The Vietnam war is one of the best documented war. This is partly due to the war, many edges and contradictions, where one of the biggest was the attempted clandestine war and so the blatant, and sometimes paradoxical, the presence of journalists and cameramen. And just the fact that the United States on several occasions tried to keep the war many dark sides hidden from the public helped the war went so wrong as it did. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time" This quote is from former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, and it describes exactly what U.S. presidents had forgotten during the Vietnam War - but perhaps it is because the very fact that there had never been journalists on the spot.
Vietnam war until 1968
The United States was before 2nd World on brink of national bankruptcy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was partially rescued the country out of this crisis, and his 13-year presidential term, he also managed the country through the war itself. America came out of the war stronger than ever, and with an indomitable optimism. [1] And just two years after the U.S. had engaged in the Cold War. England supported the British-led monarchy in Greece, against communism, but could not afford to maintain support, so when the Brits asked President Truman (for Roosevelt) for support, he mobilized the American people in a magnificent speech - what became known as Truman doktrien. U.S. should support countries against totalitarian regimes and the Soviet Union had pressed until it is either "... collapse or gradually softened." [2] In the years 1953-1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. In this and the next time there was a constant race between the major powers the United States and the Soviet Union, and they did not fight directly against each other, but fought many battles around the world to annoy each other as much as possible [3]. So in light of this, and with moral support from the Truman-Eisenhower doktrien presented a theory that went under the name "Domino theory". It was in its simplicity out that if a country in Indochina fell to communism, just as the rest would fall, as dominoes [4]. The U.S. had always been negative attitude towards the Geneva Act [5], and signed it is not. The political constituencies in the United States feared the impact it would have to sign an agreement on the transfer of 13 million people to communist domination, they sought instead to stand freely with respect to future solutions. Already in 1954, the U.S. government in planning a policy which would ensure Indochina after a model where Ho Chi Minh [6] got northern Vietnam. Vietnam was like a whole in a difficult position, it could on the one hand become enveloped in the embrace of communism, or be an important key position for an American ally - and thus a potential base for U.S. forces. Meanwhile, sydvietnameseren Ngo Dinh Diem became prime minister in South Vietnam and the United States annexed close ties with him, and stood for building a wobbly regime.I 1961 called U.S. Fitzgerrald first man John Kennedy. He was, and remains, the youngest president has been introduced, he was a Catholic and a democrat, and was seen by many as an idealistic and visionary savior figure. Wonderful boy is he even been called by many. Kennedy was a great supporter of Truman, and also understood the reality and significance of Eisenhower's domino theory. But Kennedy was not much to engage actively in a war that would draw large nations like the Soviet and China. So instead of sending troops to Vietnam, he sent money and military advisers. Sydvietnameserne be militarily self-sufficient. And the plan worked. Both Diem wavering support from the people and casualties among the FNL [7] increased dramatically. But casualties among the FNL led to retaliatory attacks became more and more brutal. And this led to increased support in the form of weapons, funding and personnel. In the years 1961-63, the number of advisors from around. 2000 to ca. 14,000 [8] On 1 November 1963 Diem was removed from power by a coup, not by the FNL, but the South Vietnamese military, which removed both Diem and his brother, and murdered them brutally. In the following years had South Vietnam 7 different military "president" which created great instability in the country, as these new leaders did not have popular support but U.S. support did they do. After Diem's death was the clear choice for Kennedy. He could either step up to regulate the military forces or advisers pull out and start peace negotiations. Kennedy never got to make his choice. Just 21 days after Diem was assassinated, he was himself shot in the street in Texas. Until not many years ago did not know what the USA's first man would have done, but Robert S. McNamara [9] makes clear in his memoirs what he believes Kennedy would have done: "I think it highly probable that, had President Kennedy lived, he would have pulled us out of Vietnam. He would have concluded that the South Vietnamese were incapable of Defending themselves [and therefore not worth sacrificing American lives in another country's war] ... "[10] As vice president under Kennedy, it was Lyndon Baines Johnson, who took over the presidential seat warm. Johnson was himself re-elected shortly after the elections of 64, with one of America's highest votes ever, more than 60%. Had it not been for the Vietnam War brindled mediate after Johnson was gone down in history as one of America's best presidents. [11] But it is not his many reforms that made him famous, it was said that his continuation of the Vietnam War. Johnson was well aware that South Vietnam, and thus the U.S. would lose the war if there were not decisions. Johnson had two main dilemmas. Either he would let the whole Vietnam become communist - which he wanted when he was in principle in favor of McCarthy's ideas [12], but on the other hand, he dared not increase the U.S. forces [13] because this would give the opposition among the American population. So he went to elections with the promise to continue Kennedy's populist policy of only supporting with no match strengths. He won as written the above, but it was happening in Vietnam was a whole different story that was unknown to the public and the press. In 1965 Johnson decided to escalate the number of U.S. forces in Vietnam, called the Americanization of the first game was around 185,000 [14] man posted. This came as a recognition that Operation Rolling Thunder [15] could not stop the supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail [16] and that the war in general did not go as they wished. This should be one of the turning points of war, responsibility for the conduct of the war now lay on American shoulders. Immediately after posting McNamara traveled to Vietnam to assess the feasibility and future. Not everyone agreed with his findings: "..." indicates that we win the war. "He said this fact. My view was, however, that nothing of what I had experienced [...] indicated that we were about to beat Vietcong. [...] McNamara rain stick-fighters may have devised precise indices by which one could measure the unmeasurable "[17]. In the years up to 1968 by the American forces sharply intensified, and had its climax in 1968 when over 550,000 Americans were stationed. But Americans were not the result closer to winning, as Ho Chi Minh put it: "If the tiger does not stop fighting the Elephant, the Elephant will die of exhaustion." [18] indicating that they would only go on fighting, although the large U.S. force was present, and that eventually, if they could not beat the American well-oiled military machine would simply tired suffice. It turned out later that he had to get right, and although he was not there to experience it. [19]
[1] Gyldendals U.S. history, Erling Bjøl, p. 498 [2] The opinion of the diplomat George F. Kennan [3] United States gave massive troops in the Dominican Republic (65) and the Soviet Union crushed a reform movement in Czechoslovakia (68). [4] American Presidents, p. 285f. [5] An agreement by trying to find a peaceful solution in Indochina (French) and Korea. [6] Ho Chi Minh 1890-1969, Communist leader of North Vietnam [7] North Vietnam's southern army acronym for the Front National de Liberation, French and means the country's Liberation Front, North Vietnam's second regular army was called PAVN People's Army of Vietnam. Common name for both: Vietcong (U.S.) [8] Vietnam - from drawing to justify, p. 58 [9] Robert Strange McNamara b. 1916, American administrator and politician (Defense), and good friend of Kennedy [10] In retrospect, Robert S. McNamara, p. 96 [11] American Presidents, p. 295 [12] Various sources: Nudansk lexicon, Gyldendals U.S. history [13] There was a real increase in forces since Kennedy had secretly deployed 1,000 marines . [14] Vietnam - from drawing to justify, p. 71f. [15] The air war against North Vietnam, with carpet bombing, initiated as a result of the attack on the U.S. base at Pleiku that killed nine Americans. [16] FNL important forsyningssti which went south through Vietnam, and even into Laos and Cambodia [17] One line in the sand, Colin Powell, p. 99 [18] Wikiquote - part of the Wikipedia [19] Ho Chi Minh died in years 1969th
Photo by U.S. soldiers at Tra Hung Doa. Photo by Bryan Grigsby.
Analysis of the Tet offensive conduct
In the years up to 1968 as the war worse than ever, as mentioned before, the crew has increased sharply, to over half a million young Americans [1], but the situation was still out of control and episodes of pure civilian slaughter such as occurred in town My Lai, decreased support for the war to an unseen low. And in the U.S. as in the rest of the world people began to demonstrate against the war. And it would not be better. Official sources from the defense had assured the American people that the war would soon end. Especially Gen. William Westmoreland was convinced that the United States in a year or two could leave the war to Sydvietnameserne themselves [2]. On 31 January dropped the Vietnamese lunar New Year, the Vietnamese called this Tét Nguyen Ðán, often called Tet. North and South had in that of the Vietnamese (both North and South) major holiday established a ceasefire, the Tet Truce. But it was not respected by the North Vietnamese forces. They began to feast days of violent attacks against over 100 cities in South Vietnam. Americans are known only to the FNL's guerrilla war in the woods and the countryside, and figured therefore generally cities for safe area, but on this day attacks over 85,000 men, organized in small groups with good equipment. This was completely new to the U.S. - but U.S. forces were able nonetheless to have defeated the attacks after a few hours in most places. It is, however, shook the Americans most was seeing footage of the attacks in the streets of Saigon and the subsequent public executions of Vietcong partisans. The Americans had to hide in their embassy, and fighting in the city of Saigon itself lasted the whole three dage.Generalen for the North Vietnamese forces, Vo Ngyen Giap, had as main objective to awaken a genuine peoples revolt, so that the whole of Vietnam would fight together against the United States. This success, however, but he convinced however that his troops were not strong enough to keep any of the towns they had attacked, and while part of the great loss - it is estimated that over 50,000 lost their lives, to U.S. 1500. However, Ho Chi Minh said the following: "You can kill 10 of my but for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." [3] A South Vietnamese reports were present in the city of Saigon, and witnessed the attack, her report to an English newspaper reads as follows (after Vietcongstyrkerne in Saigon): "... they opened them [the camera] up with power and ordered that there would cook for them [...] because Vietnamese elite forces, hunters and soldiers, Marines, went to counterattack, Vietcong dug trenches inside people's homes, and forced them to become [...] women were forcibly compelled to carry the wounded out [ ...] burned the houses to cover their retreat "[4] Here we have a seemingly reliable source, since she herself was present, however, I am a bit skeptical. She is sydvietnameser and therefore wants the U.S. to become, so it could with reasonable suspicion, believing she would dramatize a bit of history, to create sympathy for his people.
The significance of the attacks
Both parties then Tet Offensive as a victory. The Americans acknowledged that they had been taken by surprise, but justified it, saying that despite everything, had signed a peace agreement for the day. But despite this, they proved unable to defeat the invaders. North Vietnam then it also as a victory because they showed that the U.S. had no control over the rural areas - but we must now say that it was primarily a failure as they lost many strengths, and also did not attract people to live the revolution had hoped . It must be said that the Tet Offensive in the U.S. media was described as a defeat for the U.S. and that it indicated the start of their final and inevitable nederlag.Samtidig was support declined further and are now beginning political life also require that U.S. troops were pulled out. This, and the lack of military performance was Lyndon B. Johnson in a televised speech on 31 March, to announce that among other Operation Rolling Thunder was stopped, and that was to begin peace talks. He also announced and many surprise that he would not stand for president in next year (1969).
Presidential election - changing times?
As mentioned earlier asked Johnson not up for reelection, the Democrats were desperate. They had two candidates, their trump card was Robert Kennedy, JF Kennedy's brother. He was a champion of the blacks' rights, but shortly after it became known that he would run, he was shot at an election rally in California. [5] As their candidate was Johnson's former vice president, Hubert Humphrey, and he appealed to the people with his friendly personality and the fact that he had been vice president. Republicans favored re Richard Milhouse Nixon, who reminded people that he had been vice president for a period of 8 years, without American participation in the war (under Eisenhower). And with an extremely well-oiled campaign, he won the election with a narrow victory. 43.4% versus 42.7%. [6] In my opinion, Humphrey lost only because he failed to take sufficient distance to Johnson's war in Vietnam.Nixon also went to the election to escalate American activity in Vietnam, his so-called vietnamiseringspolitik [7] was implemented. The important thing for Nixon was not to pull out of war so they would lose face to the outside world and thus their position as a superpower would be questioned in the future. But just as Johnson had done what he did not entirely his election promises, but had a secret plan, like so much else, was kept secret from the press: "I call it the Madman Theory. I want the North Vietnamese to Believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can not restrain him when he's angry - and he has his hand on the nuclear button - and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace. " [8] Nixon did so the same as Eisenhower had done in Korea - a direct threat of nuclear weapons. This plan was never realized, partly thanks to Henry Kissinger, Nixon's security advisor. But as mentioned Nixon would do much to pull out without losing face. Then he ordered the secret aerial bombardment of the neutral Cambodia, where it believed Ho Chi Minh trail went through - this was partly done to stop the supplies, but also so the U.S. could pull out, while the press focused on a series of attacks. This was no success and could not be kept secret from the press. Then he deployed ground forces in both Laos and Cambodia again, which once again triggered massive demonstrations - but this time it cost a demonstration in Ohio four students lives. After Cambodia Offensive Nixon declared that America would pull out of Vietnam, and South Vietnamese troops would take over the actual war service. And this time he kept his promise. By the end of 1971, the number of troops reduced to 140,000 [9], the lowest number in seven years.
At the same time in secret and in parallel with no contracting Paris peace agreements, made crucial peace talks between Kissinger and North Vietnamese Le Duc Tho officer [10], and even Richard Nixon paid a historic visit to Peking and Moscow, and was at these meetings, the two Communist superpowers to reduce their aid to North Vietnam, and this was North Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. And the United States and North Vietnam came to a peace agreement, but South Vietnam President Thieu would not agree to the agreement. This made the situation much worse. This will be the perfect way for the U.S. to pull out of the war, and thus does not stand as a loser in the war, but because Nixon wanted a peace deal he could use during the upcoming election. This led Nixon to order the most powerful bombing of North Vietnam, the Christmas bombings - Operation Rolling Thunder "had resumed - and he also specifically for the big city Hanoi. This resulted in large civilian as well as military losses to the NFL, which forced them to the Paris negotiating table again, and here was an agreement finally signed on 23 1973.Den January 13th August left the country last American soldiers, who now had to fend for themselves. But even if peace agreements were signed by the parties would not surrender without a fight. In year 1974, it was a genuine civil war, and it was announced that both sides had violated the ceasefire. [11] The NFL made its last offensive action, Ho Chi Minh Campaign, which in just 45 days [12] completely by more than 30 years long war, the date was 30 April 1975. The country was united with the total of Communist rule, with headquarters in Saigon, which was renamed Ho Chi Minh City.
[1] The average age of an American soldier was just 19 years. Vietnam - from drawing the tiger, p. 74 [2] The New York Times, "The 'Wobble on the War on Capitol Hill," 17 December 1967 [3] Wikiquote - part of the Wikipedia [4] Vietnam - from drawing to justify, text 32, p. 82F. [5] Nudansk Lexicon [6] American Presidents, p. 310 Gyldendals U.S. history, s.592f. [7] Policy which match the load gradually be given to SV itself, which would be 150,000 troops out immediately, and about 20,000 each month in subsequent years. [8] Wikiquote - part of the Wikipedia [9] Gyldendals U.S. history, p. 594 [10] They were both later Nobel Peace Prize for their work [11] concluded that the international monitoring committee, set up as a result of the Paris Agreements [12] short time, partly due that the South Vietnamese army was in a moral solution.
Discussion of the U.S. presence, and subsequent war in Vietnam
Now that the war had been over, the Americans demanded the bill: thirty years had elapsed from the Truman doktiren the war could finally finish - the longest war the U.S. had ever been involved in. Six presidents the country had enjoyed, including one killed, and another who had the first in American history [1] resign early. 58,191 Americans had died, including more than 25,000 in the period after the 1968th Another dramatic figures, the number of wounded Americans, 153,303 - which, like the rest of the war was a tremendous economic or social burden for posterity. Three million Americans served in Vietnam. Something completely different, in contrast to the social damage and problems more easily done up, the price of war: 120 billion dollars was estimated to cost. But it was still a substantial amount of the Americas, and it really would have been able to afford the war, but this would have demanded that President Johnson had to take important economic reforms in their home country - he lacked courage. In memoriam of this costly war was seen in the late '70s, when inflation drove, and the dollar weakened sharply. The result was that there was corroded heavily on the U.S. gold reserves and balance of payments deficit reached record with 30 billion dollars. [2]
War on the correct basis?
The issue of U.S. presence, and subsequent regular warfare is a very controversial topic in American politics. The whole affair must be considered within the context of the Cold War and the American fear of communism spread and the hegemony. But one aspect which is also essential in the matter, is Americans' lack of understanding of Asian politics, and general insight into the Communist regimes. A serious mistake, and perhaps a central reason why the war went so wrong as it did. This lack of insight was a direct result of the Joseph McCarthy communist persecution, or as he would have said, persecution of "un-American activities" [3]. In the period after the 2nd World War, many American officers trained as "Communist experts", but these were later scared away so that the U.S. lacked intelligence and knowledge. And this was just the starting point for many errors. Among others, there was broad agreement in the Kennedy administration that the two communist giants, the Soviet Union and China, both would work together to strengthen North Vietnam in their struggle for the establishment of Communist rule. This was not proper. Soviet and China looked at each other as enemies on equal footing with the United States. The reason for this difference is due to the two driven vision of each other. Communism in the Soviet had been introduced in very short time, and built its foundation on workers. In China, it was different here was communism was introduced after decades of struggle, and had its roots among the peasants. Thus, there was an internal power struggle between the two to support North Vietnam, but at the same time and in as much discomfort to the neighboring country. North Vietnam did the wisdom of trying to balance this power game, so that it benefited both countries support. But the U.S. had been a diplomatic mission from the outset, and discussed the situation with the Soviet and China to the whole affair might have been avoided. [4] Another fatal issue not examined was the open question of whether it was the same kind of communism North Vietnam sought, which was represented by the Soviet or Chinese? Nationalism was the U.S. in many places misinterpreted as real kommunisme.Som indicated in my first quote from Colin Powell, was expressed that the U.S. fought this war to protect the home, and generally for "freedom-loving people everywhere". If you look away from the point of view and strategic advantage in having a close ally in an otherwise communist-dominated area, is really not many reasons to start such a massive war as the Vietnam War ended up being. There are very few natural riches of the country, therefore, no minerals, fuels, etc.. So as the starting point must be noted that the fear of Communism spreading was oprigtig.Men has said as much divided on the war. Many prominent politicians in the U.S. believe today that the case was justified. They conclude that, had it not been for U.S. intervention would be Soviet and China have spread to the rest of Asia and India, and possibly the Middle East where they would try to gain control over oil producing countries. We know little about whether such plans have existed since many of the former Soviet archives are still secret for offentligheden.Set in hindsight it is easy to judge and say what was done wrong: the lack of a proper set targets for war, intelligence, lack of effort to win "Hearts and Minds" of the people, the underestimation of nationalism, etc.. But then the question arises, can we use this knowledge about the Vietnam war error to anything today? And the answer must obviously be yes, and it was even used. In the first Iraq war put the United States for not repeating the same mistakes, it was the first genuine American war since the Vietnam War precisely, and none of the same mistakes may be repeated. Therefore, the goals clearly defined, which was initially deployed substantial forces, and the whole operation started 17th January with airstrikes and ground forces were then deployed, pulled Iraq out of Kuwait just two days later [5]. But today we turn our gaze on Iraq once again. Another war between Iraq and the U.S., and it begins more and more like Vietnam again. In the period up to Saddam's captured the operation went smoothly, the large proportion of people backed up and had mastered it. But the aim of the operation was successfully stood many of the remaining troops without proper goal, which just blew the flames of extremism that America was out of Iraq. So in this war perpetrated many of the same mistakes which were committed during the Vietnam War.
[1] American Presidents, p. 309 [2] Gyldendals U.S. history, p. 595ff. [3] Nudansk Encyclopedia [4] Sources from various locations, primarily Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect, chapter 11: "The Lessons of Vietnam" [5] Nudansk Encyclopedia
United States as the world's policeman?
"We do not have the God-given Right to shape every nation in our own image or as we choose" [1] Yet it is precisely what the U.S. does in many parts of the world, especially in the later post-Cold War times. This is partly due to the U.S., although knowing that the cold war was effectively over in the middle 80s, have found it difficult to adapt. Then it was the fear of the spread of communism, now it's terrorism and dictatorships around the world who stand for skud.Grunden to the U.S. was looking forward roaring as they were in the period after the 2nd World War II was that as one of the few nations came out of the war with a strengthened economy, and the world's largest military machine, and they felt that they should use this power to shape the world a better place. They did so partly because they were able to do so, however one must remember that many of the places the U.S. has involved itself in, has real interest. And it's probably also what we are today is partly trying to achieve in the EU a power to influence our surroundings, and the Maastricht Treaty [2], we just moved closer to this mindset - we would like to see ourselves as an alternative to U.S. superpower hegemony in the region, whether we would be a better one, will have missed on my part.
It has generally been difficult for Europeans to understand the U.S. senimperialistiske policy and quest to play "international police". In our view, later reinforced under Bush's current government, many Americans see the world in black and white. Good and evil. "You are either with us or you are against us" [3]. But thus creating a central issue in the debate about U.S. intervention in world chaos. We will basically not have them as our protectors, and think well of us, among other things the EU can manage ourselves and manage international conflicts, but when it really is bad, to inform our gaze to the west, and counts on U.S. intervention as we have done it so many times before. For example, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, the civil war in Yugoslavia, Somalia (see the cinematic image top), Haiti, Burundi, Armenia and the list goes on [4]. It is these wars and disturbances which were partly overshadowed by the Cold War, but continued without the world looking at them, and it's wars and rebellions by those in the Third World which has claimed 40 million deaths [5] in the past 45 years. And it is in conflict as they have informed NATO in particular look at America. By this I do not think it is always fair and reasonable, but we need only in our criticism of U.S. imperialism remember that it is often ourselves who have asked them to be our protectors.
[1] Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect, p. 323 [2] Policy on general uniformity in European thought, as in the safety of political views. [3] George Walker Bush, State of the Union Address (21 September 2001) [4] Leksikon.org [5] Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect, p. 324
C ONCLUSIONS
Tet Offensive which was North Vietnam's surprise attack of over 100 major cities in central and southern Vietnam, and almost all military bases controlled by U.S. or South Vietnamese forces in the winter of the 1969th offensive was a crucial test of strength for both parties, and must be seen as one, no-cost, victory for the North Vietnamese liberation movement. The attack was not the major influence in the war zone, the losses for the U.S. was limited, but the unique importance was the battle was at home. The images of the fighting in Saigon streets shook the government, and was Lyndon B. Johnson to withdraw as a candidate topic for the upcoming elections. It shook the whole image of the United States was close to victory, a victory which had been promised by many American official and generals. The episode served to compel the U.S. to the negotiating table, and was seen by many as the beginning of the end of the war. But I would not put too much importance in the attack alone, in my opinion it should be viewed with the useless bombing during "Operation Rolling Thunder" and many other episodes, as summed got Nixon to introduce vietnamiseringspolitikken, and thus allowed a final at war.
The war in Vietnam was the American side partly misinterpreted as a war between them and communism, but today we'll see it more as an independent nationalist action without much connection to the Soviet or Chinese. Since South Vietnam allies itself with the United States, North Vietnam realized that they had to get outside help, and there stood the Soviet and China ready. And if you look at the reasons for it, we must, as mentioned earlier sincere faith in their intentions, to save the world from communist domination, and dissemination.
Bibliography / Sources:
"American presidents" - Frank Mannesmann - 2001 - Aschehough. "A line in the sand" - Colin Powell (Autobiography) - 1995 - Holkenfeldt. "Gyldendals U.S. history" - Erling Bjøl - 2002 - Gyldendal. "In Retrospect" - Robert S. McNamara (Eng.) - 1995 - Times Books. "Vietnam - fra drage til tiger" - Peter Frederiksen - 1996 - Systime. "Politikens nudansk leksikon" - redaktion - 2002 - Politikens forlag
