Should the Brits have intervened in Vietnam ?

Question

If the British officers had led US men into Vietnam and shown them how to fight properly as a strategic army, then they would have won the war. But instead, no, they just...........we all know the outcome........i needn't go on :-(

Answer 1

Come on, Jim...there are Americans who said Vietnam was the 'wrong kind of war' - maybe because the Vietnamese stood up - who knows, but the British intervention in what was known as the Suez crisis (1956-7) became just as difficult - and eventually just as embarrasing to us, as the Vietnam war was to Americans - and not merely during it, but in the years afterwards.
What indeed would the British Army have done in Vietnam?
Strutted their stuff and vex the Americans, creating a war between misguided egos (on both sides) or got on with the job?

Answer 2

Vietnam was a Civil war and no one had the right to get involved. Geneva Accord stated a provisional separation of Vietnam would be put in place until elections were held & then the 2 sectionswould be reunited. The north held them & the Viet Mingh (Socialist) won. The dictators in the south , who still had French officers in their governing junta, knew the Viet Mingh would win in the south also so they would not call a free election. So the military known as the Viet Cong attempted to force the south to hold elections. South refused , called on the US , who sent in advisors. Kennedy decided the US should not be there and planned a withdrawal, cost him his life, and LBJ went into High Texan Drive and we all know the out come. No Briton should not have interferred, and the US had no right being there in the first place.
If the US had minded their own business, 60,000+ Americans and God only knows how many millions of east Asians would have not been slaughtered.

Answer 3

No I do not believe it would have made any difference, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan just a few examples of how hard it is to deploy forces on foreign lands and come away without loss. The people that live within these countries are not going to want to relinquish their homeland and would probably fight and support each other, as I am sure we all would given extreme circumstances. It is proven in history time and time again that if we are ever to learn anything from our past is that wars never really have winners, just many victims. Perpetuating the cycle of hate is big business for governments, big corporate companies, but never good for those who have to stand face to face with another person proclaiming he is my enemy and having to kill. I would prefer to put our leaders in a boxing ring let them sort it out that way, a lot less costly all round don't you think.

Answer 4

OK why should the Brits gone in first of all and to be honest the way you phrase your question its almost like the USA did not do their best......................IMO when the french Foreign Legion pulled out that should have been a 'sign' to ANYONE that it was going to be a war that no one would win period.

The men that went on the whole served well and very bravely period end............it would not have altered the outcome WHO was leading them I dont think........................

And to DANE maybe you should look at the honour roll for the dead in the Falklands BEFORE you run your mouth dear....UNLIKE Grenada MANY shots where fired and many lives where lost, after all at least Argentina HAS an Army UNLIKE Grenada and that does include the ships that went down with loss of hands.

Also as a thought on the same vein...........IF the Gurkha's had gone in and fought MAYBE that would have changed the outcome, that is ONE force I would never want to mess with and have ALWAYS been very grateful that they stand solidly by the side of the Brits...........

Answer 5

If you do some research you may find British forces did have some involvement in its interest in Saigon also members of the Commonwealt such as Austrailian Forces served in vietnam. But due to Britains involvement in the ICC of the Geneva Accord.

Meant a large force could not be sent and support was only in the form of political backing and Intel.

Try looking up Richard NOONE...

Answer 6

Dont think the British strategy would have helped any, did not really help in the war against the communists in Malaysia in the 50's and 60's Nor in Burma against the Japanese, Nor in Singapore and malaysia against the Japanese, not that I agree with the American Military at all or the reasons for going into Vietnam (did you know Ho Chi Ming offered the Americans a deal to side up with him to help against the French before he asked the Russians) Would have cost them less financially and of course the worse the lives lost. PS I am a Brit

Answer 7

Hi Jim >
A good Q.
I guess it would have created a bit of a major re-think, not favourable with politicions.
Yup, I.m sure that Brit forces would of made a better job of the farce, but it was just that. A complete nonesence from beginning to end. Brits, quite rightly, in my view, did not want to sully their souls with it.
As you suggest, a daft notion with a daft outcome for many.
Bob.

Answer 8

vietnam was 35 years ago who cares. I have a uncle that to this day when a chopper flys over he white knuckles the seat he is setting in and sweat beeds big as marbles pop out. don't worry about vietnam worry about to day. if you are still young enough get in the military and do what you can now.

Answer 9

I can see you don't know much about the war in Nam. It would have had a diff. ending if the Military was allowed to fight the war instead of Washington running it. Not ask your Mom if you can join the Army. You don't have to worry about being Drafted and made to go to the Middle East.

Answer 10

Most definitely NOT this was a war that never could have been won,and should never have kicked off in the first place.