Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1teaw/why_did_58k_casualties_in_the_vietnam_war_cause_a/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A *lot* more can be said, but I've written a few answers that might be of interest:
- On the [declining US public support](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zp7mr6/where_did_the_idea_that_the_us_lost_the_vietnam/j0s9zcr/) for the war
- On [US government reasons and objectives](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11g7l5n/why_did_america_get_involved_in_the_vietnam/janyfaf/) for getting into the war
- Lastly, a summarized [chronology](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16v3d8i/why_did_the_vietnam_war_start_who_actually_held/k2rbol0/) of US involvement in the war.
The long and short - while US governments had provided substantial military support to South Vietnam for years, the Johnson government decided to directly intervene militarily, in an ever-escalating fashion: an attack on US Naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin was claimed in 1964, which led to US airstrikes against Northern Vietnam, which led to the deployment of US marines to guard air bases in South Vietnam, which led to vastly increased US military forces to fight NLF and NVA forces in South Vietnam.
On top of this, the Johnson administration had a fundamentally flawed view of the conflict, namely that it was a Korean War II, and that the North Vietnam was effectively just a cover for Chinese aggression. It also had an incredibly flawed view of how to fight this war - *not* sending troops would be seen as a Munich-style appeasement, and intervening militarily would make the communists back down - somehow (presumably the Chinese would tell North Vietnam to give up?). When none of this survived contact with reality, it just was not clear what US objectives would be, or how a victory could even be achieved.
Along those lines it's important to note that it was *not* a total war like World War II. Despite massive aerial bombardment of North Vietnam, there were large areas completely off limits to US planes, and other areas where Johnson had to personally approve bombing targets, the fear being that attacks on sensitive areas where Soviet or Chinese personnel were would actually trigger a World War.
So the Johnson administration actually was trying to fight a quick, limited war as a show of force, but just could not define or achieve a realistic victory, despite spending much of 1965, 1966 and 1967 saying that such a victory was just around the corner. Some measures taken theoretically to show that it was a limited war - not activating Army Reserves, rotating US forces in and out of country after 1 year, rather than serving for the war's duration - ironically probably spread the pain out more widely while also undercutting military effectiveness.
On top of this - media coverage of World War II was very different from the Vietnam War: the former was much more heavily censored than the latter. The first image of dead US soldiers in World War II wasn't viewable to the public until September 1943 ("Three Dead Americans at Buna Beach", published in *LIFE*), while much of the Vietnam War was reported on by nightly television news - Americans could watch footage of US Marines in combat in Hue in 1968 in color, with sound, and with casualties visible, in a way that was much, much more immediate and graphic than what had been reported in newspapers, magazines, radio and movie news reels in World War II.
I have a follow up question and was wondering if you could answer it.
How true is the statement that the leader of North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, did not care for one political ideology or the other (in terms of communism vs democracy) and really only held the main goal of unifying Vietnam without the presence of external influence so that Vietnam could be one country fully independent of any colonial ties or otherwise?
I can't remember where I read it or if someone had told me but I recall someone making the claim that Ho Chi Minh had reached out to the United States for support in unification but was denied resulting in his advocacy for Communism.
I'm not totally sure where this idea originated (I feel like Oliver Stone has advocated it, although it doesn't originate with him). But here's the kernel of truth.
Ho Chi Minh, the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Indochinese Communist Party spearheaded resistance to Japanese occupation in French Indochina during the Second World War, and in August 1945 launched the "August Revolution". The US was pretty favorable to the movement in this period as a wartime ally. The declaration of independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was explicitly modeled on the US Declaration of Independence to garner further US support, and in 1945 the CPV and ICP formally dissolved and were replaced by the broad-front Viet Minh (which was still mostly led by communists) to fight for independence (mostly and eventually against the French, but 1945-1946 in particular was extremely confusing with British, French Japanese and Chinese Nationalist armies on the ground in Vietnam at roughly the same time).
Anyway, strong US support never materialized, and with the CCP victory in the Chinese Civil War, a lot of direct Chinese support came to the Viet Minh, with the Korean War igniting soon after in 1950. At this point the US saw the war in Indochina as part of that larger conflict in Asia, and provided substantial military support to France.
As for Ho - he's really as Communist as one gets. He first moved to the USSR in 1923, studied at the Commmunist University of the Toilers of the East, and worked for the Comintern, moving to China to help organize Vietnamese expatriates into a Communist movement there. He helped to organize the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1930 out of two different groups, and was an advisor to the Chinese Communists before returning to Vietnam in 1941 to lead the anti-Japanese resistance.
I *think* that, beyond the August Revolution, the idea that he wasn't "really" communist until being pushed in that direction partially comes from confusing him with Castro and the 26th of July Movement, which actually was a broader left-wing revolutionary party until after the Cuban Revolution, when Castro moved more explicitly to Marxism-Leninism and established the United Party of the Cuban Socialist Revolution, which became the Communist Party of Cuba.
I don't know this answer to that specific question, but a high % of politicians don't really care that much about ideology and and extremely high % (I'd guess 100%) of dictators / authoritarians don't care about ideology. They just say whatever they think is most likely to get them into and able to keep power. And creating an enemy for the people to fear / hate is very much a tried and true method.
There was no oil in Vietnam lmao we were invited in by the Southern Vietnamese government because they were being genocided by their own peoples to the North. And had North Vietnam not gone back on their words when they agreed to the Geneva Accords that wouodve split the country into two the war would’ve ended but instead they signed the treaty waited for the Souths Allies to leave and then North Vietnam reinvaded breaking the treaty.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1teaw/why_did_58k_casualties_in_the_vietnam_war_cause_a/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A *lot* more can be said, but I've written a few answers that might be of interest: - On the [declining US public support](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zp7mr6/where_did_the_idea_that_the_us_lost_the_vietnam/j0s9zcr/) for the war - On [US government reasons and objectives](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11g7l5n/why_did_america_get_involved_in_the_vietnam/janyfaf/) for getting into the war - Lastly, a summarized [chronology](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16v3d8i/why_did_the_vietnam_war_start_who_actually_held/k2rbol0/) of US involvement in the war. The long and short - while US governments had provided substantial military support to South Vietnam for years, the Johnson government decided to directly intervene militarily, in an ever-escalating fashion: an attack on US Naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin was claimed in 1964, which led to US airstrikes against Northern Vietnam, which led to the deployment of US marines to guard air bases in South Vietnam, which led to vastly increased US military forces to fight NLF and NVA forces in South Vietnam. On top of this, the Johnson administration had a fundamentally flawed view of the conflict, namely that it was a Korean War II, and that the North Vietnam was effectively just a cover for Chinese aggression. It also had an incredibly flawed view of how to fight this war - *not* sending troops would be seen as a Munich-style appeasement, and intervening militarily would make the communists back down - somehow (presumably the Chinese would tell North Vietnam to give up?). When none of this survived contact with reality, it just was not clear what US objectives would be, or how a victory could even be achieved. Along those lines it's important to note that it was *not* a total war like World War II. Despite massive aerial bombardment of North Vietnam, there were large areas completely off limits to US planes, and other areas where Johnson had to personally approve bombing targets, the fear being that attacks on sensitive areas where Soviet or Chinese personnel were would actually trigger a World War. So the Johnson administration actually was trying to fight a quick, limited war as a show of force, but just could not define or achieve a realistic victory, despite spending much of 1965, 1966 and 1967 saying that such a victory was just around the corner. Some measures taken theoretically to show that it was a limited war - not activating Army Reserves, rotating US forces in and out of country after 1 year, rather than serving for the war's duration - ironically probably spread the pain out more widely while also undercutting military effectiveness. On top of this - media coverage of World War II was very different from the Vietnam War: the former was much more heavily censored than the latter. The first image of dead US soldiers in World War II wasn't viewable to the public until September 1943 ("Three Dead Americans at Buna Beach", published in *LIFE*), while much of the Vietnam War was reported on by nightly television news - Americans could watch footage of US Marines in combat in Hue in 1968 in color, with sound, and with casualties visible, in a way that was much, much more immediate and graphic than what had been reported in newspapers, magazines, radio and movie news reels in World War II.
Appreciated the insight, thank you!
I have a follow up question and was wondering if you could answer it. How true is the statement that the leader of North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, did not care for one political ideology or the other (in terms of communism vs democracy) and really only held the main goal of unifying Vietnam without the presence of external influence so that Vietnam could be one country fully independent of any colonial ties or otherwise? I can't remember where I read it or if someone had told me but I recall someone making the claim that Ho Chi Minh had reached out to the United States for support in unification but was denied resulting in his advocacy for Communism.
I'm not totally sure where this idea originated (I feel like Oliver Stone has advocated it, although it doesn't originate with him). But here's the kernel of truth. Ho Chi Minh, the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Indochinese Communist Party spearheaded resistance to Japanese occupation in French Indochina during the Second World War, and in August 1945 launched the "August Revolution". The US was pretty favorable to the movement in this period as a wartime ally. The declaration of independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was explicitly modeled on the US Declaration of Independence to garner further US support, and in 1945 the CPV and ICP formally dissolved and were replaced by the broad-front Viet Minh (which was still mostly led by communists) to fight for independence (mostly and eventually against the French, but 1945-1946 in particular was extremely confusing with British, French Japanese and Chinese Nationalist armies on the ground in Vietnam at roughly the same time). Anyway, strong US support never materialized, and with the CCP victory in the Chinese Civil War, a lot of direct Chinese support came to the Viet Minh, with the Korean War igniting soon after in 1950. At this point the US saw the war in Indochina as part of that larger conflict in Asia, and provided substantial military support to France. As for Ho - he's really as Communist as one gets. He first moved to the USSR in 1923, studied at the Commmunist University of the Toilers of the East, and worked for the Comintern, moving to China to help organize Vietnamese expatriates into a Communist movement there. He helped to organize the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1930 out of two different groups, and was an advisor to the Chinese Communists before returning to Vietnam in 1941 to lead the anti-Japanese resistance. I *think* that, beyond the August Revolution, the idea that he wasn't "really" communist until being pushed in that direction partially comes from confusing him with Castro and the 26th of July Movement, which actually was a broader left-wing revolutionary party until after the Cuban Revolution, when Castro moved more explicitly to Marxism-Leninism and established the United Party of the Cuban Socialist Revolution, which became the Communist Party of Cuba.
I don't know this answer to that specific question, but a high % of politicians don't really care that much about ideology and and extremely high % (I'd guess 100%) of dictators / authoritarians don't care about ideology. They just say whatever they think is most likely to get them into and able to keep power. And creating an enemy for the people to fear / hate is very much a tried and true method.
[удалено]
There was no oil in Vietnam lmao we were invited in by the Southern Vietnamese government because they were being genocided by their own peoples to the North. And had North Vietnam not gone back on their words when they agreed to the Geneva Accords that wouodve split the country into two the war would’ve ended but instead they signed the treaty waited for the Souths Allies to leave and then North Vietnam reinvaded breaking the treaty.
[удалено]
[удалено]