Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WWII what-ifs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Their political resolution was a march straight into Saigon. In fact, Tet was fought in Saigon. That's a military conquest. There's no way in hell that Vo and cohorts could have predicted the anti-war movement.
    They didn't have to predict it, they just had to ride it. It was fairly obvious that the counter-culture in the US and the reluctance of the US to really throw in and its handicapping ROE's was undermining American resolve in the long term.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      They didn't have to predict it, they just had to ride it. It was fairly obvious that the counter-culture in the US and the reluctance of the US to really throw in and its handicapping ROE's was undermining American resolve in the long term.
      So were they. They were on the verge of collapse as well. Up until LB I and II, North Vietnamese families were seeing their sons off never to return again. LB I and II brought the war home to them but up until then, they had no more resolve to see the war through than the Americans.

      In fact, Tet was a disaster for Hanoi in more ways than one. The uprising they predicted didn't happened and North Vietnamese families lost their sons for nothing and no amount of propaganda was going to sway them that South Vietnam was going to welcome them with opened arms.

      Within context, a German victory in North Africa is not a given and their loss could also have ripple effects in Berlin.
      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 26 Nov 15,, 22:56.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        So were they. They were on the verge of collapse as well. Up until LB I and II, North Vietnamese families were seeing their sons off never to return again. LB I and II brought the war home to them but up until then, they had no more resolve to see the war through than the Americans.

        In fact, Tet was a disaster for Hanoi in more ways than one. The uprising they predicted didn't happened and North Vietnamese families lost their sons for nothing and no amount of propaganda was going to sway them that South Vietnam was going to welcome them with opened arms.
        Tactically it was a defeat, but strategically they crushed LBJ who had been loudly proclaiming that victory was in sight.. LBJ's presidency never recovered and he said he would not seek a second term.

        Within context, a German victory in North Africa is not a given and their loss could also have ripple effects in Berlin.
        Hitler is already playing that game... until Feb 43 he kept civillian production artificially high to try and keep the home front calm. He lived in fear of a stab in the back... remember he blamed the German defeat in WWI on politicians losing their will.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
          Tactically it was a defeat, but strategically they crushed LBJ who had been loudly proclaiming that victory was in sight.. LBJ's presidency never recovered and he said he would not seek a second term.
          That's just it. It was a strategic disaster for Hanoi. The VC, wiped out. Two entire North Vietnamese Army gone. Home front discontent. North Vietnamese families were exhausted of sons.

          LBJ handed them their propaganda victory but by all accounts, Hanoi lost the war at Tet.

          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          Hitler is already playing that game... until Feb 43 he kept civillian production artificially high to try and keep the home front calm. He lived in fear of a stab in the back... remember he blamed the German defeat in WWI on politicians losing their will.
          And a British victory in North Africa would have delayed BARBAROSSA to the point that Hitler could not penetrate Soviet defences.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            That's just it. It was a strategic disaster for Hanoi. The VC, wiped out. Two entire North Vietnamese Army gone. Home front discontent. North Vietnamese families were exhausted of sons.

            LBJ handed them their propaganda victory but by all accounts, Hanoi lost the war at Tet.

            And a British victory in North Africa would have delayed BARBAROSSA to the point that Hitler could not penetrate Soviet defences.
            Hitler had the troops to both, he even had the fuel if Malta was taken but his fear of losing more fallschrimjagers ended up costing him the war.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Hitler had the troops to both, he even had the fuel if Malta was taken but his fear of losing more fallschrimjagers ended up costing him the war.
              You're saying that Hitler had the forces to do a 2 front war.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                That's just it. It was a strategic disaster for Hanoi. The VC, wiped out. Two entire North Vietnamese Army gone. Home front discontent. North Vietnamese families were exhausted of sons.

                LBJ handed them their propaganda victory but by all accounts, Hanoi lost the war at Tet.
                Sir,

                I'm going to have to disagree with this. Tet was much more than a 'propaganda victory'. It was a victory on a number of levels.

                Every nation has a limit on how much it is prepared to commit to win a war. In Vietnam America's limit was about 4 years & 30,000 dead. Korea wasn't much different. That isn't because America was weak or divided, but because Vietnam (and Korea) simply didn't matter enough to commit more or risk more. No US President was ever committed enough to do more than was done because that was as important as Vietnam was. When LBJ asked his people what the plan was after Tet they just said 'give us more men' - like every General does. It was 'more of the same', and that simply wasn't worth doing more of. Every day after Tet & every death after Tet were about finding a way out.

                North Vietnam, on the other hand, was FAR from defeated. This is the nation that was able to raise another army after Tet, lose it in 1972, and then raise yet one more to push for victory in 1975. While the local VC were indeed wrecked, many were replaced & continued to harass US & ARVN troops, if less effectively. Further, the much vaunted 'Linebacker' campaigns were designed to cover a US withdrawal. The most they would have 'won' is a treaty that saw the US leave & the North promise not to invade. That was achieved in 1973, but it left the Nth in possession of 10% of Sth Vietnam & with 200,000 personnel on its soil. Hanoi was certainly strained, but not to the point where it was ready to quit. As was pointed out earlier, all the Nth had to do was wait out the US & make the price for staying too high. It reached that point at Tet. Sth Vietnam proved more resilient than they expected, but without the US it was never enough.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                  North Vietnam, on the other hand, was FAR from defeated.
                  It was defeated at every level except one. The US was not willing to pay the butcher's bill with North Vietnamese blood. Had it been any other conqueror, Mongols or the Japanese, Hanoi would have been put to the knife and there was nothing to stop them. North Vietnamese families had no sons of fighting age left. It took three years for them to wait for boys to become men.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    It was defeated at every level except one. The US was not willing to pay the butcher's bill with North Vietnamese blood. Had it been any other conqueror, Mongols or the Japanese, Hanoi would have been put to the knife and there was nothing to stop them. North Vietnamese families had no sons of fighting age left. It took three years for them to wait for boys to become men.
                    As they say in sport - you can only play the opposition that is provided. North Vietnam fought the war it needed to fight and held on for as long as it needed to. It is worth remembering that they also outlasted the Mongols & Japanese (and Chinese and French). Different strategies for different enemies. The US wasn't fighting this war in isolation & it wasn't fighting it for existential reasons. Vietnam was doing both. The US wasn't prepared to kill more Americans or Vietnamese (though several million were killed, which is still a lot) because the war was never really about Vietnam for America. That is ALL it was about for Nth Vietnam
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      As they say in sport - you can only play the opposition that is provided. North Vietnam fought the war it needed to fight and held on for as long as it needed to. It is worth remembering that they also outlasted the Mongols & Japanese (and Chinese and French).
                      They did not outlast the Chinese and had to go begging to Beijing for peace.

                      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      Different strategies for different enemies. The US wasn't fighting this war in isolation & it wasn't fighting it for existential reasons. Vietnam was doing both. The US wasn't prepared to kill more Americans or Vietnamese (though several million were killed, which is still a lot) because the war was never really about Vietnam for America. That is ALL it was about for Nth Vietnam
                      You're missing the point. North Vietnam was beaten twice and threw back twice. The fact that they re-started round 3 does not change the fact that they effectively lost the war on those two occasions. Militarily and economically, they had nothing left and had to rely on China and Russia to build a 3rd army.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        You're saying that Hitler had the forces to do a 2 front war.
                        In the short term yes, he ended up fighting a 3 front war. He was pennywise but pound foolish.

                        Comment


                        • BF,

                          Before we go any further, Vo didn't start Tet to force LBJ out of office. He started Tet so he could do machine gun the Saigon government. The fact that LBJ did leave office does not change the fact that Vo had absolutely zero clue that this would happen or he planned for it.

                          And he most certainly did not plan Tet to lose the VC or his armies.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            They did not outlast the Chinese and had to go begging to Beijing for peace.
                            I was going back a bit farther than that.

                            You're missing the point. North Vietnam was beaten twice and threw back twice. The fact that they re-started round 3 does not change the fact that they effectively lost the war on those two occasions. Militarily and economically, they had nothing left and had to rely on China and Russia to build a 3rd army.
                            I understand that. My point is that you cut your coat according to your cloth. Had those resources not been available or had it been a different enemy they would have adopted a different strategy. They lost some big battles, but stayed in the fight long enough to claim the win.


                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            BF,

                            Before we go any further, Vo didn't start Tet to force LBJ out of office. He started Tet so he could do machine gun the Saigon government. The fact that LBJ did leave office does not change the fact that Vo had absolutely zero clue that this would happen or he planned for it.

                            And he most certainly did not plan Tet to lose the VC or his armies.
                            Oh, I agree entirely. Tet was a massive miscalculation and it wasn't Vo's first. He tried the same thing in 1951 & butchered the cream of his army. I don't see him as the military genius some do. However, Tet worked on several levels. While there was a major and expensive miscalculation about the state of the RVN & the ARVN, there was also an understanding that the US could be pressured into withdrawal as the French were. That wasn't the immediate aim of Tet and could probably have been achieved at lower cost, but it was part of the broader strategy.

                            LBJ offered the North a way out of the war more or less immediately & it didn't take it. Clearly the belief was that even in a badly weakened state the North could just wait the US out and rebuild. Also keep in mind that but for a few votes in a few states Nixon would have lost to Hubert Humphrey, who was committed to ending the war quite quickly. Had that happened Tet would seem like a master stroke. It should tell us something about the strength of the North's strategic position that it could find itself in an improved position after Tet despite the damage done.

                            Think of it a bit like Zhukov's failed offensives in 1942. He butchered his armies, but he still left his enemy in a relatively worse position than it was before. Sure, he could have used those forces more judiciously and achieved more, but Germany was further from winning after than it was before. Likewise the US & by extension RVN after Tet.
                            Last edited by Bigfella; 27 Nov 15,, 06:07.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              Thats what the Bulgarians are for... Bulgaria joined the Axis but refused to declare war on Russia and so used her troops to police interior lines of the Axis conquests. In addition the Heer and SS each had security divisions used for anti-partisan and occupation duties.
                              They were only interested to occupy Macedonia, Thrakia and some small part of Serbia. Germans were in control. They were not included in any military op. Hungary and Romania is a better argument.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                They were only interested to occupy Macedonia, Thrakia and some small part of Serbia. Germans were in control. They were not included in any military op. Hungary and Romania is a better argument.
                                The Hungarians and Romanians were fully engaged on the Eastern Front, regardless finding security troops was never a problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X