The Vietnam War myth

[JasonC]

Factual points in a sea of endlessly repeated left wing spin...

The American people didn't turn against the war, half the Democratic party did, and the American people turned against the Democratic party the instant that happened. The left got its perfect peacenik candidate in 1972 against their hated nemesis Nixon - and Nixon won in a landslide.

Nixon won 520 electoral votes. McGovern got 17. (The last was for Nixon but the elector - from Virginia - switched his mandated vote to the libertarian candidate). McGovern carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Full stop. Nixon won every other state, included McGovern's home state. He won over 60% of the popular vote, against 37% for McGovern. 18 million more Americans voted for Nixon than voted for McGovern. I guess the antiwar movement just wasn't as unpopular as the left tries to pretend.

In fact Nixon had already Vietnamized the war, as he had promised, brought most US ground forces home, and ended the draft. That was all the American people required or expected, and was more than enough to keep support for his Vietnam policies high. The left hated him, the press hated him, they reviled his successful bombing of the north, they reviled the American soldiers fighting the war, they reviled the country, in fact. But they were impotent and they lost. Until Watergate.

Next on NVA armor. The NVA had not 600 AFVs of all kinds but 600 T-54, T-55, and Type 59 tanks, their Chinese equivalents. These were the heaviest in their arsenal and heavier than anything the Germans could dream of in Poland - improved IS-2s, pretty much. The NVA also had 400 PT-76s, "light" tanks by 1975 standards but as heavy as anything the Germans had in Poland. The NVA also had 400 APCs, most MG armed Chinese K-63s. They had smaller numbers of T-34/85s (mostly used for training), BTR-50s, BTR-60s, and a handful of ZSUs. After the fall of Da Nang during the campaign they also used captured M113s.

The NVA lost 400 AFVs in the *1972* offensive. They were replaced by the Russians in 1973. They *had* 400 AFVs in the final assault on Saigon alone, when most of their armor was still strung out across the country. They had 4 armor brigades (upgraded regiments) of 5 battalions each, 5 other armored regiments, and 29 armor battalions.

If the German armor force of 1939 had faced that of the NVA of 1975 on the battlefield, the Germans would have had their clocks cleaned. No contest, not even close, would not have the slightest prayer. South Vietnam was not lost to internal dissession or unpopularity at home or in the US, it was not lost to guerilla anything. It was conquered from abroad in a conventional military invasion by armored columns down the main highways attacking the major cities in succession, advancing 30 miles a day. 1939 or 1940 style blitzkrieg by a hostile tyranny.

And the men who worked night and day to get that to happen, and pretended it was anything but direct foreign aggression by a hostile tyranny to excuse themselves from doing anything about it (in fact for advancing its occurring as far as they could), will lie until the worms eat them, and the dirt the worms void will go on lying about all of it for another century or so.

But the blood of the abandoned ARVN is not impressed and is not silenced, and the bastards can rot in hell for it.

[Crossroads]

South Vietnam was not lost to internal dissession or unpopularity at home or in the US, it was not lost to guerilla anything. It was conquered from abroad in a conventional military invasion by armored columns down the main highways attacking the major cities in succession, advancing 30 miles a day. 1939 or 1940 style blitzkrieg by a hostile tyranny.

This is interesting as certainly at this part of world AFAIK the stories are indeed about unpopularity in south and guerillas from the north.

Do you have any links to online articles about these battles?

[low_bidder]

"I am a US citizen, and we do not have a Democracy, it is truly a Republic of States. "

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. The Constitution as originally written and ratified would produce a "true Republic of Sovereign states". That dream ended in 1860, when Lincoln used military force to subdue some of those states and deny them Sovereign status.
Remember, the War of Secession started when Lincoln refused to remove Federal troops from Fort Sumner. Under the original constitution the order to remove those troops was legal.
The 3rd Amendment prohibits quarting except in time of war;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amend...nstitution

Lincoln's refusal was unconstitutional and an act of war. At that time, the Federal Government had no Constitutional authority to override State Law prohibiting Federal troops on State Land.
What the USA has today is a Federal Republic, with the Federal Government claiming the authority to cherry pick which rights states have. Witness Arizona.
The Federal Government is attempting to deny Arizona the right to defend it's borders. Not from another State but from a sovereign nation.
I think we have drifted off topic here. Was it intentional?
I have noticed that the 4th world tends to change the topic when they are getting pounded by facts. What does just war THEORY have to do with the end game in Vietnam? Since the communists that McCarthy warned us about forced the USA to abandon Vietnam before the original mission was complete, it is impossible to determine if it was a "Just War" or not. That is because the biggest part of a just war is based on winning that war.
So your attempt to change the topic is sort of like being down 21-0 and having the other team with the ball, first and goal at the 6 yard line. It's to late for moving the goal posts to matter. So you want the ground crew to bring out the nets and change the game to Soccer.
Sorry Charlie, Star Kist only takes fine tuna and that isn't going to float.
If you are correct, then disprove the contention that without the US Congress denying funds to S. Vietnam and shutting off the fuel it needed to run a modern military S, Vietnam would still be here today. Without the action by Congress, there is no reason to believe that the North would have done any better in '75 then they did in '72. It is extremely unlikely that the North would have even tried their Conventional invasion without the US Congress making a preemptive strike on the South's logistic train.

---

Quartering. I suppose I should use the preview button.

[JasonC]

To Capt K Kat - all that is necessary is to pay attention to ARVN sources. The left-media coverage pretends that time stops with the Paris accords, because if there isn't a white American involved it didn't happen.

Here are some sources and links -

http://www.amazon.com/Steel-Blood-South-...1591149193

(ARVN's armor force)

http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/b...heast-asia

(book review of the previous by a US Marine officer)

http://www.vnafmamn.com/ARVN_68-75.html

(web site on ARVN in the war post Tet, how Vietnamization went, etc)(

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/tet-with-...e-1972.htm

Wargamer level coverage of the Easter Offensive in 1972

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...igentsiane

The Easter Offensive from the perspective of remaining US advisors embedded with ARVN

http://bcdlldb.com/phuoclong/81st_airbor...oclong.htm

ARVN ranger's eyewitness account of the battle of Phuoc Long, the NVA's "testing" attack at the start of the final campaign, to gauge US response etc. Note especially the accounts of trying to take out T-54s with LAAW rockets, until those ran out entirely.

http://www.vnafmamn.com/xuanloc_battle.html

Account of the battle of Xuan Loc, ARVN's major fight on the Cambodia to Saigon axis in 1975.

http://www.riciok.com/Cease_Fire/final_o..._north.htm

Website history from an ARVN officer of the unfolding of the NVA offensive in the north part of the country, (old US "I Corps", from DMZ to Hue, down to Da Nang etc)

http://www.riciok.com/Cease_Fire/last_ac..._south.htm

Same officer's account of the Cambodia to Saigon axis finale, and attempts to secure US support during the fighting.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Great-Spring-V...0853454094

NVA general's propaganistic account of the fighting from the North's perspective; still sufficient to make clear the massive conventional forces engaged and the unfolding operational plan used.

I hope this helps.

[bwv]

NVA = bad does not mean we had a national interest worth 60,000 US lives

[JasonC]

2 million dead innocents and tens of millions enslaved for decades, in the midst of a worldwide armed struggle against communist tyrants, was definitely in our national interest. And the entire nation decided so by its political process. The left destroyed the achievement because they hated both its accomplishment and who had done it, gratituously. But cowards will come up with any excuse to avoid confronting evil men, even if it means 35 have to die in their place. All it took between 1972 and 1975 was the balls to continue air support and military supplies.

Check out the logistics details on one of the pages above. ARVN artillery had 180 rounds per gun average in the Easter Offensive, plus US air. In 1975 they had 3 to 10 rounds per gun and no US air. No more American draftees had to die to keep them free; they were entirely willing to shoulder that burden themselves. The left in Congress wasn't even willing to send them artillery shells. It might mean Nixon had been right and they were rogues to destroy him. So they let another million people die and tens of millions pass into slavery.

[Crossroads]

Here are some sources and links -

Thanks a ton! Literally! :P

[JasonC]

No problem, glad anyone is interested.

There have also been discussions of NVA armor and the late war's armor on armor engagements in particular at the Axis history forum, BTW. Here is an example -

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.p...2&start=30