Did we virtually destroy North Vietnam in the war??????

Question

DOes anybody think that we could have won the war?

WHat exactly went wrong

Answer 1

My Dad's a Vietnam Veteran and I have several uncles that fought on both sides of the Vietnam War. All of them, including my uncle who was an NVA major and is now a retired general from Vietnam's army, indicated that the U.S. could have easily won the War at any time.

Perhaps the most interesting perspective is from my Uncle Bui (the one who served in the NVA). He and his men lived in a cave for five years in North Vietnam during the War because of the bombing, and he never went outside during the day or he would be killed. He and his battalion stayed on high alert in North Vietnam during and after the Ho Chi Minh Campaign, because the leaders in Hanoi feared the U.S. would retaliate the capture of Saigon by invading and capturing North Vietnam. These are certainly not the actions of a military officer who was confident that their side was winning.

North Vietnam was ALMOST virtually destroyed. The bombing did a lot more damage than Western news and history sources reveal. Many of the cities in North Vietnam, such as Vinh and Thai Binh were leveled by bombings. However, much of Hanoi and Haiphong were relatively untouched, because they were off limits to bombing. For all practical purposes, there would be nothing left of North Vietnam if those two cities were destroyed.

What went wrong is a matter of opinion. Those who are articulate with the conflict's history would put the blame of the escalation on the assassination of South Vietnam's President Diem and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Although highly corrupt, President Diem's assassination caused a leadership vacuum for years in South Vietnam, which demoralized their military and citizens. President Kennedy was known to be against escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam to full scale combat, and may have brokered peace in Vietnam had he lived. President Johnson certainly wanted U.S. military combat in Vietnam. Johnson even rescinded an order from Kennedy to recall advisers shortly after Kennedy's death. Vietnam would probably be like Korea is today if Kennedy was not assassinated.

Answer 2

Some of these answers are just plain wrong. The US did not occupy North Vietnam which could have been one reason that we did not win. We allowed the enemy to run across an imaginary line to safety in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam. We did carpet bomb parts of NV but we tried to hit military targets only. The north was smarter than our politicians and hid their military stuff in the jungle and in hospitals. We had mined their harbor in Hanoi but peace activists (including Jane Fonda) wanted to sail their ships and so had to be shown the safest route which they immeditately reported to the NVA. Can you say traitors? According to the writings of the Norths leaders they began to get nervous when the 24 hour-round the clock bombing began. It didn't stop like it usually did. Even the US pows reported that their treatment got better during that time. The NVA was scared that we were going to do what had to be done. Then the communist led peace movement back in the US forced Nixon into stopping the bombing. The US military did not lose any battles, the US politicians lost the war. The North committed beaucoup war crimes and atrocities on our troops and their own people. Now they are heros! Not to mention the 3 million people who died after the war was over. Yes, the Soviet Union and China were sponsors of that war. We occassionally killed a few of them in Vietnam.

Answer 3

No, the US did not destroy North Vietnam
Yes, the war could have been won

what went wrong? Just about everything, beginning with the total political control of the war, having to approve targets, no fly zones, no bombing zones, etc.

Essentially the politicians in the US thought that the North Vietnamese dictators cared about their people- so they bombed the people (infrastructure, communications) but left the leaders intact (presumably - so as to have whom to talk to).
The reality was that the NVA dictators could not care less how many people died. THEY were immune, had plenty of goodies (courtesy of China, USSR and the commie counties) delivered to their front door (courtesy of US politicians). Hanoi and Haiphong harbour were "no bomb zones", just as the 50 miles next to the CHinese border. You can guess where all the NVA stockpiles were situated?

All the NVA had to do was wait. they could attack at leisure (all NVA territory was "no go" for US forces- so no fear of invasion) They could also rely on allies inside the US- eg people like Fonda and the Ketchup man

Could it have been won? In fact it WAS won. By the time the US were pulling out there was no VC activity in the south. NVA attacked with planes and tanks in the next year, and was beaten off by the South Vietnamese army. It took the Dem controlled US Congress another 2 years to strangle South Vietnam economically and deliver it to the NVA on a plate

Answer 4

North Vietnam kicked our butts. Why? Because they had a lot of help to do it - China and Russia.
We could have won the war, but the government really didn't support the troops and have good equipment that the enemy had. Also, Americans didn't support the war effort and lots of Americans, although drafted from military service, left America. Most went to Canada. Although "pardoned" those that left didn't trust the government and most stayed wherever they were. I lived through that but was just a teenager. I did have friends that were injured or killed in Vietnam. It was bad. A thing America ought to apologize to the citizens and veterans for!

Answer 5

i went there a while ago, and it still looked like they havent fixed up from being bombed back then. The problem was, for one thing, a couple million screaming chinese with lots of heavy firepower. The other thing that went wrong was that there wasnt much of a reason for us to be there. We split the country, and stopped the aggression, as for winning, well, we could bomb them all we want, but an occupation would probably have been as much of a disaster as the currnet fiasco. The fact that the north koreans wouldnt have run away like the arabs would have been a factor too.

Answer 6

The politicians ran the war rather than the military. The same as the first tour of duty in Iraq when the US had a good excuse to be there.

Answer 7

being the occupier is always wrong. interesting interview i seen a few years ago on television with a former north vietnamese commander, he stated if need be , they were prepared to fight the americans for 10-15 generations, on typically a 500-800 calorie a day diet.

war crimes commited by american soldiers in vietnam turned away any hearts and minds that might have been won.

Answer 8

t doesn't matter who lost the war for us or how we lost it. I always see vets blaming the politics and the govt., OK maybe they are right but does that really matter. In the end we, AMERICANS lost that war. Just like the war in Iraq, you can blame Dems, politicians, libs blah blah blah, in the end we will lose in Iraq.

Answer 9

It isn't just about pounding down on a country in military ways/actions..if you can't break the will of a people, then you can't win the war...