Henry Kissinger died. Good riddance.

[JWB]

8 hours ago, lucklucky said:

............ non interdictable LOC from 2 Communist super powers.

The HCMT could have been interdicted if Nixon made optimum decisions vis a vis Cambodia. By the time the NVA rolled into Saigon Hanoi was down to 1 super power after Moscow stopped aid in 1973.

[NickM]

9 minutes ago, JWB said:

The HCMT could have been interdicted if Nixon made optimum decisions vis a vis Cambodia. By the time the NVA rolled into Saigon Hanoi was down to 1 super power after Moscow stopped aid in 1973.

 

The trail needed to be interdicted thru 'way the hell southern North Vietnam thru Laos to the Thai Border--turn it into border between North and South Korea.

Then, we blackmail, bribe flatter Sihanouk to shut down Sihanoukville===BUT THAT HAD TO BE DONE in 59-63 not ten years later.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Because it forced the Communists waste resources in that war and not start supporting insurgencies elsewhere. It obviously can be argued that the resources spend there were too much for the propose, but i think that need to be established and it would be better to fight whatever insurgency would be reinforced and or started . I don't admire Nixon.

Yes, but if that WAS the reason why the Vietnam war was fought (and its a fig leaf to justify abandonment), then why was Nixon going cap in hand to the Chinese, whom were themselves supplying a lot of the equipment, and making peace with them? Why was he embracing Detente with the Soviet Union? The idea was not to confront the Soviet Union. The idea was to cool down the cold war with engagement, to achieve peace through negotiation, which gloriously failed, largely due to the Soviets own efforts. But not before it cost the US vietnam, which arguably was a sacrificial lamb to achieve that end.

As early as 1965, Kissinger learned from the state department the war was unwinnable, and that they would have to cut the balls off of the South vietnamese to get out. And that is precisely what he did. The only difference was that instead of it occurring in 1968 (which was just about possible if Johnson could have got the South vietnamese to the table and Nixon hadnt screwed it), is a difference of 3 or 4 years. Something which contributed nothing to the hope of making South Vietnam a bulwark against communism, the exact reason why they went there in the first place.

 

[Murph]

Plus the Democrats screwed them by cutting off all aid so they had no ammo/spare parts.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

It wouldnt have made any difference. The real problem was the peace treaty signed in 1973 iirc? left the NVA on South Vietnamese territory. So when they started the offensive again (which was an inevitablity), their units were already well forward. Even using Armour was a possiblity for nearly the first time.

Did witholding ammunition speed things up? Sure. But looking back, it would just have made the unified Vietnamese state all the more powerful. This may have been a calculation Trump and Biden made about Afghanistan as well.

If Nixon had been in office in 1975, he would have had to make the decision about whether to save South Vietnam or not, just as Ford did. He might have been able to use airpower, as he did in 1972. But it would have resulted in another ceasefire, and in 1976/77 there would have been a Communist victory.

The real tragedy here, isnt what happened in 1973. Its what didnt happen in 1969. And that was almost certainly down to Kissinger and Nixon.

[JWB]

On 6/12/2024 at 10:30 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

..... 1976/77 there would have been a Communist victory.

That is only true if China was willing to re-equip and resupply Hanoi for the umteenth time. Data I have found suggests they would not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And yet, the Vietnamese won in 1975. There was nothing to stop them waiting till a new administration came in and then move, even if they believed Nixon would always defend South Vietnam. The threat wasnt going to go away.

The idea that the South Vietnamese ran out of time is a old one, and largely based on the idea that Nixon was trying to save them. Ferguson convinced me that wasnt the plan at all. Nixon was propping them up long enough to expire on someone elses watch. And you know what? It worked.

I think the only way the US could have won this war would have been by keeping it small, right at the start,, which wouldnt have driven up Chinese and Soviet support. and working seriously to reform South vietnam. And not conspire with coups to remove a regime they thought were noncompliant. Soviets did the same in Afghanisan, and we can see how well that worked. The people lost what little faith they had in the regime as being theirs, rather than a foreign imposition. By the time Nixon got in, it was unwinnable, and I think everyone knew it.

[Murph]

The US made lots of mistakes, many of which were completely our fault.  But a big one was allowing Henry Kissenger anywhere near a position of power in the US government.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think you could have put Pope John Paul II in the position Kissinger had, and he would have made most of the same mistakes. Because they were positions taken based on what Nixon wanted/needed to do, and America's position in the world right then.

Yes, he was a shit, im in complete agreement there. But a competent shit. He had a policy he figured out, and worked towards it. The thing I find most noticable today, despite rather admiring Blinkens efforts towards getting the hostages out of Gaza, there is no real considered policy beyond next week.

I think the last competent and wholly capable secretary of state was George Shultz. Ive seen few since that come close.

[JWB]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...... it was unwinnable ......

It was supposed to end in a tie like Korea.

That being said Nixon should have given Cambodia helicopters and sky raiders.