5 ms·

"From 1964 to 1972, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world made a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs, t

"From 1964 to 1972, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world made a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs, to defeat a nationalist revolutionary movement in a tiny, peasant country—and failed. When the United States fought in Vietnam, it was organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won." A Peoples History of the United States - Howard Zinn

cloverich 5y ago
> a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs That book is extremely pro communist (hence the title). This is a pretty poor take on the war for several reasons, not least of which "maximum military effort" and didn't use most powerful weapons are somehow in the same sentence. They literally did not use their maximum military effort (not just on the atomic bomb front). It was a political war full of mishaps that were capitalized on by North Vietnam. I also thought PRC and Russia backed North Vietnam which seems relevant. The general point that military might isn't the sole determinant of a wars outcome is true and important -- and also pretty obvious.
- kiliantics 5y ago
  they dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in WWII, I'd say that sounds pretty maximal
  - cloverich 5y ago
    If they didn't use their full force it is by definition not maximal. But that's skirting the point a bit. The quoted passage (and the book) are a very biased take on history in general. Zinn wants the narrative to be that powerful technocrats couldn't overcome the people backed by some mythical cause (communism) whose good is the ultimate destiny of mankind. The reality is Vietnam was in civil war, and super powers were backing differnt sides. The US literally could not use its maximal force because it risked escalating into a larger conflict (China, Russia, etc). The real story is nuanced, complex. The US did lose -- nobody is contesting that here. But the quoted passage (and much of the book) is as much an attempt to spin the narrative as is "The US could have won if it wanted to".
- dragonsky 5y ago
  One of the problems with how people consider the Vietnam war is that they don't understand that it was not the US military (and partners) against the North Vietnamese military, it was the US et el against the entire North Vietnamese population along with a lot of southern sympathisers. If the aim of the US was to ensure that Vietnam did not end up being communist, then they had to convince the people not to become communist. What they did, in some of the most horrific ways possible, was to convince the Vietnamese people, and a lot of those in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos that the western democracies didn't care about them as people, they were just playing politics with their lives. This left the Chinese backed communists and easy road to winning the hearts and minds. The US lost the military war because they lost the public relations war, both at home, and in the country they were trying to liberate. If you look at later wars, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan, you could argue that they have learnt nothing. You will never win people over to your way of thinking by dropping bombs on them, that just ensures that they will never bow to your will.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Zinn's writings about the Vietnam war have been questioned and debunked for a long time now. > made a maximum military effort USA did NOT make a maximum military effort in Vietnam. If USA ever made a "maximum military effort" then the war would have been over in 3 months. That was the whole problem. They never did.
- michelpp 5y ago
  > If USA ever made a "maximum military effort" then the war would have been over in 3 months. That was the whole problem. They never did. It doesn't matter what your imagination wants to have happened. It didn't. Why are you trying to put up your revisionist fantasy against a historical fact? We lost. Zinn's description is perfectly accurate.
- emptyfile 5y ago
  Why aren't you Americans more embarrassed to post stuff like this? Chest thumping about a war you lost 50 years ago...
- tinomaxgalvin 5y ago
  Must be nice to smoke what you are smoking. The "west" lost entirely in Vietnam. Just look at Afghanistan today... 20 years of war and they have been beaten again.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
> maximum military effort There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. Why then did the US not invade North Vietnam? The last major conflict the US took part in was the Korean War. When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate. The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. The bind the US was in was that it couldn’t commit to winning, but it couldn’t lose either. The US tried to outlast an enemy, which was defending its own home turf, which was an awful strategic mistake and lead to millions dead and the trauma associated with the war. Eventually the US government came to its senses and left the situation.
- michelpp 5y ago
  > There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. That didn't happen. That's a militaristic fantasy. What Zinn is describing actually happened. This isn't a debate. > The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't "winning". Luckily that didn't happen either. We lost.
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    Reminds me of the old Amiga strategy game Nuclear War, with your leader jumping up and down after the nuclear holocaust yelling "I won! I won!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8
  - 5y ago

cloverich 5y ago

> a maximum military effort, with everything short of atomic bombs That book is extremely pro communist (hence the title). This is a pretty poor take on the war for several reasons, not least of which "maximum military effort" and didn't use most powerful weapons are somehow in the same sentence. They literally did not use their maximum military effort (not just on the atomic bomb front). It was a political war full of mishaps that were capitalized on by North Vietnam. I also thought PRC and Russia backed North Vietnam which seems relevant. The general point that military might isn't the sole determinant of a wars outcome is true and important -- and also pretty obvious.

kiliantics 5y ago
they dropped more bombs in Vietnam than in WWII, I'd say that sounds pretty maximal
- cloverich 5y ago
  If they didn't use their full force it is by definition not maximal. But that's skirting the point a bit. The quoted passage (and the book) are a very biased take on history in general. Zinn wants the narrative to be that powerful technocrats couldn't overcome the people backed by some mythical cause (communism) whose good is the ultimate destiny of mankind. The reality is Vietnam was in civil war, and super powers were backing differnt sides. The US literally could not use its maximal force because it risked escalating into a larger conflict (China, Russia, etc). The real story is nuanced, complex. The US did lose -- nobody is contesting that here. But the quoted passage (and much of the book) is as much an attempt to spin the narrative as is "The US could have won if it wanted to".
dragonsky 5y ago
One of the problems with how people consider the Vietnam war is that they don't understand that it was not the US military (and partners) against the North Vietnamese military, it was the US et el against the entire North Vietnamese population along with a lot of southern sympathisers. If the aim of the US was to ensure that Vietnam did not end up being communist, then they had to convince the people not to become communist. What they did, in some of the most horrific ways possible, was to convince the Vietnamese people, and a lot of those in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos that the western democracies didn't care about them as people, they were just playing politics with their lives. This left the Chinese backed communists and easy road to winning the hearts and minds. The US lost the military war because they lost the public relations war, both at home, and in the country they were trying to liberate. If you look at later wars, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan, you could argue that they have learnt nothing. You will never win people over to your way of thinking by dropping bombs on them, that just ensures that they will never bow to your will.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

Zinn's writings about the Vietnam war have been questioned and debunked for a long time now. > made a maximum military effort USA did NOT make a maximum military effort in Vietnam. If USA ever made a "maximum military effort" then the war would have been over in 3 months. That was the whole problem. They never did.

michelpp 5y ago
> If USA ever made a "maximum military effort" then the war would have been over in 3 months. That was the whole problem. They never did. It doesn't matter what your imagination wants to have happened. It didn't. Why are you trying to put up your revisionist fantasy against a historical fact? We lost. Zinn's description is perfectly accurate.
emptyfile 5y ago
Why aren't you Americans more embarrassed to post stuff like this? Chest thumping about a war you lost 50 years ago...
tinomaxgalvin 5y ago
Must be nice to smoke what you are smoking. The "west" lost entirely in Vietnam. Just look at Afghanistan today... 20 years of war and they have been beaten again.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

> maximum military effort There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. Why then did the US not invade North Vietnam? The last major conflict the US took part in was the Korean War. When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate. The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. The bind the US was in was that it couldn’t commit to winning, but it couldn’t lose either. The US tried to outlast an enemy, which was defending its own home turf, which was an awful strategic mistake and lead to millions dead and the trauma associated with the war. Eventually the US government came to its senses and left the situation.

michelpp 5y ago
> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. That didn't happen. That's a militaristic fantasy. What Zinn is describing actually happened. This isn't a debate. > The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't "winning". Luckily that didn't happen either. We lost.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Reminds me of the old Amiga strategy game Nuclear War, with your leader jumping up and down after the nuclear holocaust yelling "I won! I won!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8
- 5y ago