Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WWII what-ifs
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostThey 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.
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 PostSo 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostTactically 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.
LBJ handed them their propaganda victory but by all accounts, Hanoi lost the war at Tet.
Originally posted by zraver View PostHitler 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.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThat'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThat'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.
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 PostNorth Vietnam, on the other hand, was FAR from defeated.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostIt 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.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostAs 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).
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostDifferent 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 VietnamChimo
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 PostThey did not outlast the Chinese and had to go begging to Beijing for peace.
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.
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostBF,
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.
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 PostThats 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.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 PostThey 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.
Comment
Comment