US motive for Vietnam war

May 2014
196
Norway
#31
The same as had always been from the very beginning -

See also, Korea, Afghanistan.

Now that Communism has collapsed under the weight of it's own internal contradictions everything is going to be alright.
Well, the american government and their allies are still seeking to expand their economic influence and are still fighting wars for resources on the other side of the world.
 
Nov 2015
1,747
Bye, bye
#32
...... It brings to mind the words of the novelist Joseph Conrad in his book Heart Of Darkness "Horror, horror, horror" I find it hard to swallow the atrocities carried out by both the extreme left and right in pursuit of a political dogma in which the only losers are always the hardworking poor. Some real sickos out there.
I agree with you.:confused:
I remember when i lived in this beautiful country, beside this great people, whom i have always loved and respected:cool:.
The Vietnamese always said that the typical Vietnamese family had one of these sons murdered in a reeducation camp and another killed by American Napalm...:crying:

The Vietnamese people suffered terribly.
The Americans have left to the Vietnamese only the memories of an army of arrogant billionaires who have never understood anything about this country and who have exported a fratricidal war which they did not want, even if, in the south, the great majority have always been fiercely anti-communist.

About the OP's issue.
I really never understood what the Americans went to do down.:zany:
At the limit, the French were in a logic to keep a colony by having sarted this war against a weak guerilla and it is found in a situation not possible after te victory of Mao who supported the viet minh : "viet nam doc lap dong minh hoi" (if my memory serves and without the essential accents in Vietnamese language :think:), "league of independence for viet nam".

But the Americans, that they hopped?:persevere:
Did they really imagine they would do a little war and then go home as if nothing had happened?
Had they not seen what had happened during the war against the French and how the Vietnamese were formidable fighters?
Was Korean War so easy?
:deadhorse:
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,053
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#33
Since posters are indulging in flame baiting and name calling, this thread is now in the Chamber. Continue with that behaviour at your peril.
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#34
Well, the american government and their allies are still seeking to expand their economic influence and are still fighting wars for resources on the other side of the world.

Are you referring to operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia?

If not, please state what you are talking about.

Thank-you.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
#36
Was Korean War so easy?
The Korean War was far from easy, but since South Korea had been successfully preserved (the war began as a North Korean attempt to conquer it), it probably lent confidence to thinking that South Vietnam could be preserved through a limited war.

The Korean War impacted American strategic thinking in other ways as well. The memory of the push to the Yalu, which triggered Chinese intervention, led to the US primarily trying to fight a defensive war in Vietnam to avoid widening the conflict. There was no invasion of North Vietnam, for instance.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,149
Lisbon, Portugal
#37
Was Vietnam an important colony for the french?

What interests did the soviets or the chinese have in the area?

I find it hard to believe the americans would intervene in a country and sacrifice almost 60 000 soldiers lives, if they did not have any economic or strategic interests in that area.
The US interest involved Vietnam was more geopolitical and ideological, not entirely economic.
 
Nov 2015
1,747
Bye, bye
#38
The Korean War was far from easy, but since South Korea had been successfully preserved (the war began as a North Korean attempt to conquer it), it probably lent confidence to thinking that South Vietnam could be preserved through a limited war.

The Korean War impacted American strategic thinking in other ways as well. The memory of the push to the Yalu, which triggered Chinese intervention, led to the US primarily trying to fight a defensive war in Vietnam to avoid widening the conflict. There was no invasion of North Vietnam, for instance.
Somehow the Korean War seemed to disappear from the country's political discourse suddenly.

There was no sense at all in which the intervention in Korea was easy. Highly motivated fighters among both DRPK and Chinese armies.
Thank you, but i already knew, that i didn't know is that the Korean War had already become the "forgotten war" (thanks kotromanic:)).

What i wanted to say in my former post is that it seems to me that the Americans had a completely wrong view of the situation in South East Asia and that they remained essentially comitted to the cold war foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations (Taylor, Rostow), the same for the "new generation" of advisor (Mc. Namara).

It is striking to hear Johnson visiting saigon in 1961, called Diem the "Churchill of Asia" :zany:.
Or to find that Kennedy considered that it was the credibility of the USA to support the Diem government with some military advisers and that ,in any case, the latter would easily win against the Vietcong.
Or that the CIA planned to remove Diem and the Ambassador Cabot lodge congratulated his murderes in the U.S ambassy in Saigon or that the General Harkins , commander of U.S forces in South Vietnam, confidently predicted victory by christmas 1963.
What about Operation rolling thunder?
It seems naive to think that you can beat communist Vietnamese forces only by bombing in parallel with a limited and insufficient defensive deployment on the ground (200,000 men in the end of 1965).

But i confess that i'm not very knowledgeable with the O.P's issue, then i would be curious to succeed to understand what was the American strategic thinking.
I have difficulty to believe to the "containment policy" :suspicious:.
Perhaps a very large militay industrial complex lobying?:confused:
Does anyone have an answer?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#39
But i confess that i'm not very knowledgeable with the O.P's issue, then i would be curious to succeed to understand what was the American strategic thinking.
I have difficulty to believe to the "containment policy" :suspicious:.
Perhaps a very large militay industrial complex lobying?:confused:
Does anyone have an answer?
You might want to reread Robto's and Aggienation's earlier comments, as they discussed the containment policy thoroughly and accurately.

If you look at the Vietnam War as a small part of the larger "Cold War" and contemplate the outcome, then you can see that the containment policy worked quite well.
 
Feb 2016
575
ROK
#40
I had a talk with an American WWII generation faculty at school many years ago. She told me that WWII taught the Americans that they should've stopped Germany and Japan early on. She told me that the war would've been easier that way. Prior to the war, the majority of the Americans were against involvement in it. I think this explains the support for the containment policy that the US had during the Cold War. The support for wars started to decrease during the Vietnam War.