Ulysses S. Grant

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Statistikhengst, Mar 6, 2021.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The thing in Vietnam was that the U.S. (and LBJ) were absolutely terrified of the war becoming "another Korea". To this end they were afraid that being too aggressive with North Vietnam would trigger the Chinese coming in big time on the side of the North Vietnamese just as they had on the side of the North Koreans.

    When President Nixon took office his administration was heavily invested in the idea of peeling China away from the Soviet Union so they weren't going to be overly harsh with North Vietnam either (thought they did more than LBJ did).
     
  2. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fear makes lousy generals and lousy presidents.

    War is not some game. Either win as did Patton or retreat as did the Nazis. I agree with what you explained.
     
  3. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you can either explain it to them or they can look it up. Using incorrect terms is WAY more confusing then using correct ones.

    Do you have a reference for this Robert? I am curious as to why FDR would be specifically concerned about what was then Cochinchina (and a bit of Annam). Given the famine in Tonkin & northern Annam I would have thought that would interest him more, but I'm always interested to learn.

    I'm not sure what this word salad means Robert. You seem confused again.
     
  4. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Errr, no. That dynamic played out with very little US involvement. Truman was actually opposed to the French returning. I'd need to dig up references, but I'm pretty sure that initially he refused to supply weapons directly to French forces in Indochina. Of course, the US was far more focussed on Europe and France was an ally, so Truman's opposition came with limits. US equipment supplied to France directly obviously found its way to Indochina.

    The big change was 1950, when Mao had clearly won in China & the Korean war started. Mao supplying weapons to Ho led to major French defeats in late 1949 and it suddenly looked like Communism might run rampant. The US ramped up support to France, though with the caveat that they had to establish a non-Communist Vietnamese government (the political fore-runner of the Sth Vietnamese government) with its own army. Truman didn't plan to let France keep Vietnam as a colony.

    In fact, it was Ho Chi Minh who negotiated the return of the French to Indochina. At that point the Viet Minh was the dominant party in what passed for a government in Tonkin and parts of Annam, which is effectively what 'Vietnam' was at that point. Ho was keen to get rid of the Nationalist Chinese, who were aligned (though sadly not very effectively) with the only major domestic threats to his power, the VNQDD, Dai Viet & similar Nationalist groups. They refused to countenance a French return, so the French preferred to deal with Ho. When the French returned they actually helped the Viet Minh destroy VNQDD srtongholds. If this sounds insane then welcome to the French mindset. They helped wipe out the very people who would have been the most powerful fighting force against the Communists because they weren't prepared to lie the way Ho did. Morons.

    This stupidity had a parallel with Diem attacking the Cao Dai & Hoa Hao sects in the early years of South Vietnam. because those groups wouldn't bow down to him as completely as he wanted he took out two of the groups best equipped to fight the Communists on their own terms. Diem and his American advisors thought the Communists were beaten. Morons.

    Pennington was right about Ho. He had been a committed communist for decades by that time. He planned to make Vietnam a Communist state and was not going to be steered from that course. Unfortunately the failures of other Nationalist groups allowed him to become the guy who declared Vietnamese independence and allowed the Viet Minh to become the most powerful group on Tonkin & much of Annam.
     
  5. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't disagree with a thing you say. We sent our guys over there to fight a no-win war to help people we didn't actually help in the end. It was a war we didn't need to fight to protect this country. What in the hell were we doing?

    This country has not been the same since. Not "Morning in America," our Gulf War win... none of it had erased the Vietnam mess. I guess our generation will have to die off before it goes away.

    BTW, thanks for doing more for this country than we deserved.
     
    AZ. likes this.
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was not a willing participant in the Army. Problem was the Army made me a leader over a Platoon in Basic and later in AIT. Something about being responsible for 60 of the troops took out the protest nature I had and created more opportunity for myself.
    I was just doing the missions is all.

    When I got out of the Active Duty Army the public did not mention Vietnam. When they saw Johnson had no will to win it, (1965 forward) then America lost it's will to win.
     
  7. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,114
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not sure what we would call Air Force General Curtis Lemay but if you remember he wanted a "total" air war in Vietnam. He thought you could blow Vietnam out of a war. He felt the same way about North Korea. That guy sort of was what got Barry Goldwater in trouble for quoting in terms of bombing the hell out of Vietnam. Correct me if I am wrong but the Vietnam air war was qualified by political consideration. I think it is safe to say it was a dinner time war-the first war to come to the dinner table with Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley where numbers would be put on the screen as to deaths and injuries as well as a litany of burning villages from Napalm. Public relations lost that war. The Yanks went in because of a strong held domino effect belief about containing communism in that area.

    No one in their right mind thought a conventional war in jungles would work. We knew enough from Burma and the South Pacific wars. American t.v. was a real factor. To have pummeled North Vietnam it would have made a bloody disaster on t.v. broadcasts.

    All that said I agree with some the concept of a "total war" well what does that mean? Has anyone had the ability to be able to say they had total resources at their will to implement let alone impose on others? If for no other reason supply chain and logistics makes that impossible and weather, climate and terrain as well.

    You ask me most military strategists sure as hell know the larger your force, the longer and more vulnerable and problematic the supply lines and problems in chain of command.

    Is it not a safe generalization to say if we learned one thing over the many years of war, small, quick moving units not bogged down by mobility issues work best.

    I know in the Negev we would see American troops with the best equipment and they would look at the Israelis with just an old Kalishnikov or uzi and not much else and they would soon get the idea you can't get too weighed down. I am not sure what the modern thought is but most armed force vets I know preferred small, quick units without excessive command and supply lines and although night vision is something, most Israelis, Beduin, British I saw who learned in the desert never used them and they relied on their smell and hearing as much as anything else. I am telling you I know Beduins, Brits, Israelis that smelled stuff miles away coming by the wind I never smelled. They said ****, piss, body odour could all be sniffed out. They did not like guys pissing or crapping without burying it quick. That I saw first hand. That and the fact everyone hated sand in weapons.

    Look today's fields of battle can be anywhere and we know the media will be there most times and it becomes a political exercise. I think when you are China or Russia, you don't have that consideration and you have less restraint but even they are full of it exaggerating their powers. Their supply lines are the shits.

    I think if the Yanks wanted to not be compromised my politics, they still have the best supply line capabilities. Russian guys I know now in Canada long since out of the army told me they never ate properly and had crap equipment.

    Who knows. I just appreciate some of you when you say "total" is put in quotations, for whatever it means. Every conflict arena is different. Survival always depends on ingenuity and making do without.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  8. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the end, Truman let them back in, whether he was initially opposed or not.
    How was Truman going to get France out after he decided to support them returning? Did Truman actually think Ho was going to toss in the towel? I trust you notice Eisenhower resisted repeated efforts by our military and bureaucracy to escalate in Vietnam.
    The decision on the French return wasn't based on anything Ho said or did. It was domestic hysteria over communism that encouraged BS like putting "under God" into the PoA because communists wouldn't say the words.
    What did they really believe?
    Check. Ho was a dedicated communist.
    We weren't ready as a country prepared to intelligently deal with communists, especially those in colonies of our European allies.
     
  9. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one ever explained to the American people why escalating in Vietnam was a good idea, or even why we were involved in the first place.

    It was pretty obvious after Tet that dealing with the communists was going to be more difficult and protracted than LBJ had been telling the American people. Nixon said he'd end the war on our terms. What we heard was "END THE WAR on our terms." By March 1968, few people still thought we could accomplish much there. The question became, "If we're not going to win, why are we there?" Americans just wanted out.
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Johnson whom I had voted for did explain why fighting in Vietnam was a good idea. At first America supported him. We fought off the Communists during Tet and it was then they came close to giving up the fight. But due to the public clamor in the USA Ho decided to try again to win their war. Our public ended up costing us that defeat of Ho Chi Minh as you recall now.

    You said it, Americans just wanted out.
     
  11. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. Wasn't Truman's decision.

    In 1950 it was still assumed, entirely reasonably, that France would be able to defeat the Viet Minh. So yes, Truman did assume that with the US fully supporting France Ho would lose. Not a silly thing to assume.

    As for getting the French out, I think the idea was that once the Viet Minh had been defeated the US would back the Vietnamese Republic & its military forces and not underwrite the French. France would likely keep forces there and Vietnam would have a similar legal status relative to France that Australia had to Britain pre-WW2. There was plenty of domestic opposition in France to both the war and France staying in Vietnam, so it was hardly a stretch to think France would leave or could be pushed. Indeed, France left Cambodia & Laos without being forced out. As history turned out the Algerian war kicked off around the time France left Indochina, so France wouldn't have had a lot of resources to devote to Indochina.

    Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. France & the Viet Minh negotiated an agreement for France to return in March 1946. This was before the 'anti-Communist hysteria' kicked off in the US. This process didn't involve the US. Ho made his choices for his own reasons, as I spelled out in detail eariler.

    You really need to stop assuming everything that does or does not happen in the world is because of America. It is rarely that simple, and in this case it isn't relevant.

    No idea wha tyou are talking about.

    Again, not as simple as that. Once the Cold War kicked off and Mao took over in China anything involving Communist groups became subsumed into a wider struggle. Additionally, in every nation where Communists found colonizing nations there were also non-Communist nationalists who wanted a non-Communist nation also free of the colonial power. This was true in Vietnam & elsewhere. Sadly the 'anti-imperialist' version of history rarely acknowledges such people even existed, or writes them off as 'collaborators'.
     
  12. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This a pamphlet for sure (above)

    Bear in mind that if there is a human that understands all of it, they are rare, including me.
    My remark was we had the Navy, the Air Force and munitions and erred by not invading to conquer North Vietnam.
    General DePuy was positive he knew how to win. He fired so many officers he became a legend in Vietnam for firing what he called poor officers. But he did not have total command in Vietnam. The media that was in during both WW2 and Korea over time had a lot of impact as to public will to win in America. And over time so much hell was raised, our politicians in charge acted like politicians and not willing to win the war in Vietnam. We will never win wars when our politicians quit.

    Supply is always one of the major problems for all armies. Jungles are not as bad to fight in as are cities. Cities present more problems.

    Anyway, all ideas are welcome to air out.
     
  13. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you and I call an explanation apparently differs. I waited for an explanation of why we needed to fight an Asian land war to protect this country and never got one.
    Yes, in March 1965, but two years later the war wasn't popular.
    Americans weren't convinced we needed to fight the war to protect this country. The public are often wrong, but not that time.
     
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Vietnam was not a war to protect America. All I recall is I was fresh out of our Army and home for longer than a year when all hell broke out. Johnson sent a massive force to Vietnam to win his war.

    I do not recall even one war that was popular.
     
  15. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, it was. He could have stopped it.
    As I said, we weren't sophisticated enough as a country to effectively counter communism. Handing Vietnam to France was a mistake.
    France was going to just up and leave after defeating the Viet Minh? I don't think so.
    Australia was independent on January 1, 1901.
    If they had defeated the Viet Minh, they wouldn't have needed more than the resources required as a colonial occupier.
    We were always operating on an unsophisticated level versus communism. We decided to let France back in.
    Cut the insulting crap. I'm a peer reviewed historian, not some gumby American watching Fox News.
    Of course, there are non-communists everywhere. Thank you for confirming my point about our lack of sophistication. All you need to do is read the stupid Trumper BS polluting this forum to see it.
     
  16. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WW2 and that was part of the problem in Korea and Vietnam. We were attacked in WW2 and the Hitler squared the circle for us by declaring war.
     
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was alive then. What makes you suppose WW2 was popular? FDR would not have been attacked at Pearl Harbor but for his warships he ordered to be there. Sitting ducks.
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are a pretty large sector who thinks communism was or still is a fine idea. I saw it working in East Berlin. IF that is fine, count me out. Russia disavows communism now. Suppose you as an esteemed history expert explain why in Russia and in many other countries it fell out of favor?

    I suggest you engage Dayton who is actually a retired history teacher.
     
  19. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think most people even today believe Roosevelt set up Pearl Harbor. There's more reason to believe he was goading them to move on our Far East forces by cutting off their oil supply.
     
  20. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While social justice is a fine idea, collectivizing production is not. If nothing else, socialism doesn't effectively allocate capital.
    Because it doesn't work. (I'm an economic historian.) It's easy enough to point out no one has ever made it work. The Soviet Union didn't. China didn't. Eastern Europe didn't. When your system is falling behind, faster and faster, you have an incentive to look around for answers.

    Communism still enjoys support among some liberal types. But the first thing they face are questions around why it would work this time.
     
  21. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. I think we've reached the point where this no longer has any purpose. You just keep repeating the same dot points no matter how much nuance & detail I offer. I expect that sort of thing from Trumpers, not a 'peer reviewed historian'. I spent decades studying aspects of the Vietnam War & Vietnamese history - up to PhD level. It is clear which one of us is better informed on the early years of the First Indochina war. I don't see any point repeating myself. If you don't want to accept facts because they don't fit your beliefs then I'll leave you to it.
     
  22. Basset Hound

    Basset Hound Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    What did Ulysses S. Grant have to do with Vietnam? Zippypotty.
     
  23. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He headed the first MACV mission. Did they not tell you that at school. ;)
     
  24. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you know what peer reviewing is about 'Dr.' @bigfella?
    Anyone who thinks Ho Chi Minh moved Truman to let France back into Vietnam is failing to understand history.
    Your "facts" don't line up with the views of an uncle who worked closely for an hour a day with JFK and LBJ from 1961-65, another uncle who was a Col. USAF Intelligence, a Soviet expert who spent a year in Vietnam, and Col. Pennington (someone I can mention without divulging my identity) who was an OSS liaison to Ho during and after WW2.
     
  25. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eisenhower didn't want his own Korea, and JFK was planning to get out after the 1964 election. They weren't interested in fighting the Chinese.
    China was a check on the Soviet Union, and Vietnam was a check on China. It was a situation that could be managed. Why in that case get into an Asian land war?

    By this time, we could see serious cracks in the collective production model. China and the Soviets realized they couldn't compete and were looking to change some of their direction.
     

Share This Page