• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who won the Vietnam War?

Who won the Vietnam War?

  • The French

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The British

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Americans

    Votes: 6 6.1%
  • The Canadians

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Chinese

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • The Russians

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • The Japanese

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Vietnamese

    Votes: 46 46.5%
  • No one

    Votes: 23 23.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 18 18.2%

  • Total voters
    99
I agree. Same reason. Just because the war is fought against an unconventional enemy, Presidential administrations think they have the right to bend the rules a little bit.

Exactly. Call it by a new name, and you can bend the rules. People sometimes see through this strategy, sometimes not.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, and a turd by another name still isn't a rose, but some people will believe that it is.
 
The question is who lost the War, and the answer is The Media starting with Walter Cronkite and of course the Politicians that would not let the Military win it.

Cronkite at the time the most trusted man in America reported the war was lost in 1068 and the political support went to hell after that. Thing was Walter based his report on the Tet Offensive that was surprise attacks all over South Vietnam. Thing is we beat back the Offensive and never lost a major Battle.

There was never anything for us to win. Not territory, not natural resources. It was a civil war to unify the nation. We could have killed them all and we would have still won nothing.
 
I was drafted in 1968. I dropped a 5 semester hour calculus class which resulted in 11 hours total. I received a letter to report 4 days later. USAF ’68 – ’72.

The US screwed up at the end of the Pacific war with Japan. Actually a bit before when Ho Chi Minh was essentially asking the US to be an ally of Vietnam under his leadership. However, our state department had no effective experts on SE Asia and did not understand how a relationship with a communist could be beneficial. Instead we essentially supported the French who had subjugated the Vietnamese since the 1800’s. From WIKI: On 2 September 1945, Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Viet Minh, declared the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam before a crowd of 500,000 in Hanoi. In an overture to the Americans, he began his speech by paraphrasing the United States Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal. The Creator has given us certain inviolable Rights: the right to Life, the right to be Free, and the right to achieve Happiness, …

We could have freed the Vietnamese from the French, Japanese, oppressors and civil war in the 40’s and history would be very different. It is interesting how your POV can change if you look at what led up to the bit of history you are interested in. Compared to what we could have won for very little investment of lives and money in the 40’s we lost big starting in the 60’s. And we still don’t treat our vets well.

btw How many MIAs total were there during the US involvement in Vietnam?
 
Hardly. They had their fair share of support, no doubt, but did they really have a choice? Communism talks a good game, plus the Communist Party was an organizing principle that the south lacked sufficiently in opposition, but when it was over in '75, communists reverted to their true colors and purged ideological dissent. That is the only way a "communist" movement can survive post conflict: it becomes a autocracy. The people of Vietnam suffered decades of maltreatment.

Sorry for being so late in quoting you, but during exactly what decades were the people of Vietnam suffering maltreatment? Which decades were the worst? Note, the French were international experts.
 
Tell that to all of the poor people who decided to flee on boats...

It wasn’t the “poor” people that decided to flee on boats. The people that fled on boats generally had high class, high paying jobs in or closely related to the corrupt government of the South. I’m not saying that they were bad people, and most were in trouble for being on the losing side so they had reason to flee.
 
March your not even on the same page as me. Bombing Hanoi the enemy base stopped the vietnam war in 3 days

December 26, 1972 - North Vietnam agrees to resume peace negotiations within five days of the end of bombing.

The History Place - Vietnam War 1969-1975
I assume that you think peace negotiations would result in the NV stopping the war. It would not. You don’t understand Vietnamese culture and how they negotiate. If you did you would not write such a silly post.
 
The question is who lost the War, and the answer is The Media starting with Walter Cronkite and of course the Politicians that would not let the Military win it.

Cronkite at the time the most trusted man in America reported the war was lost in 1068 and the political support went to hell after that. Thing was Walter based his report on the Tet Offensive that was surprise attacks all over South Vietnam. Thing is we beat back the Offensive and never lost a major Battle.

No more interesting history, then revisionist history. Of course, history is all about shoulda, coulda, woulda... but didn't.

You have a major limitation waging war from a democracy.... if the objectives aren't clear and progress discernible the patience of the electorate wanes... as it should.
 
Last edited:
btw How many MIAs total were there during the US involvement in Vietnam?

I'm not sure ,but if you added them up along with the US soldiers who suffered (and still suffer in many instances) from PTSD, from the effects of Agent Orange, from drug addiction, from a whole host of disabilities that are common to the soldiers who went to Vietnam, it wouldn't even come close to the impact on the Vietnamese civilians. It was a war that never should have been. The Vietnamese should have had their independence when they won it from the French.
 
March your not even on the same page as me. Bombing Hanoi the enemy base stopped the vietnam war in 3 days

December 26, 1972 - North Vietnam agrees to resume peace negotiations within five days of the end of bombing.

The History Place - Vietnam War 1969-1975

January 20, 1969 - Richard M. Nixon is inaugurated as the 37th U.S. President and declares "...the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. This honor now beckons America..." He is the fifth President coping with Vietnam and had successfully campaigned on a pledge of "peace with honor."

January 22, 1969 - Operation Dewey Canyon, the last major operation by U.S. Marines begins in the Da Krong valley.

January 25, 1969 - Paris peace talks open with the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong all in attendance.

February 23, 1969 - Viet Cong attack 110 targets throughout South Vietnam including Saigon.

February 25, 1969 - 36 U.S. Marines are killed by NVA who raid their base camp near the Demilitarized Zone.

March 4, 1969 - President Nixon threatens to resume bombing North Vietnam in retaliation for Viet Cong offenses in the South.

March 15, 1969 - U.S. troops go on the offensive inside the Demilitarized Zone for the first time since 1968.

We can see how peace talks didn't stop the war.
 
I'm not sure ,but if you added them up along with the US soldiers who suffered (and still suffer in many instances) from PTSD, from the effects of Agent Orange, from drug addiction, from a whole host of disabilities that are common to the soldiers who went to Vietnam, it wouldn't even come close to the impact on the Vietnamese civilians. It was a war that never should have been. The Vietnamese should have had their independence when they won it from the French.
No, they should have had it when the Japanese left instead of the US allowing the French to return.

And, no, you are way off on your estimation of casualties, way too low. Just think MIA’s. Make no assumptions. If you are within +/- 50% you are good.
 
The Vietnamese beat the French first and then the Americans and our allies.
 
It wasn’t the “poor” people that decided to flee on boats. The people that fled on boats generally had high class, high paying jobs in or closely related to the corrupt government of the South. I’m not saying that they were bad people, and most were in trouble for being on the losing side so they had reason to flee.

You would be surprised how many poor people fled as well. One of my best friends in college was a small child when his family fled Saigon. They were certainly not wealthy when they fled.
 
You would be surprised how many poor people fled as well. One of my best friends in college was a small child when his family fled Saigon. They were certainly not wealthy when they fled.
A friend & coworker of mine for over 15 years was a boat person. A friend and coworker of my wife was a boat person. Both families, father etc., were among the ‘poor’ people that escaped retribution. They lost everything. Both fathers were high ranking officers in the SVA. Neither family was poor monetarily, they were the wealthy elite. Virtually no common South Vietnamese people could afford to escape, nor were they motivated to escape. If you can talk to your friend, find out why they left. This may take a while, but I bet you’ll find that they were not the poor peasants of South Vietnam. He also may not know that a family member was in the government, e.g. a prison guard.
 
A friend & coworker of mine for over 15 years was a boat person. A friend and coworker of my wife was a boat person. Both families, father etc., were among the ‘poor’ people that escaped retribution. They lost everything. Both fathers were high ranking officers in the SVA. Neither family was poor monetarily, they were the wealthy elite. Virtually no common South Vietnamese people could afford to escape, nor were they motivated to escape. If you can talk to your friend, find out why they left. This may take a while, but I bet you’ll find that they were not the poor peasants of South Vietnam. He also may not know that a family member was in the government, e.g. a prison guard.

I have a friend that was one of the boat people. Her father worked in the government and they were fairly well off. It wasn't cheap to get a spot on the crowded boats. Her family had the means for her and her sister to get out. It really was quite an ordeal and she didn't think they were going to survive. It's interesting to talk to her about it.
 
LookingGlass is right. Calling Communism "evil" in and of itself is a stretch. Certainly Communist regimes in the USSR and China have been capable of doing some pretty evil things, but that makes their authoritarian governments evil. IRL, Communism itself isn't evil so much as it is a stupid idea that doesn't really work beyond groups of maybe a few dozen people.
No i think it is evil because it denies Liberty.
 
No i think it is evil because it denies Liberty.

1) liberty means different things to different people. Although perhaps misguided, many Vietnamese saw Communism/socialism as a way to free themselves from what they viewed as the oppressive imperialist presence of the French, and later the United States. In their eyes, Communism WAS a chance at freedom. In addition, the vast majority of Communist movements throughout history have been nationalistic in character first and foremost. For the most part they were nationalists first, Communists second.

2) communism doesn't necessarily mean authoritarianism. It depends at what scale, and how, it is being implemented.
 
Last edited:
The Vietnam War should rightly be called a 'battle' as it was a part of the Cold War.

The Americans won the Cold War and, after murdering and enslaving over a hundred million people, the god-damned Communists lost.
 
The Vietnam War should rightly be called a 'battle' as it was a part of the Cold War.

The Americans won the Cold War and, after murdering and enslaving over a hundred million people, the god-damned Communists lost.

Yes, they did. Communism is dead, long may it stay dead.

Authoritarianism is still alive, but has been taking some losses of late, even in the Middle East.
 
1) liberty means different things to different people. Although perhaps misguided, many Vietnamese saw Communism/socialism as a way to free themselves from what they viewed as the oppressive imperialist presence of the French, and later the United States. In their eyes, Communism WAS a chance at freedom. In addition, the vast majority of Communist movements throughout history have been nationalistic in character first and foremost. For the most part they were nationalists first, Communists second.

2) communism doesn't necessarily mean authoritarianism. It depends at what scale, and how, it is being implemented.

well, your right to a certain extent. communism as described by Marx is actually a global movement, any nationalistic communist revolutions should be called socialist. and your dead on about the vietnamese looking at communism as a chance at freedom, because all they had ever known was foreign imperial oppression.
 
well, your right to a certain extent. communism as described by Marx is actually a global movement, any nationalistic communist revolutions should be called socialist. and your dead on about the vietnamese looking at communism as a chance at freedom, because all they had ever known was foreign imperial oppression.

In my recollection the only individual in history who actively tried to promote and implement Communism as an international movement was Che Guevara. The vast majority of other Communist leaders in history were nationalists first and foremost. I disagree that those movements should be called socialist rather than Communist, however. Just because they weren't exactly Marxist in nature doesn't mean that they weren't Communist.
 
well, your right to a certain extent. communism as described by Marx is actually a global movement, any nationalistic communist revolutions should be called socialist. and your dead on about the vietnamese looking at communism as a chance at freedom, because all they had ever known was foreign imperial oppression.

The Vietnamese looked at Communism as a chance at freedom??? Who says? Certainly not any Vietnamese I've ever heard!

You think Communism wasn't "imperial oppression"? Or that it worse under the French?

The Boat People certainly didn't see any freedom, not did the millions murdered and imprisoned by the communists.
 
In my recollection the only individual in history who actively tried to promote and implement Communism as an international movement was Che Guevara. The vast majority of other Communist leaders in history were nationalists first and foremost. I disagree that those movements should be called socialist rather than Communist, however. Just because they weren't exactly Marxist in nature doesn't mean that they weren't Communist.

Actually there were thousands, millions, who promoted Communism and many who not only tried to implement it but did.

It was the most imperialist and murderous movement in world history, and one that shames the human race.
 
Back
Top Bottom