He Was 19 (Vietnam War Discussion Thread)

[Prussia-Steinbach]

My uncle has PTSD from Vietnam. It took him a long time to admit it and get help with it, and I was kind of relieved when I found out he was in a support group.

I think the war was wrong, but vets still deserve some sympathy and support if they're traumatized from it.

Agreed. My great-uncle got drafted and came back with a terrible alcohol problem and a Purple Heart. Never talked about the war once. Died a couple years ago.

[The Orson Empire]

My uncle has PTSD from Vietnam. It took him a long time to admit it and get help with it, and I was kind of relieved when I found out he was in a support group.

I think the war was wrong, but vets still deserve some sympathy and support if they're traumatized from it.

Agreed. My great-uncle got drafted and came back with a terrible alcohol problem and a Purple Heart. Never talked about the war once. Died a couple years ago.

I also had a great-uncle that served in Vietnam as a U.S. Army Ranger. I believe that he was actually wounded in combat, but survived. I haven't talked to him about his service, though.

[Oil exporting People]

The failure of the Tet Offensive does not equate to America "winning".

The invasion of Normandy did not by itself win the Second World War, but it was a major part that led to the ultimate victory. Tet broke the VC and the follow up COIN strategy was effectively wiping them out. If we hadn't lost the political will to do another Linebacker on the NVA in '75, South Vietnam would've made it for instance.

[The Black Forrest]

The Americans could have won.

But they were defeated by protestors (their own). Thank goodness they weren't around in World War II.

Not unless we were going to invade the North.

[The Black Forrest]

My uncle has PTSD from Vietnam. It took him a long time to admit it and get help with it, and I was kind of relieved when I found out he was in a support group.

I think the war was wrong, but vets still deserve some sympathy and support if they're traumatized from it.

Agreed. My great-uncle got drafted and came back with a terrible alcohol problem and a Purple Heart. Never talked about the war once. Died a couple years ago.

That's a pity; talking would have helped. But he would need to do that with some fellow vets.

My buddy did two tours with the Rangers. He still has issues. Talks about it from time to time.....

[Glorious KASSRD]

Absolutely hate the Vietnam War. Terrible conflict that killed millions who shouldn't have done, and in the end North Vietnam won anyways.

[Hollorous]

They didn't put a spin on it so much as it was the first time were the public had mass access to footage of what was happening.

Considering you had people like Walter Cronkite saying on the air the war was lost despite the fact the US has just destroyed the VC in the Tet Offensive....

The North were at the peace table since '68 at least. When the Paris Peace Accords were signed, the North pretty much got everything they wanted, except for the removal of Thieu. Hard to say that Linebacker II showed anything, except you could bomb the shit out of a peasant country and call it a win, even when you achieve none of your political objectives.

Linebacker basically destroyed the North's ability to fight, as it took out resupply and such. There's a lot of primary source information regarding this I used to have saved up, with the higher ups of the North Vietnamese stating the bombings forced them to agree to the Paris Peace agreement.

That's contrary to what I've read.

Linebacker destroyed a lot of things (to clarify, Linebacker I rolled back the PAVN advance in 1972 and Linebacker II was the infamous Christmas Bombings. These get conflated sometimes), but there's no indication that it destroyed the North's ability to fight. Supplies still flowed freely through the Ho Chi Minh Trail and, at the time of signing of the Paris Agreement, the Northern army still occupied territory it had won in the Easter Offensive. Also, the North Vietnamese, at least officially, took great pains to impress that the bombing wasn't what returned them to the Paris Peace talks. Regardless, it's almost irrelevant, given that the terms were very, very favorable to them. To paraphrase a US statesmen of the time (whose name I can't recall), the USA bombed the North into accepting their concessions. In that sense, the idea that getting the North to the table was a victory in itself is something of a huge joke.

The USA didn't almost win the Vietnam War. Ever. History would have to be markedly different for that outcome to come to pass. Sure, they had the North on the ropes quite a few times (the aftermath of Tet, for instance, was a pretty dark time for them), but none of that ever come together into a meaningful victory. For comparisons sake, the Soviets and the French both arguably did better in Afghanistan and Algeria respectively. And they both still lost. In all instances, a purely military solution missed the point.

[The New Sea Territory]

The failure of the Tet Offensive does not equate to America "winning".

The invasion of Normandy did not by itself win the Second World War, but it was a major part that led to the ultimate victory.

Tet broke the VC and the follow up COIN strategy was effectively wiping them out. If we hadn't lost the political will to do another Linebacker on the NVA in '75, South Vietnam would've made it for instance.

The VC being broken and a counter-offensive against the NVA, again, does not equal "winning".

[The New Sea Territory]

Anyone who says America could have won in Vietnam first needs to define what "winning" actually means.

[Imperial City-States]

Anyone who says America could have won in Vietnam first needs to define what "winning" actually means.

My Grandfather, a Vietnam veteran who served with the 101^st Airborne summed it up to me when i was younger in a rather effective manner.

"Militarily we kicked the ever living dog shit out of them. It wasn't the Military that lost. It was the People at home that lost."

I would say that Militarily the United States won. However Politically we lost. Hard.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Sino-Vietnam war, Vietnamese civil war, Vietnamese revolution, Vietnam's war against the Khmer Rouge, Vietnamese resistance to Japanese occupation, or are we limiting our discussion to the extent American involvement in all of the above conflicts?

Anti-piracy the old fashioned way:


Yes, those little specks on the deck are marines hopping onto the cargo-ship to engage in what they were expecting to be close-quarters battle.
-They lost three (loaded) CH-53s that day.
Knife 31; 13 dead
Knife 21; 1 dead (pilot)
Knife 23; Tail rotor blown off by RPG, successfully crash-landed on beach and disembarked its passengers.

Anyone who says America could have won in Vietnam first needs to define what "winning" actually means.

By ill-defining it, America was doomed to failure.
Anyone who gave a definition, usually could make a decent argument that they had indeed won. They just opted-out from the rematch.

[The New Sea Territory]

Anyone who says America could have won in Vietnam first needs to define what "winning" actually means.

My Grandfather, a Vietnam veteran who served with the 101^st Airborne summed it up to me when i was younger in a rather effective manner.

"Militarily we kicked the ever living dog shit out of them. It wasn't the Military that lost. It was the People at home that lost."

I would say that Militarily the United States won. However Politically we lost. Hard.

This still doesn't define the military victory. What is "victory"? What is "winning"? What would the US have to do to succeed in Vietnam? What is "success"?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

My Grandfather, a Vietnam veteran who served with the 101^st Airborne summed it up to me when i was younger in a rather effective manner.

"Militarily we kicked the ever living dog shit out of them. It wasn't the Military that lost. It was the People at home that lost."

I would say that Militarily the United States won. However Politically we lost. Hard.

This still doesn't define the military victory. What is "victory"? What is "winning"? What would the US have to do to succeed in Vietnam? What is "success"?

Maintaining the democratic system of the Republic of (south) Vietnam during their time there, outfitting and training ARVN forces, maintaining borders (Cambodia sought several islands for opium-farming).

After the troops left, it was pretty much a fingers-crossed moment hoping they could take care of themselves long enough either for the situation to escalate until American re-intervention was politically desired by the UN *cough* ISIS, or the NVA decided that such losses were not worthwhile.
-Such did not happen, however the ensuing Chinese invasion soured Vietnam's fascination with a totalitarian communist system and thawed US-relations somewhat.

The messy end is largely why (and also because of) America's love in the idea of 'unconditional' surrender.

[The New Sea Territory]

Maintaining the democratic system of the Republic of (south) Vietnam during their time there, outfitting and training ARVN forces, maintaining borders (Cambodia sought several islands for opium-farming).

If victory was maintaining the South's independence, then sure, that would have been possible.

However...the Republic of Vietnam, during the American involvement in the Vietnamese conflict, was not, under any sense of the word, democratic.

[The Carolines]

Imagine if the Vietnam War never happened. That means we would have had a significantly more subdued counterculture. The damage of the 60s would have been significantly more controlled.

Hell, Kennedy may not even have been shot and we could avoid having to suffer under Johnson and Nixon. It's like the 50s never ended.

[Insaeldor]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

Honestly, the last war like that was in 1812.

[Insaeldor]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

Honestly, the last war like that was in 1812.

I'd argue WWII of the Pacific front.

[The Carolines]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

World War I had little to do with American sovereignty as well.

[The Carolines]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

Honestly, the last war like that was in 1812.

What about the Civil War? Most destructive conflict on our soil, and technically, the war was over the sovereignty the United States had over the seceding states.

[Novus America]

It was a pointless war based on Cold War politics of containment and shit like that. I would have burned my draft card and moved to Canada too I'm dying in a of politics. I'll fight for the sake of America soverignty but this has nothing to with national soverignty and everything to do with bullshit politics.

World War I had little to do with American sovereignty as well.

And in retrospect we chose the wrong side.

[Insaeldor]

World War I had little to do with American sovereignty as well.

And in retrospect we chose the wrong side.

And whys that?

[Novus America]

Absolutely hate the Vietnam War. Terrible conflict that killed millions who shouldn't have done, and in the end North Vietnam won anyways.

Did the North really win in the end? Certainly their ideals of the time did not. Modern Vietnam very closely resembles South Vietnam, as a capitalist, corrupt, authoritarian regime with good foreign and trade relations with the US. The North conquered the South, and became the South. The cruel irony of the war is had the South "won" the end result in the long term would only be a different flag. Not actually a substantially different political or economic system. Again it really all depends on how you define winning, but if it really was a battle against Communism, well Communism lost in the end.

That is what is so fascinating about the war, the bizarre irony of it all. It is real, and yet more full of irony and paradox than a fiction deliberately written to exemplify those concepts.

[Novus America]

And in retrospect we chose the wrong side.

And whys that?

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

[Insaeldor]

And whys that?

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

Well I think we've got another history discussion thread

Any ways I'll just leave it at america had no reason to involve itself in Europe war. Plus the aftermath would have been far worse if the U.S. went to the Germans lossing side. Sure the Imperial Getman army was possible the best army of the 20th century but the descent in the ranks, food shortages, and increased influence of anti-war Leftist were all contributubg to Getmans downfall far more harshly then it was in France and England. Seriously though I'm actually glade Wilson negotiated it the way he did i have little reason to believe the Entante would have been nicer to Germany. Let's also not forget the colapse of the Ottamans and Austro-Hungarians was executable even if the Central Powers won and England and France would have carved in all the same. Plus you have the Zimmermen Telegraph basically asking Mexico to Invade the U.S. so the Germans didn't have to deal with America and the unrestricted submarine warfare waged by the Germans kinda pushed our alleginces as well.