Hunt Chat - Article: How North Vietnam Won The War

Hunt Chat (http://www.huntchat.com/index.php)

- Almost Anything Goes (http://www.huntchat.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)

- - Article: How North Vietnam Won The War (http://www.huntchat.com/showthread.php?t=46932)

Article: How North Vietnam Won The War

I'm sure this isn't the last word. Its an interesting read that seems to parallel today.
It reinforces my belief that if a person doesn't publicly support the president in time of war (whether you agree or not), that person doesn't support the troops. Some will disagree with me but that's where I stand.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...8-86F50DA24BFE

Quote:

How North Vietnam Won The War
By Grunt.com
Grunt.com | Monday, April 26, 2004

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement?
What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive?
How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War?
Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995].
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.
He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam.
He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?

A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?

A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?

A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

While a lot of that is flavored with self-congratulatory hindsight and just plain exaggeration, the overall sense of it is correct: we abandoned that war when it was winnable because of politics and traitorous activity.

All of us who flew against it knew that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was the key to it all. The part of it in my area of operations included the whole northeastern quadrant of Cambodia. That comprised the lower half of the HCMT. Much of the ground was invisible from the air, covered with triple-layer jungle canopy as much as 300' tall. We knew that millions of tons of military supplies were traveling under there, but could never say exactly where. We could control the obvious chokepoints like river crossings and non-jungled areas, but only in daylight. The HCMT ran mostly at night for that reason. If you can only control 10% of the problem 50% of the time, you can't overcome. Especially if you are prohibited from truly controlling it in the first place...

BTW, the real irony is that Vietnam today, while technically a communist country, is becoming a burgeoning nation because of rampant and successful capitalism. It might not be long before even the government there evolves into a freedom and capitalist-based one.

In the long run, we'll almost certainly win.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rocky Raab
BTW, the real irony is that Vietnam today, while technically a communist country, is becoming a burgeoning nation because of rampant and successful capitalism. It might not be long before even the government there evolves into a freedom and capitalist-based one.

In the long run, we'll almost certainly win.

Thank you for the positive outlook.
I was wet behind the ears for most of the war but can't help having a feeling of exasperation when I read about Fonda and others.

Don't even get me going on Fonda:mad:
muledeer

Rocky said it well!!!!
Dan

Here's another irony: It may seem odd to somebody who hasn't been a professional military guy (or gal) but I hold no grudge or enmity against the North Vietnamese - but still hold a tremendous grudge against people like Fonda.

I've shaken the hand of more than one of my former enemies, and meant it. We both fought as professionals, more or less evenly matched in skill, honor and dedication to our respective causes. In short, we were in the same brotherhood, even if on different sides. I respect them.

Those like Fonda are another story. If Jane had an "adult toy" made of dynamite, I'd gladly light the fuse and shove it home.

:D Maybe you could work that into your new book. Rusty Naille lights the fuse.:eek:
muledeer

And Rusty Naille lights the fuze with a 2,75 Rocket, Willie P warhead of course provided by muldeer and Billy D.

I like that.

Bill :D

How it is that we can feel that way about a former "enemy" and still hate the ground the scum sucking pigs like Fonda walk on. I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with her. Could possibly even light the fuse myself. No rusty Nailles needed

For me its harder when Americans like Zumbo or the Dixie Chicks, who are supposed to be trusted and "part of the Family" turncoats on ya, its harder to take.

Skeet,

The reason we can respect these soldiers is because they were doing their job. People like Fonda, the Dixie Chicks, etc. are traitors. They are supposed to be with us, but they side with the enemy instead. I believe Fonda has apologized for what she did. Granted, too little, too late. Don't know if the Dixie Chicks have apologized for what they said. Americans have a very short memory because the Dixie Chicks are now back on top of the charts. That really burns me up. Does anybody know if they apologized?

Celebrities trying to hoist their opinions on everybody really kills me. We elect our leaders for a reason. Let them do their jobs. I seriously doubt that the powers that be are sharing intelligence meetings with celebrities so that the celebrities can make informed decisions about whether or not to support the war. Still haven't seen a terrorist attack against the US in almost 7 years. Something has to be going well. Knock on wood.

Have agree with ya

I think one of the Dixie Chicks may have apologized but not sure. You are correct. I'd rather be fighting them over there than in our streets. If we elect osama Obama we will have them in the streets here again. And he wants us to turn our guns in..be a follower of the UN. In my way of thinking..the man is a danger to our ountry and our way of life. I also feel he is a traitor to the ideals of the Constitution and the United States...as are all these people like the DC's and Fonda. Even some of our legislators. JMHO:mad:

Re: Have agree with ya

Quote:

Originally posted by skeet
If we elect osama Obama we will have them in the streets here again. And he wants us to turn our guns in..be a follower of the UN.

http://www.robertrtg.com/brightbluetarget.html

And don't forget our most recent, and true to the bone, traitor... Jimmy Carter. He's going to meet with Hamas and make everything all better:(

I liked that mistaken comment...Perfect target..definitely!! Well I guess I can start at 600 yds. Maybe a bit farther. Boyd and them guys can start at 1500. Petey too. I might have to give up some of my guns...but just the ones they know about. I am seriously concrned. Listen to some of the things Osama Obama wants to do. You would be concerned too. A President can sign treaties that bind us to the letter of the agreement. One could be the UN small Arms thing. I don't trust a Marxist...and that is what the Dems are turning into. Seriously. A perfectly classless and without class society is coming. Sooner than you think, I'm afraid:rolleyes: :(

Obama promises change - but he never says to what or how much.

He's a socialist, in both mind and heart. (So is Hillary and many other Democrats.)

He wants to make this a socialist country, and if we elect him, he'll sure try. Frighteningly, many in Congress would help him do so.

Yeah, all I hear on the radio is "This is Obama, and I approve of this message". Blah blah, I actually quit listening to some radio stations b/c of both his and Hillariouses radio ads. Makes me sick. We need change, blah blah. Just another ploy, tell them what they wanna hear.

Hate to say it, but if it happens a modern age civil war may be the only thing to put the country back on track.

did I just say that out loud? ha ha ;)

It'd be a cold day the government took my right to bear arms. Doing so is the exact reason we have the second ammendment. To protect myself from the gov't that I didn't elect being a tyrant.

This is Petey and I approve of this message

I'm not too worried about us losing our guns to these morons, especially if the Supreme Court holds the way I think it will hold in its current 2nd Amendment case. Me, I'm worried about the national falling into complete chaos.

Yes, we definitely need change. We need people to become more responsible for what they do. If they want to be the grasshopper their entire life, then it is on them when they hit retirement age. Honestly, I have clients that are 65 and they still have mortgages. I have a husband and wife that are 55 and 54 respectively, and they have a $250,000 mortgage with 28 years remaining on it and they make $40,000 combined a year. They also have nothing saved for retirement at age 55. They have two kids, one of which I know is in even worse shape than they are. Who is going to bail these people out when they cannot work anymore and they cannot afford to pay their mortgage?

I can go on for a long time about the change that is needed in this country, and most of it doesn't have one bit to do with politics.

I also think that taxes need to be raised. I know, I don't like it either. However, what kind of example is our own government setting when it is $9 trillion in debt. God, I don't even know how many zeros that is. Let's see $9,000,000,000,000.00 I think that should cover it. It is no wonder that I have a 40 year old couple that refinanced their house and paid off $95,000 in credit card debt, and their house is worth about $400,000. I have clients that are strapped for cash that tell me they NEED $6,000 and $8,000 to LIVE, yet they drive a Lexus RX330 and BMW X5 respectively. If they ask me for my honest opinion, I would tell both of them to sell the cars and buy something much more economical. One of them has a single child that is 2 years old and the other doesn't have any kids.

Like I said, I could go on forever.

We need to pass a STUPIDITY LAW. I think government should get less involved in everything and let people fend for themselves. There are too many safety nets out there that cost the rest of the responsible citizens too much, and eventually those responsible citizens will get fed up with it and become irresponsible too. As we have less and less responsible citizens to shoulder the burden for the morons, this nation will be in some serious trouble.

There's a credit card commercial with a song in it. The lyrics go, "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now!"

That and just about ONLY that is the problem we have, not just with the economy but with the nation as well. Greed and immediate satisfaction are the one-two punch that have brought this magnificent national experiment to its knees. And it only took about 40 years to do it.

Post WWII politics brought people the realization that they could vote themselves other people's money - and that is and always will be the death knell of a free society.

The "change" we need is to change that ability, change back to personal responsibility, change back to individual accountability and change back to a time when "freedom" didn't mean "everything ought to be free."

Rocky For El Presidente:D :D

Problem is that nobody wants to hear that. My wife's grandfather, on her mother's side, was unemployed at one point in his life and he was too proud to apply for unemployment benefits. My father in-law was unemployed for a while and he had no intention of going back to work, but he applied for unemployment benefits anyway. I probably would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. Who knows.

Back in the old days, what happened to the settlers when they ran out of food in the middle of the winter? Did they just apply for more food benefits from Uncle Sam? No, they either made it on their own or they didn't.

Wonder if I can apply for unemployment benefits if I close up shop?

quote: Originally posted by Rocky

Quote:

Obama promises change-but he never says to what or how much

I believe the change would amount to about .37 cents. That's all we would have left after the tax reform the Dems have in mind.:D

jplonghunter

Very good, jp. Very good, indeed.