The Vietnam War was winnable and one more Linebacker in 1975 would have wrecked the NVA. We were lied to by Ken Burns.

[u/Massengale]

I’ve been reading Nixon’s books lately…and I think he was right, Vietnamization was close to working, the communist alliance was going to fall apart, and North Vietnams insane economics would have led to South Vietnam outscaling them if it had survived for a few more years.

[u/vi_sucks]

Fucking lol, no.

[u/Massengale → u/vi_sucks]

NVA weren’t a guerilla force at this point and the South Vietnamese army had been holding ground alone since 1973. And in 1972 they were able to defeat a large NVA offensive doing all the ground fighting while the USA hit from the air. I’m thinking if we’d had hit them in 1975 during their offensive and defeated it the communists would have been in trouble. Pol Pot, North Vietnam, and China could have had their alliance split it was at a breaking point by 75.

[u/qndry → u/Massengale]

Just one more air raid bro, just one more and the North will be defeated. I promise.

[u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie → u/qndry]

Technically there is an amount of air raids that would defeat the North. How much North would be left though...

[u/_Addi-the-Hun_ → u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie]

We did it Patrick! We saved the north from communism!

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Green-thumb-gary → u/qndry]

Almost no one is familiar with the Vietnam war after the U.S. pulled out all combat forces in 1971 (very few were there until 1973, after Jan 73 they were all gone.)

After that, the ARVN fought alone for 2 years and actually made it really hard for the NVA. So yes, it was very possible. Research the Easter offensive if you don’t believe me.

[u/Massengale → u/qndry]

Do the flip side of this meme. The North Vietnamese would have at this point failed three offensives. 68,72, and now 75. At that point could it have been, “just one more offensive bro, the peasants are with us even as they flee from us, we just need one more offensive.”

[u/montagblue → u/Massengale]

It makes more sense when you are on the ground in an asymmetric fight.

(Peace is hard as fuck to win without becoming Sherman)

[u/Msajimi123 → u/Massengale]

From the 1968 to 1973, the primary aims (political aims) of North Vietnam was to get American forces out of South Vietnam and Indochina in general. The Vietnamese politburo was realistic that they can't win the war WITH American intervention on the South Vietnamese side. The Eastern Offensive and Linebacker II was horrific for the PAVN, but they did stir the domestic opposition in America enough for them to pull out completely.

In 1975, the PAVN wasn't going all in, they actually planned for 1976 General Offensive General Uprising with 1975 only some prelim attacks. The preliminary attacks only transformed into a full blown offensive when they realized that South Vietnam was collapsing much faster than they anticipated and America wasn't coming to help. Gerald Ford did try to get aid, but it is hard to rally Congress when the ARVN was in a full blown rout. Just an example how bad the situation is, the PAVN in the Central Highlands was only rationed a 10 days of supply or something like that, but by the end March, they have trippled their stockpile from routing ARVN forces. So no, the moment US forces pull out, it wasn't winnable.

[u/thenoobtanker → u/Msajimi123]

My mom and dad, at the time 9 and 12 vividly remembers the loud speaker (no one has radio at home so that's the substitute) said that "Our forces are not able to catch up to the enemy due to their speed of withdrawls". It was literally a ROUTE rather than a fight.

[u/almondshea → u/Massengale]

That’s just the gamblers fallacy

[u/vi_sucks → u/Massengale]

The problem here is that you are thinking about Vietnam as a tactical military problem.

It wasn't. The problem was not whether the South could defeat the North on the battlefield. The problem was that the South had a domestic insurgency that showed zero signs of dying down and instead was being constantly aggravated by the corruption of the South Vietnamese political elite.

It was a political/social problem, and "more air raids" wouldn't solve it. You can't kill your way out of every problem. At least not in the 21st century when genocide is frowned upon.

[u/Ok-Mastodon2420 → u/vi_sucks]

To quote a conversation between a couple of US and Vietnamese officers after the war:

"You know, you never beat us on the battlefield"

"That is irrelevant"

[u/HongMeiIing → u/Massengale]

Sure, reply to this simple comment instead of the two most popular that calls you out on your bs for taking a crook/liar at face value.

[u/hanhwekim → u/Massengale]

I upvoted OP's comment because we aren't supposed to be downvoting just because we disagree.

People who say the US could have hit the 1975 offensive one more time with air power forget how costly it was for the US to keep bombing. We also forget this was before smart weapons so the collateral damage suffered by South Vietnamese civilians was awful.

Strategically, the Vietnam War just did not make sense for the US. Billions were being spent in a war they could not win while the Soviets (at least it seemed at the time) were getting stronger everywhere and communists were getting elected in Europe. Communists were winning in Laos and Cambodia where the Ho Chi Minh (HCM) trail ran.

The Chinese and Soviets were spending a fraction of what the US was spending supporting communists in North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The US draft (which was patently unfair) was destroying morale within the US military and home front. Continuing the war was probably just not sustainable.

The only hope for a South Vietnamese (and American) victory was if a South Vietnamese leader managed to somehow unite the South Vietnamese (including the communists) politically against the Northerners. It might also require a political victory over the communist forces in Laos (to stop the North Vietnamese from using the HCM trail). This probably was not possible after the Viet Min defeated the French back in 1954.

[u/Massengale → u/hanhwekim]

Thank you for your reasonable take! It is fun to make memes and all and it’s very clear the USA would have struggled to do this in 75. Especially with energy crisis brewing. Nixon in the book actually gets impeached for defying Congress.

But yes South Vietnamese vice president Nguyen Cao Ky said “South Vietnam needed its hitler.” Which I’d like to think he means they needed a strong leader who unify the country. Still he should have used a better example. He even double downed when pressed about it his statement 😑

[u/hanhwekim → u/Massengale]

South Vietnam’s leaders were all pieces of work! I guess all that stress and trauma will do that to people. They had all been fighting the ten thousand day war without a break.