For all his flaws I rather like Richard Nixon but to what extent did Nixon and Kissenger sabotage the Democrats peace negotiations ahead of the '68 election and to what extent does Mark think they should be held as culpable for tens of thousands of potentially unnecessary deaths in the years that followed? Was it purely cynical politics?
That’s something I was interested in too, so thank you for asking it. Let’s hope it gets in.
I tink that Nixon and Kissinger were both a great team and largely the right people for the time. One can argue about detente being appeasement, which I think has a bit of currency - but the early 1970s saw a still very strong USSR and a seemingly weaker US. They managed that well in my view. In terms of domestic policy, I’m not sure the same thing can be said , albeit Nixon inherited a lot of baggage that was actually harder to manage than the Cold War.
I’m not sure which historian or possibly psychologist is the right person to ask, but a question I have always had is what effect Democrat’s shenanigans in possibly stealing the 1960 election for JFR against Nixon (and Nixon’s highly principled response) had on him re Watergate. It’s a stark contrast to Trump and how he handled his loss. Yet both came back to significant victories.
There seems to be a consensus that the Vietnam War was a mistake leading to a disastrous defeat for the US. Is this the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts?
Is there an alternative framing of the significance of this war's role in achieving some sort of strategic objective? If so what was that objective and to what extent was it successful? If it was successful was it worth it?
With 20 20 hindsight what alternative approach should the US have adopted in response to the situation in Vietnam during the period of the war?
Has the US learned anything from the Vietnam war. If so what?
What should the US (and the rest of the world) have learned from the Vietnam war?
Are there any current conflicts which have any resemblance to the Vietnam war?
Many teachers run out of school year before they get to the mid to late 20th Century in their US History classes, leaving most students to "learn" about the Vietnam War from movies and television shows. Are there any that you would endorse as "accurate" and/or insightful?
When Saigon fell, America was humiliated and the South Vietnamese people were re educated, or set sail for fairer shores. Cambodia and Laos went down like lead balloons. After 50 years what was achieved, and why so different to Korea
What are your thoughts on an American invasion of North Vietnam like we did in Korea. Was it possible, could it have won the war? Would it get China more involved?
I remember Dad's (NZ 22nd Bat.) account of USA soldiers at Casino walking uphill arms length apart and getting mowed down. An acute leadership failure to adapt to terrain/enemy tactics. Reading 'About Face' by David Hackworth showed the same continuing obscentity in Vietnam but this time with career over soldier care. His adaptation of training n tactics to terrain and enemy, at least to a reader, turned a 'meat grinder' experience into a winnable local war. In his own words, he thought the Ozzies/Kiwis, seemed the only ones tactically able to win this war. Since WW2 and Vietnam, there have been other wars USA has been late for, with disastrous tactics/exits/end states.
Why does an army with such formidable character, fine minds and outrageous levels of resource/prosperity, continue to appear incapable of successfully prosecuting a war to day with transition to peace from the battlefield?
Is the Vietnam Conflict better seen as a campaign in the larger Cold War than it is as a stand-alone war and if so what strategic goals were served by the conflict? And what strategic goals were actually advanced? Based on the second answer, was the Vietnam conflict a short term setback that in the long term a success?
Do you see any parallels between the West’s current handling of the Ukraine war and the “cowardly” restrictions of the Vietnam era such as the rules of engagement that effectively gave the North protected safe zones to avoid escalation?
For all his flaws I rather like Richard Nixon but to what extent did Nixon and Kissenger sabotage the Democrats peace negotiations ahead of the '68 election and to what extent does Mark think they should be held as culpable for tens of thousands of potentially unnecessary deaths in the years that followed? Was it purely cynical politics?
That’s something I was interested in too, so thank you for asking it. Let’s hope it gets in.
I tink that Nixon and Kissinger were both a great team and largely the right people for the time. One can argue about detente being appeasement, which I think has a bit of currency - but the early 1970s saw a still very strong USSR and a seemingly weaker US. They managed that well in my view. In terms of domestic policy, I’m not sure the same thing can be said , albeit Nixon inherited a lot of baggage that was actually harder to manage than the Cold War.
I’m not sure which historian or possibly psychologist is the right person to ask, but a question I have always had is what effect Democrat’s shenanigans in possibly stealing the 1960 election for JFR against Nixon (and Nixon’s highly principled response) had on him re Watergate. It’s a stark contrast to Trump and how he handled his loss. Yet both came back to significant victories.
There seems to be a consensus that the Vietnam War was a mistake leading to a disastrous defeat for the US. Is this the only conclusion that can be drawn from the facts?
Is there an alternative framing of the significance of this war's role in achieving some sort of strategic objective? If so what was that objective and to what extent was it successful? If it was successful was it worth it?
With 20 20 hindsight what alternative approach should the US have adopted in response to the situation in Vietnam during the period of the war?
Has the US learned anything from the Vietnam war. If so what?
What should the US (and the rest of the world) have learned from the Vietnam war?
Are there any current conflicts which have any resemblance to the Vietnam war?
How well or how poorly did the Australians prosecute the war?
Be honest.
At the time, were there popular conspiracy theories on the "real reason" for the war as there are with new wars today?
My question is the perennial counterfactual: What was the most likely course of events in Vietnam had JFK not been assassinated?
My beliefs about the Vietnam War:
1. America was right to fight.
2. America was winning c.1972
3. South Vietnam was only lost due to decisions made by Congress c.1973
4. The Vietnam "Peace" was far worse than the Vietnam War. Far worse.
5. The majority of those who fought were volunteers.
6. Very few who returned ended up on the streets.
7. The British line about Americans failing to win "hearts and minds" is bunch of crap.
How am I doing?
Is Taiwan going to be Gen Z's Vietnam?
Why is the sound of the Huey up there with a spitfire and P-51?
Does Fortunate Son deserve to be the sound track of Vietnam?
Many teachers run out of school year before they get to the mid to late 20th Century in their US History classes, leaving most students to "learn" about the Vietnam War from movies and television shows. Are there any that you would endorse as "accurate" and/or insightful?
From Australia
When Saigon fell, America was humiliated and the South Vietnamese people were re educated, or set sail for fairer shores. Cambodia and Laos went down like lead balloons. After 50 years what was achieved, and why so different to Korea
What are your thoughts on an American invasion of North Vietnam like we did in Korea. Was it possible, could it have won the war? Would it get China more involved?
I remember Dad's (NZ 22nd Bat.) account of USA soldiers at Casino walking uphill arms length apart and getting mowed down. An acute leadership failure to adapt to terrain/enemy tactics. Reading 'About Face' by David Hackworth showed the same continuing obscentity in Vietnam but this time with career over soldier care. His adaptation of training n tactics to terrain and enemy, at least to a reader, turned a 'meat grinder' experience into a winnable local war. In his own words, he thought the Ozzies/Kiwis, seemed the only ones tactically able to win this war. Since WW2 and Vietnam, there have been other wars USA has been late for, with disastrous tactics/exits/end states.
Why does an army with such formidable character, fine minds and outrageous levels of resource/prosperity, continue to appear incapable of successfully prosecuting a war to day with transition to peace from the battlefield?
What is your opinion on Ken Burns's series "The Vietnam War", and does it accurately reflect the conflict?
Is the Vietnam Conflict better seen as a campaign in the larger Cold War than it is as a stand-alone war and if so what strategic goals were served by the conflict? And what strategic goals were actually advanced? Based on the second answer, was the Vietnam conflict a short term setback that in the long term a success?
Do you see any parallels between the West’s current handling of the Ukraine war and the “cowardly” restrictions of the Vietnam era such as the rules of engagement that effectively gave the North protected safe zones to avoid escalation?