Why didn't Americans staged a revolt against their government to stop the Vietnam war?

Status
Archived
Joined Jun 2013
708 Posts | 167+
Connecticut
  • It was ruining the US economy
  • Billions were being spent overseas and very little or nothing was being returned to the US
  • People hated conscription
  • Riots were erupting throughout the country
  • Kent State Massacre
  • Thousands dead

So why didn't Americans do that to stop the war sooner?
Up until maybe 1971, definitely 1973, the US was still riding the post-WW II economic boom. Defense industries were going great guns. Then everything collapsed via an oil crisis and the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression.

The USA didn't have conscription. It had a draft which is a little different.
 
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
Many people do believe that, are you telling me that they are wrong?
The answer is both yes and no.

The reasons behind the yes we all know. The no is based on the undeniable fact that the S. Vietnamese government was non-representative of the population, corrupt, ineffective, unreliable and unworthy of US support.
 
Joined Jun 2013
708 Posts | 167+
Connecticut
more than 20 years, over the course of 5 Presidents. You probably forgot Dirty Harry.
Yes indeed.
I just found out that the first US wartime death in Vietnam was in 1954. An American CIA pilot was shot down over DienBienPhu while trying to supply the base.
 
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
A short and accurate answer would be, committing a mistake(s). But I'll elaborate.

After the French were defeated in the First Indochina war, the the west could not accept ceding all of Vietnam to the communists. Accordingly, the peace treaty split the country in two with the promise of elections about reuniting the country in two years. During that war, the US was a huge supporter of the French, which it demonstrated by paying 80% of the costs for the French forces. The primary basis for the US support was the Domino Theory, a policy that still had primacy for American motivation right up until the end of the Second Indochina War.

US intentions to support the newly formed S. Vietnamese government were honorable, even if they were mistaken. A huge problem, one that could not be overcome, was that the S. Vietnamese government was comprised of a religious minority and/or former French educated officials, that was totally corrupt and incompetent, with a penchant for persecuting the religion of the majority. Additionally, 80% of the population of S.Vietnam were peasant farmers and the government officials were primarily city folk. The S. Vietnamese government never controlled more than a third of the country and also never made an effective effort to integrate more of the population into government and national supporters. Thus the S. Vietnamese government never had a chance to resist a determined uprising.

The forces of the Domino Theory, communist containment, support for an ally, demonstrating to other US allies, and Russia. that America would truly support allies against communist uprisings combined to compel the US into support for the S. Vietnamese despite those issues. As N. Vietnam ratcheted up the armed effort to topple the S. Vietnamese, the US had to amp up it's military forces because of all the limitations that resulted from the shortcomings of the Saigon meant that the S. Vietnamese responses were always a mere fraction of what was required.

As N. Vietnam continued to further increase its efforts to reunite the country and with the S. Vietnamese government demonstrating that it was both incapable and unworthy of maintaining itself, the US became a bad poker player. The US was holding a bad hand while too proud and too stupid to walk away. The US Presidents, starting with JFK, at least, were aware that the US was backing a losing proposition, but for ........reasons..........continued to throw American treasure and blood into the conflict until sufficient time and bad publicity turned the American public's opinion against continued involvement in Vietnam.

So the long answer is the US was there in an effort to block the spread of international communism in compliance with the principles of the Domino Theory and to demonstrate to the entire world, both communist and non-communist, that it would be a faithful and willing ally with the willpower to spend whatever was necessary.

What I really really hate about discussing tr Vietnam War, and numerous other civil wars or revolutions between "reactionary capitalists" and communists is the former are always judged as unworthy, while the side that has a fixed execution number (1 in 1,000, for total population) gets a pass. So they're not evil, corrupt, incompetent, etc.

There is a thing called lesser or two evils. A new brand new country created by outsiders and almost immediately suffering an outside supported communist insurgency, also supported by the PRC and USSR, to the point that three communist powers, two of them being in the top of the world in terms of power, with a "the ends justify the means" mindset, with only incremental assistance, and we're supposed to believe S Vietnam govt is going to do great, while the communist get their butts kicked?

We now know that the S. Vietnam govt was completely infiltrated by not just sympathizers but outright agents.

Another example. Everyone loves talking about the Tet Offensive. And so many laugh at the idea that media and politics back home lost the war for the US. And yet who was the most respected S. Vietnamese journalist, who helped dictate the narrative? Pham Xuan An, of Times magazine and the New York Daily Tribune. Who was also a spy for the Vietcong, helped run the insurgency, and was made a legit general after the war. So that's the guy Walter Cronkite and many others took their cues from.

Politically and strategically, America got its but kicked. But this idea that it was a lost cause because S. Vietnam wasn't a utopia just shows how naive and ignorant Americans were at the time, willing to believe that tripe, as well as those afterwards. The enemy and his allies was better then and now at propaganda. That's the only reason they won that conflict and many others.
 
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
Up until maybe 1971, definitely 1973, the US was still riding the post-WW II economic boom. Defense industries were going great guns. Then everything collapsed via an oil crisis and the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression.

The USA didn't have conscription. It had a draft which is a little different.

Draft was just nickname for American conscription.
 
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
The answer is both yes and no.

The reasons behind the yes we all know. The no is based on the undeniable fact that the S. Vietnamese government was non-representative of the population, corrupt, ineffective, unreliable and unworthy of US support.

So, exactly like it's competitor too.
 
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
No,

The N. Vietnamese government was effective and reliable. Cruel and careless with the lives and welfare of the population, but undeniably capable.
And still had popular legitimacy even after they killed a lot of landowners, no?
 
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
  • It was ruining the US economy
  • Billions were being spent overseas and very little or nothing was being returned to the US
  • People hated conscription
  • Riots were erupting throughout the country
  • Kent State Massacre
  • Thousands dead

So why didn't Americans do that to stop the war sooner?
There were large-scale anti-war riots in the US during this time, if I recall correctly. The anger over the war also resulted in LBJ declining to seek reelection in 1968 and in Nixon winning in 1968 (though Humphrey was also an anti-war candidate in 1968 in spite of him being LBJ's VP). As for why a military coup or a full-scale revolution never took place in the US, well, Americans probably prefer to resolve their disputes through the ballot box rather than through bullets. After all, why launch a revolution or a coup when another election is right around the corner?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edratman
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
And still had popular legitimacy even after they killed a lot of landowners, no?
Yes they did. I'm very unclear why, but one reason is that communist governments seem to be quite effective in making their populations fearful of not complying with the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
Yes they did. I'm very unclear why, but one reason is that communist governments seem to be quite effective in making their populations fearful of not complying with the government.
That might be part of it, but in this case, I think that the Viet Minh's street cred from defeating the French in Indochina might have also been a part of the reason for their continued appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edratman
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
No,

The N. Vietnamese government was effective and reliable. Cruel and careless with the lives and welfare of the population, but undeniably capable.

LOL. Effective at what? They screwed the pooch in everything. Land redistribution, collective farming, economics, foreign policy with neighbors (going to war with two fellow communists inside five years). The only thing they truly excelled at was removing competition and crushing dissent. The best thing they ever did was reform their economy in the 80s to open more free market economics, which revived their sinking agricultural and industrial capabilities run into the ground with the typical effectiveness of any communist party hack making decisions on subjects he doesn't remotely understand, with solutions based solely on ideology that is near suicidal in stupidity.

PAVN and NLF had political officers assigned to every level above platoon. Every major operational or tactical decision had to be approved by them. Based on your understanding of warfare, knowing what happened in WW2, Korea, how would you rate that decision in terms of effectiveness?

They won because they South Vietnam was initially political chaos because they hadn't spent the 50s killing their enemies and crushing decent, because of will power, because the US as the sole benefactor of South Vietnam gave up because the war lost popularity at the height of communist propaganda campaign, and because South Vietnam ended up alone against a local insurgency, a powerful invading neighbor, acting as proxy for China and Russia.
 
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
Yes they did. I'm very unclear why, but one reason is that communist governments seem to be quite effective in making their populations fearful of not complying with the government.

So thats what you jean by capable. The US failed to back a South Vietnamese govt as ruthless as communist ideologue fanatics.
 
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
LOL. Effective at what? They screwed the pooch in everything. Land redistribution, collective farming, economics, foreign policy with neighbors (going to war with two fellow communists inside five years). The only thing they truly excelled at was removing competition and crushing dissent. The best thing they ever did was reform their economy in the 80s to open more free market economics, which revived their sinking agricultural and industrial capabilities run into the ground with the typical effectiveness of any communist party hack making decisions on subjects he doesn't remotely understand, with solutions based solely on ideology that is near suicidal in stupidity.

PAVN and NLF had political officers assigned to every level above platoon. Every major operational or tactical decision had to be approved by them. Based on your understanding of warfare, knowing what happened in WW2, Korea, how would you rate that decision in terms of effectiveness?

They won because they South Vietnam was initially political chaos because they hadn't spent the 50s killing their enemies and crushing decent, because of will power, because the US as the sole benefactor of South Vietnam gave up because the war lost popularity at the height of communist propaganda campaign, and because South Vietnam ended up alone against a local insurgency, a powerful invading neighbor, acting as proxy for China and Russia.
Vietnam didn't choose its war with China and I think that we can all agree that its war with Cambodia was the right thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edratman
Joined Jul 2016
9,816 Posts | 1,337+
USA
Vietnam didn't choose its war with China and I think that we can all agree that its war with Cambodia was the right thing to do.

The war in Cambodia was not about ethics it was about power. The invasion of Vietnam was about power, and they did choose it in they picked a fight with a tougher enemy who was their patron, which led to a defeat to the Vietnamese, in that was not repulsed as they had tried, as well as losing support and increasing generations long feud with only remaining communist country in SE Asia.

Top marks Vietnam. Way to show the world how it's done. Maybe North Korea can write chapter 2 in that leadership textbook, followed by Somalia, toss in Afghanistan for good measure.
 
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
That might be part of it, but in this case, I think that the Viet Minh's street cred from defeating the French in Indochina might have also been a part of the reason for their continued appeal.
Yes, successfully defeating the French definitely is also a factor. Without a doubt there must be additional components.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
With professional soldiers. When the draft died the anti-war movement died with it.
The draft ended in 1973 because the American withdrawal started in 1973.

The anti-war effort petered out when the US committed to withdrawal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Zip

Joined Jan 2018
1,940 Posts | 1,359+
Wheaton Illinois
The draft ended in 1973 because the American withdrawal started in 1973.

The anti-war effort petered out when the US committed to withdrawal.

It was an anti draft movement as much as, or even more than, an anti war movement. That the United States now use professional soldiers is why the general populace doesn't much give a damn how many wars are fought or for how long.
 

Zip

Joined Jan 2018
1,940 Posts | 1,359+
Wheaton Illinois
That we lost the Vietnamese War without daily domestic life missing a beat shows we need not have bothered.
 
Status
Archived

Trending History Discussions

Top