Vietnam War: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen
mNo edit summary
imported>Richard Jensen
mNo edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
Psychologically, the Vietnam War was almost as traumatic as the Civil War. It is still a painful memory and the subject of ill-tempered debates regarding victory and defeat, imperialism and Communism, good intentions and limited resources, deceit and patriotism. Misinformation abounds on the topic--students often have the idea that the United States Army was defeated in combat by a Viet-Cong guerrilla force--something that definitely did not happen. This article takes primarily the perspective of the U.S. to explore what was the American military's mission, how was it carried it out, and what were the effects.   
Psychologically, the Vietnam War was almost as traumatic as the Civil War. It is still a painful memory and the subject of ill-tempered debates regarding victory and defeat, imperialism and Communism, good intentions and limited resources, deceit and patriotism. Misinformation abounds on the topic--students often have the idea that the United States Army was defeated in combat by a Viet-Cong guerrilla force--something that definitely did not happen. This article takes primarily the perspective of the U.S. to explore what was the American military's mission, how was it carried it out, and what were the effects.   


While the United States lost none of the battles, somehow it lost the war. From 1964 to 1972 debate raged between "doves" (who wanted the US to cut its losses and get out) and "hawks" (who wanted to win.) Many soldiers believe victory was thrown away because, as General Hamilton H. Howze said when Saigon finally fell to the Communists in 1975, "America itself lost much of its will to fight and the politicians and the press began their program of vilification." Howze's rhetoric says more about the military's role in society and its own battered self image than it does about Vietnam. Much of the intensity of the debate during the 1960s sprang not from what was happening in Asia, but what was happening on the home front. A social revolution saw many people (especially blacks, students  
While the United States lost none of the battles, somehow it lost the war. From 1964 to 1972 debate raged between "doves" (who wanted the US to cut its losses and get out) and "hawks" (who wanted to win.) Many soldiers believe victory was thrown away because, as General Hamilton H. Howze said when Saigon finally fell to the Communists in 1975, "America itself lost much of its will to fight and the politicians and the press began their program of vilification." Howze's rhetoric says more about the military's role in society and its own battered self image than it does about Vietnam. Much of the intensity of the debate during the 1960s sprang not from what was happening in Asia, but what was happening on the home front. A social revolution saw many people (especially blacks, students and feminists) in revolt against tight restrictive rules and roles that confined individuals into boxes of race, gender, age and class. Favorite targets of the revolt included all traditional sources of order, discipline and hierarchy, such as the police, the military, and the government itself. The social revolt of the 1960s was by no means limited to the US--parallel upheavals took place in Europe, Japan, and even China. The Vietnam War inevitably became the target of opportunity. The history of the small war is unusually complicated because it lasted so long, involved so many twists and turns of policy and strategy. The turnover of Americans was unusually high (2.5 million were stationed there), so that the many veterans each have a different story to tell. To appreciate the complexity it is necessary to start with the French imperialists of the 19th century.
 
 
==Origins==  
==Origins==  
===French "Indochina" Background===
===French "Indochina" Background===
Line 13: Line 15:


Dien Bien Phu surrendered, the French government collapsed, and a Socialist government with Communist support came to power in Paris, pledged to get out of Vietnam in 30 days. The American policy of bankrolling the French had failed.    At the 1954 Geneva Conference, the French signed agreements with the Viet Minh that amounted to a surrender; the French did not consult the government in Saigon. Because of American pressure, however, Paris did not give Ho Chi Minh all he demanded (he demanded all of Vietnam). A permanent cease fire was promised, and the country was split along the 17th parallel, with the north turned over to Ho's Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). The French promised to leave the southern half, which for the time being would continue as the independent State of Vietnam with the Emperor as head of state and a Catholic anti-communist as premier. The Geneva Accords called for "free general elections by secret ballot" in 1956 to unify the country. Washington and Saigon both rejected the Geneva Accords: they were both determined to build an independent, anti-Communist South Vietnam. Some observers thought Ho was so popular for having driven the French out that he might have won a free election in the South in 1956. Antiwar critics years later said that the South Vietnam regime was inherently illegitimate because it did not abide by the election clause in the Accords. These critics said that since Ho Chi Minh “might” have won a hypothetical free election, therefore he represented true democracy. What the critics missed was that these hypothetical free elections were quite impossible in 1954, or 1956 or any other time, because the Communists would never permit free campaigning against Communism. Ho's DRV was totally controlled by Communist cadres which systematically tracked down and imprisoned or executed all its critics, village by village, street by street. In 1956 instead of holding an election in the North, Ho used his army to suppress peasants who protested "land reform"; thousands were shot. Allowing genuine opposition parties to solicit votes--and then yielding power to them if they won a majority--was totally incompatible with its precepts. The DRV never intended to hold free elections in 1956, and never before or since has held any.<ref> Communist regimes have occasionally been forced to hold free elections--as in Poland and Nicaragua in 1990. In each instance the Communists were defeated.</ref>  
Dien Bien Phu surrendered, the French government collapsed, and a Socialist government with Communist support came to power in Paris, pledged to get out of Vietnam in 30 days. The American policy of bankrolling the French had failed.    At the 1954 Geneva Conference, the French signed agreements with the Viet Minh that amounted to a surrender; the French did not consult the government in Saigon. Because of American pressure, however, Paris did not give Ho Chi Minh all he demanded (he demanded all of Vietnam). A permanent cease fire was promised, and the country was split along the 17th parallel, with the north turned over to Ho's Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). The French promised to leave the southern half, which for the time being would continue as the independent State of Vietnam with the Emperor as head of state and a Catholic anti-communist as premier. The Geneva Accords called for "free general elections by secret ballot" in 1956 to unify the country. Washington and Saigon both rejected the Geneva Accords: they were both determined to build an independent, anti-Communist South Vietnam. Some observers thought Ho was so popular for having driven the French out that he might have won a free election in the South in 1956. Antiwar critics years later said that the South Vietnam regime was inherently illegitimate because it did not abide by the election clause in the Accords. These critics said that since Ho Chi Minh “might” have won a hypothetical free election, therefore he represented true democracy. What the critics missed was that these hypothetical free elections were quite impossible in 1954, or 1956 or any other time, because the Communists would never permit free campaigning against Communism. Ho's DRV was totally controlled by Communist cadres which systematically tracked down and imprisoned or executed all its critics, village by village, street by street. In 1956 instead of holding an election in the North, Ho used his army to suppress peasants who protested "land reform"; thousands were shot. Allowing genuine opposition parties to solicit votes--and then yielding power to them if they won a majority--was totally incompatible with its precepts. The DRV never intended to hold free elections in 1956, and never before or since has held any.<ref> Communist regimes have occasionally been forced to hold free elections--as in Poland and Nicaragua in 1990. In each instance the Communists were defeated.</ref>  
and feminists) in revolt against tight restrictive rules and roles that confined individuals into boxes of race, gender, age and class. Favorite targets of the revolt included all traditional sources of order, discipline and hierarchy, such as the police, the military, and the government itself. The social revolt of the 1960s was by no means limited to the US--parallel upheavals took place in Europe, Japan, and even China. The Vietnam War inevitably became the target of opportunity. The history of the small war is unusually complicated because it lasted so long, involved so many twists and turns of policy and strategy. The turnover of Americans was unusually high (2.5 million were stationed there), so that the many veterans each have a different story to tell. To appreciate the complexity it is necessary to start with the French imperialists of the 19th century.
 
 
 
 
==Bibliography==
* Anderson, David L. ''Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War'' (2004).
* Berman, Larry. ''Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate'' (1991). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102078651 online edition]
* Blackwell, Amy  et al. ''A Companion to the Vietnam War'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Vietnam-Blackwell-Companions-American/dp/063121013X/ref=sr_1_10/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191632988&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Kennedys-Wars-Berlin-Cuba-Vietnam/dp/0195152433/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191632936&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Herring, George C''. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975'' (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
* Hillstrom, Kevin, and Laurie Collier Hillstrom. ''The Vietnam Experience: A Concise Encyclopedia of American Literature, Songs, and Films'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Experience-Encyclopedia-American-Literature/dp/0313301832/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191632803&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Kahin, George McTurnan. ''Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam'' (1986) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.02216  online at ACLS e-books]
* Karnow, Stanley. ''Vietnam: A History'' (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans. [http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191632773&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kutler, Stanley ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1996). essays by experts
* Lewy, Guenter. ''America in Vietnam'' (1978), defends U.S. actions.
* McMahon, Robert J. ''Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays'' (1995) textbook.
*  Schulzinger, Robert D. ''Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975.'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59258841&oplinknum=2 online edition]
* Tucker, Spencer. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'' (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
* Tucker, Spencer. ''Vietnam.'' (1999) 226pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103499126# online edition]
* Vandiver, Frank E. ''Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars'' (1997)
* ''The Pentagon Papers'' (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html excerpts]


----------
----------
<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:CZ Live]]
[[Category:History Workgroup]]
[[Category:Military Workgroup]]

Revision as of 22:03, 5 October 2007

Introduction

Psychologically, the Vietnam War was almost as traumatic as the Civil War. It is still a painful memory and the subject of ill-tempered debates regarding victory and defeat, imperialism and Communism, good intentions and limited resources, deceit and patriotism. Misinformation abounds on the topic--students often have the idea that the United States Army was defeated in combat by a Viet-Cong guerrilla force--something that definitely did not happen. This article takes primarily the perspective of the U.S. to explore what was the American military's mission, how was it carried it out, and what were the effects.

While the United States lost none of the battles, somehow it lost the war. From 1964 to 1972 debate raged between "doves" (who wanted the US to cut its losses and get out) and "hawks" (who wanted to win.) Many soldiers believe victory was thrown away because, as General Hamilton H. Howze said when Saigon finally fell to the Communists in 1975, "America itself lost much of its will to fight and the politicians and the press began their program of vilification." Howze's rhetoric says more about the military's role in society and its own battered self image than it does about Vietnam. Much of the intensity of the debate during the 1960s sprang not from what was happening in Asia, but what was happening on the home front. A social revolution saw many people (especially blacks, students and feminists) in revolt against tight restrictive rules and roles that confined individuals into boxes of race, gender, age and class. Favorite targets of the revolt included all traditional sources of order, discipline and hierarchy, such as the police, the military, and the government itself. The social revolt of the 1960s was by no means limited to the US--parallel upheavals took place in Europe, Japan, and even China. The Vietnam War inevitably became the target of opportunity. The history of the small war is unusually complicated because it lasted so long, involved so many twists and turns of policy and strategy. The turnover of Americans was unusually high (2.5 million were stationed there), so that the many veterans each have a different story to tell. To appreciate the complexity it is necessary to start with the French imperialists of the 19th century.


Origins

French "Indochina" Background

In the late 19th century the French expanded their global empire to southeast Asia, by acquiring control of Vietnam, and the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos. The Chinese war lords who had been in charge were expelled, replaced by a French governor supported by rotating units of the French army and several thousand French civil servants. Few Frenchmen permanently settled in Indochina. Below the top layer of imperial control, the civil service comprised French-speaking Catholic Vietnamese; a nominal "Emperor" resided in Hue. Paris had hoped to make a profit from its empire, but instead the expenses of building roads, railroads, ports, utilities, schools and other infrastructure, not to mention the military and civil service salaries, far outpaced the modest profits from rice and rubber exports. Little industry developed and 80% of the population lived in villages of about 2000 population; they depended on rice growing. Most were nominally Buddhist; about 10% were Catholic. Minorities included the Chinese merchants who controlled most of the commerce, and Montagnard tribesmen in the thinly populated Central Highlands. Vietnam was a relatively peaceful colony; sporadic independence movements were quickly suppressed by the efficient French secret police.

Ho Chi Minh and fellow students founded the Communist party in Paris in 1929, but it was of marginal importance until World War II. In 1940 and 1941 the Vichy regime yielded control of Vietnam to the Japanese, and Ho returned to lead an underground independence movement (which received a little assistance from the O.S.S., the predecessor of the CIA). President Roosevelt detested French colonialism, but Truman was more interested in helping restore French prestige in Europe, so he helped them to return in 1946. In contrast with other Asian colonies like India, Burma, the Philippines and Korea, Vietnam was not given its independence after the war. As in Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies), an indigenous rebellion demanded independence. While the Netherlands was too weak to resist the Indonesians, the French were strong enough to just barely hold on. As a result Ho and his "Viet Minh" launched a guerrilla campaign, using Communist China as a sanctuary when French pursuit became hot. When the Korean War erupted in 1950, Washington saw Vietnam as another target of Communist expansion, and began to fund about three-fourths of the French military efforts. However, the goals of Washington and Paris were incompatible. Washington wanted a democratic Vietnam independent of both France and Communism, while Paris was more interested in restoring its old empire than in fighting Communism. In 1950 the U.S. officially recognized the theoretical independence of the "State of Vietnam," even though Paris kept control of its foreign and military policy.

Dien Bien Phu and the Geneva Accords, 1954

To cut Viet Minh supply lines from China, the French built a fort at remote Dien Bien Phu. In 1954, 12,000 defenders were surrounded and battered by General Vo Nguyen Giap, who unexpectedly had artillery supplied by Communist China. Paris begged Washington for air strikes. The US Navy wanted to send its carriers into action but the US Army demurred, arguing it would be "a dangerous strategic diversion of limited U.S. military capabilities... [to] a non-decisive theatre." For the Army, containment meant holding back the Russian divisions in central Europe, not chasing guerrillas in Asian jungles. President Eisenhower, the man who led the war against Germany in 1944-45 and who commanded NATO in 1950, agreed with the Army. With the Korean stalemate resolved only a few months earlier, he rejected the advice of hawkish aides (including Vice President Richard Nixon) and refused to fight another land war in Asia.

Dien Bien Phu surrendered, the French government collapsed, and a Socialist government with Communist support came to power in Paris, pledged to get out of Vietnam in 30 days. The American policy of bankrolling the French had failed. At the 1954 Geneva Conference, the French signed agreements with the Viet Minh that amounted to a surrender; the French did not consult the government in Saigon. Because of American pressure, however, Paris did not give Ho Chi Minh all he demanded (he demanded all of Vietnam). A permanent cease fire was promised, and the country was split along the 17th parallel, with the north turned over to Ho's Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). The French promised to leave the southern half, which for the time being would continue as the independent State of Vietnam with the Emperor as head of state and a Catholic anti-communist as premier. The Geneva Accords called for "free general elections by secret ballot" in 1956 to unify the country. Washington and Saigon both rejected the Geneva Accords: they were both determined to build an independent, anti-Communist South Vietnam. Some observers thought Ho was so popular for having driven the French out that he might have won a free election in the South in 1956. Antiwar critics years later said that the South Vietnam regime was inherently illegitimate because it did not abide by the election clause in the Accords. These critics said that since Ho Chi Minh “might” have won a hypothetical free election, therefore he represented true democracy. What the critics missed was that these hypothetical free elections were quite impossible in 1954, or 1956 or any other time, because the Communists would never permit free campaigning against Communism. Ho's DRV was totally controlled by Communist cadres which systematically tracked down and imprisoned or executed all its critics, village by village, street by street. In 1956 instead of holding an election in the North, Ho used his army to suppress peasants who protested "land reform"; thousands were shot. Allowing genuine opposition parties to solicit votes--and then yielding power to them if they won a majority--was totally incompatible with its precepts. The DRV never intended to hold free elections in 1956, and never before or since has held any.[1]



Bibliography

  • Anderson, David L. Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War (2004).
  • Berman, Larry. Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate (1991). online edition
  • Blackwell, Amy et al. A Companion to the Vietnam War (2002) excerpt and text search
  • Freedman, Lawrence. Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (2000) excerpt and text search
  • Herring, George C. America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975 (4th ed 2001), most widely used short history.
  • Hillstrom, Kevin, and Laurie Collier Hillstrom. The Vietnam Experience: A Concise Encyclopedia of American Literature, Songs, and Films (1998) excerpt and text search
  • Kahin, George McTurnan. Intervention: how America became involved in Vietnam (1986) online at ACLS e-books
  • Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History (1983), popular history by journalist; strong on Saigon's plans. excerpt and text search
  • Kutler, Stanley ed. Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1996). essays by experts
  • Lewy, Guenter. America in Vietnam (1978), defends U.S. actions.
  • McMahon, Robert J. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War: Documents and Essays (1995) textbook.
  • Schulzinger, Robert D. Time for War: The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975. (1997) online edition
  • Tucker, Spencer. ed. Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1998) 3 vol. reference set; also one-volume abridgement (2001).
  • Tucker, Spencer. Vietnam. (1999) 226pp. online edition
  • Vandiver, Frank E. Shadows of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson's Wars (1997)
  • The Pentagon Papers (Gravel ed. 5 vol 1971); combination of narrative and secret documents compiled by Pentagon. excerpts

  1. Communist regimes have occasionally been forced to hold free elections--as in Poland and Nicaragua in 1990. In each instance the Communists were defeated.