forces was so devastating that it effectively destroyed the VietCong as an operational force from that day onwards.
This is idiotic. Vietnam was ONE COUNTRY until US machinations in the 1950s divided it and attempted to make the division permanent. The Confederacy had more reality as a nation.Nice fairy tale you spin but WRONG. Vietnam kicked the US' ass and deservedly so.
Post a Comment
<< Home