Why didn't Americans staged a revolt against their government to stop the Vietnam war?

Status
Closed

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,039
SoCal
#31
Yes they did. I'm very unclear why, but one reason is that communist governments seem to be quite effective in making their populations fearful of not complying with the government.
That might be part of it, but in this case, I think that the Viet Minh's street cred from defeating the French in Indochina might have also been a part of the reason for their continued appeal.
 
Likes: Edratman
Jul 2016
9,061
USA
#33
No,

The N. Vietnamese government was effective and reliable. Cruel and careless with the lives and welfare of the population, but undeniably capable.
LOL. Effective at what? They screwed the pooch in everything. Land redistribution, collective farming, economics, foreign policy with neighbors (going to war with two fellow communists inside five years). The only thing they truly excelled at was removing competition and crushing dissent. The best thing they ever did was reform their economy in the 80s to open more free market economics, which revived their sinking agricultural and industrial capabilities run into the ground with the typical effectiveness of any communist party hack making decisions on subjects he doesn't remotely understand, with solutions based solely on ideology that is near suicidal in stupidity.

PAVN and NLF had political officers assigned to every level above platoon. Every major operational or tactical decision had to be approved by them. Based on your understanding of warfare, knowing what happened in WW2, Korea, how would you rate that decision in terms of effectiveness?

They won because they South Vietnam was initially political chaos because they hadn't spent the 50s killing their enemies and crushing decent, because of will power, because the US as the sole benefactor of South Vietnam gave up because the war lost popularity at the height of communist propaganda campaign, and because South Vietnam ended up alone against a local insurgency, a powerful invading neighbor, acting as proxy for China and Russia.
 
Jul 2016
9,061
USA
#34
Yes they did. I'm very unclear why, but one reason is that communist governments seem to be quite effective in making their populations fearful of not complying with the government.
So thats what you jean by capable. The US failed to back a South Vietnamese govt as ruthless as communist ideologue fanatics.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,039
SoCal
#35
LOL. Effective at what? They screwed the pooch in everything. Land redistribution, collective farming, economics, foreign policy with neighbors (going to war with two fellow communists inside five years). The only thing they truly excelled at was removing competition and crushing dissent. The best thing they ever did was reform their economy in the 80s to open more free market economics, which revived their sinking agricultural and industrial capabilities run into the ground with the typical effectiveness of any communist party hack making decisions on subjects he doesn't remotely understand, with solutions based solely on ideology that is near suicidal in stupidity.

PAVN and NLF had political officers assigned to every level above platoon. Every major operational or tactical decision had to be approved by them. Based on your understanding of warfare, knowing what happened in WW2, Korea, how would you rate that decision in terms of effectiveness?

They won because they South Vietnam was initially political chaos because they hadn't spent the 50s killing their enemies and crushing decent, because of will power, because the US as the sole benefactor of South Vietnam gave up because the war lost popularity at the height of communist propaganda campaign, and because South Vietnam ended up alone against a local insurgency, a powerful invading neighbor, acting as proxy for China and Russia.
Vietnam didn't choose its war with China and I think that we can all agree that its war with Cambodia was the right thing to do.
 
Likes: Edratman
Jul 2016
9,061
USA
#36
Vietnam didn't choose its war with China and I think that we can all agree that its war with Cambodia was the right thing to do.
The war in Cambodia was not about ethics it was about power. The invasion of Vietnam was about power, and they did choose it in they picked a fight with a tougher enemy who was their patron, which led to a defeat to the Vietnamese, in that was not repulsed as they had tried, as well as losing support and increasing generations long feud with only remaining communist country in SE Asia.

Top marks Vietnam. Way to show the world how it's done. Maybe North Korea can write chapter 2 in that leadership textbook, followed by Somalia, toss in Afghanistan for good measure.
 

Edratman

Ad Honorem
Feb 2009
6,580
Eastern PA
#37
That might be part of it, but in this case, I think that the Viet Minh's street cred from defeating the French in Indochina might have also been a part of the reason for their continued appeal.
Yes, successfully defeating the French definitely is also a factor. Without a doubt there must be additional components.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jan 2018
249
San Antonio
#39
The draft ended in 1973 because the American withdrawal started in 1973.

The anti-war effort petered out when the US committed to withdrawal.
It was an anti draft movement as much as, or even more than, an anti war movement. That the United States now use professional soldiers is why the general populace doesn't much give a damn how many wars are fought or for how long.
 
Jan 2018
249
San Antonio
#40
That we lost the Vietnamese War without daily domestic life missing a beat shows we need not have bothered.
 
Status
Closed