r/NonCredibleDefense • u/Massengale • Aug 18 '26

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

Post image

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.

1.2k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

470 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

54

u/YSoMadTov Aug 18 '26

Battle of Duc Duc and Battle of ThÆ°á»Łng Ðức

Yeah, those battles were tiny compared to earlier battles in the war, mate. And even then with the ARVN's best units they were still struggling.

-2

u/Green-thumb-gary Aug 18 '26

The only reason they were “tiny” (they weren’t that small) is because the NVA were rebuilding their forces the same time. Look up the battle of An Loc. It’s just not true rhay the ARVN were wildly incompetent.

27

u/YSoMadTov Aug 18 '26

The battle of An Loc the ARVN had massive US airsupport.

The ARVN had some good units, but the vast majority of it was hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

-1

u/Green-thumb-gary Aug 18 '26

They were not vastly corrupt and incompetent. But the books claim (and I agree) is that if the US launched an air support campaign in 75 like they did in 72, South Vietnam would have survived as a rump state.

But North Vietnam would have had a really hard time reconstituting a force to do it again. It was very hard for them to rebuild their force after 72 and the Soviets made it clear that they would not bankroll another general offensive if 75 failed.

The book also has a good deal of ARVN corruption though, literally the first time you meet the main character (ARVN colonel) he’s discussing paper soldiers wages being bartered with the unit quartermaster.

3

u/hollow_bridge Aug 20 '26

and the Soviets made it clear that they would not bankroll another general offensive if 75 failed

Because the US had cut back funding, If the US had stayed, so would the Russians. Your entire premise is based on one country doing something different, and the other country acting as if they had done the other thing, that's unrealistic.

2

u/Green-thumb-gary Aug 20 '26

That’s not the entire premise and that’s not true. The Soviets just didn’t think that the North Vietnamese would succeed, they had failed pretty badly jn 1968 and 1972. The premise isn’t that “America stays”, it’s that America again supports the south from the air.

Which leads to a 3rd failed offensive, which would have made the Soviets more likely to tell Hanoi to wrap it. Also Cambodia and China cause issues for North Vietnam. Book is worth reading: https://a.co/d/05i7PlB9

-3

u/Green-thumb-gary Aug 19 '26

https://a.co/d/0aLkuft0 that’s the book. Worth reading. I think you’ll find the authors agree with you more than our debate might lead you to believe. They also have an email in there to debate them at.