|
Post by mcnoch on Aug 19, 2012 2:31:18 GMT -5
To start with an all time classic: Why had the war of 1955-1975 taken place in Vietnam? Why was the USA drawn into this conflict which seems to be one of the typical post-WW2 colonial wars? We all know about the standard answers with domino-theory, etc... and I'm sure we don't need to discuss this. I'm targeting to the higher geopolitical cause, which made this conflict possible while other conflicts with similar potential were completely ignored. In a recent article Stratfor's George Friedman argued that the USA was pushing very hard in the post-WW2 area to rebalance the powers and that Vietnam was an example of "excessive balancing". www.stratfor.com/weekly/election-presidency-and-foreign-policyWhile I often don't agree with him, especially in most European-related issues, I think that this analysis is on the spot. What is your view?
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 19, 2012 7:38:22 GMT -5
A quick perusal of the piece leaves me with the opinion that his "excessive balancing" is just the "domino theory" by another name. I do agree with most of the article - that the actual power of the US president is limited and that the actions of one in that office are most frequently dictated by forces beyond his (or her) control. Look at WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, 9/11, -- all put the US in a position of reacting. I find it difficult to point to any action where the US acted - all reaction....
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 19, 2012 18:41:50 GMT -5
The basic idea was containment, as stated by Truman. I don't know if the policy makers in Washington, DC ever thought of it being a balance of power (BOP) per se, because the European version involved several countries doing it. The Cold War was more an attempt to prevent communism from spreading. The Kissinger/Nixon era was a true attempt at BOP, because Kissinger was a realist, and he tried to balance China against the Soviet Union. But this couldn't work, because the world was fundamentally different after 1945. Turning to the Vietnam War, American intervention was an attempt to prevent communism from spreading. Unfortunately, JFK did not take Ike's idea of doing so at Laos, which meant that country fell to the communists. If that country had remained with the allies, the North Vietnamese would never have been able to set up their Ho Chi Minh Trail. History has proven that the Truman Doctrine of Containment was not enough - we couldn't just be on the defensive; we had to go on the offensive and try to roll back communism whenever and wherever possible. In the case of Vietnam, this meant pushing the enemy back as far north as possible, so long as there was no risk of Chinese intervention - and it certainly meant cutting the Trail. MC, you referred to that article, and it also spoke of Obama's balancing act. Perhaps we should split the thread and start another one. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 19, 2012 19:13:41 GMT -5
Didn't JFK make a pledge in his Inauguration Speech to assist any group fighting for freedom and against Communism?
He was the very first to send 'advisors' to VN I think.
SJ
|
|
tim
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by tim on Aug 19, 2012 20:00:05 GMT -5
I agree with Swampy's terminology: "containment" says it all, almost: I'm not sure whether we sought to contain communism or China, or the influence of the U.S.S.R, or all of that. 1949 to 1955 were very heady days in China. Some (in America at least) thought the Vietnam problem was just another front to the Korean War which came to mean a war too contain China (and the U.S.S.R. to some extent), Colonalism was a factor but I can't recall anyone important thinking that the U.S. wanted to colonize Vietnam for itself. But we did have strong ties (military and economic) with the colonalists coming out of WWII. The French certaintly wanted to hang on to IndoChina and the British and Dutch had nearby colonial interests as well which were being aggravated by China. About 20 years ago I was staying at the Govt. Guest House in Hanoi and an official there showed me a British-to-U.S. document which encouraged the U.S. to stand behind the French as that would improve the British position in Malaysia.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 19, 2012 20:09:20 GMT -5
"a British-to-U.S. document which encouraged the U.S. to stand behind the French as that would improve the British position in Malaysia."
Interesting, given that the British did not assist in the VN war.
At that time, mid to late '50s, Britain was at the tail end of the Malayan emergency/uprising, and soon to enter the Indonesian "Confrontation", assisted by Australia.
We have just celebrated the 50th Anniversary of our initial contribution to VN.
SJ
|
|
tim
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by tim on Aug 19, 2012 20:36:12 GMT -5
It is interesting that the British didn't send troops to fight in Vietnam. I didn't know that. Did they lacked the resources? What were the commitments of troops and materials by Aussies, New Zealanders, and Irish to the VN war.?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 19, 2012 22:26:48 GMT -5
Canada didn't send troops either, though many Canadians did volunteer for the US military, and, at the end, they were stationed as peacekeepers.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Aug 20, 2012 0:05:54 GMT -5
It is interesting that the British didn't send troops to fight in Vietnam. I didn't know that. Did they lacked the resources? What were the commitments of troops and materials by Aussies, New Zealanders, and Irish to the VN war.? Like in most European nations, the British public was strongly against the Vietnam War and any involvement of UK troops into it. And despite the not so special relationships between the UK und USA at this time, British engineers build or improved some airbases in Thailand to be used by US Air Force and send some special forces for active duty. The MoD run a clandestine program that UK soldiers could ask for a transfer to Fort Dix, where they would be released from the British Army and joined the US Army. When those soldiers returned from their ToD the US Army would release them and the British Army would re-enlisted them. Australia and New Zealand send troops and air combat units and saw some fighting. There was no Irish involvement. Germany allowed German soldiers to join the US Army in the same fashion the UK did and send some hospital ships off the coast of SV.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 20, 2012 0:20:07 GMT -5
Australia put about 65,000 troops through Vietnam with a max at any one time of about 5,000. We lost just over 500 dead.
We had a squadron of English Electric 'Canberra' (US= Martin B57) bombers based in Thailand and lost one of them. Also a few DDs served in the waters of the coast.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 20, 2012 9:13:05 GMT -5
It is interesting that the British didn't send troops to fight in Vietnam. I didn't know that. Did they lacked the resources? What were the commitments of troops and materials by Aussies, New Zealanders, and Irish to the VN war.? Like in most European nations, the British public was strongly against the Vietnam War and any involvement of UK troops into it. And despite the not so special relationships between the UK und USA at this time, British engineers build or improved some airbases in Thailand to be used by US Air Force and send some special forces for active duty. The MoD run a clandestine program that UK soldiers could ask for a transfer to Fort Dix, where they would be released from the British Army and joined the US Army. When those soldiers returned from their ToD the US Army would release them and the British Army would re-enlisted them. Australia and New Zealand send troops and air combat units and saw some fighting. There was no Irish involvement. Germany allowed German soldiers to join the US Army in the same fashion the UK did and send some hospital ships off the coast of SV. In all these years and all the discussions, I had never known of this before. Quite interesting!
|
|
tim
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by tim on Aug 20, 2012 10:30:56 GMT -5
Good morning McNoch and John. Like Jerry, I had no idea of the matters you mentioned about UK (and German) troops and Vietnam.
Did the British engineers work on the U.S. bomber base in the Northeast of Thailand and/or at the fighter base closer to Bankgok? In the same sentence you mentioned that Britain sent some special forces. Were they sent to the northeast of Thailand and/or to Vietnam? Did British engineers also work on Friendship Highway to connect the northeast with the northwest of Thailand (for military as well as trade reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 20, 2012 13:39:35 GMT -5
Tim,
I cannot answer much of that at all. Way back, the RAAF had Sabres and later the Dassault 'Mirage' based at Butterworth Base in Thailand. They also operated out of the American base with the 'Canberra' I believe. Most of our Vietnam ops were from there.
One of our Canberra's disappeared back then, and has only very recently been discovered along with the crew.
As an aside, the Singapore Air Force do most of their flying and combat training here in Australia. We are a bit bigger than them and their air space is far too restricted so they base in Western Australia where they can fly all day without seeing anyone.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 20, 2012 13:48:05 GMT -5
The Aussies had ground troops in RVN also. I ran into an Aussie (Intel type) Major that I had first met at Leavenworth. He and I had a grand reunion and ended up in a cyclo race down TuDo street at about midnight.....
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 20, 2012 15:04:20 GMT -5
Jerry,
Our main base in VN was at Nui Dat. (Bien Hoa Province??)
SJ
|
|