PDA

View Full Version : Triumph Forsaken



Mister D
08-16-2012, 11:27 AM
I'm reading a recent book about the first decade of US involvement in Vietnam (i.e. 1954-1965). It's a "revisionist" work and it's quite good.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Forsaken-The-Vietnam-1954-1965/dp/0521869110

Moyar challenges many of the widely accepted notions about America's involvement and South Vietnam's political and military potential in particular. Moyar's research seems exhaustive. He uses a great deal of primary documents including a great deal of VC/NVA material that, IMO, makes for a solid case. For example, the South Vietnamese military's early counter insurgency efforts were regarded as lackluster by the 1970s but the contemporary evidence tells a mjuch different story. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the Vietnam War.

MMC
08-16-2012, 02:03 PM
I will have to check that out D. Thanks!

Mister D
08-16-2012, 02:06 PM
It's really quite good. I'm looking forward to going home, having a drink, and reading all night. I thought we could use this thread as a forum to discuss whatever history related books we're reading.

MMC
08-16-2012, 02:20 PM
It's really quite good. I'm looking forward to going home, having a drink, and reading all night. I thought we could use this thread as a forum to discuss whatever history related books we're reading.

Yeah thats sounds good. I will see if I can get into the book. :wink:

Mister D
08-16-2012, 02:27 PM
What year(s) were you in Vietnam?

Moyar also sheds a whole new light (for me anyway) on French involvement. He only deals with France briefly but he inspired me to seek out a good work on that subject.

MMC
08-16-2012, 02:47 PM
What year(s) were you in Vietnam?

Moyar also sheds a whole new light (for me anyway) on French involvement. He only deals with France briefly but he inspired me to seek out a good work on that subject.

"68" to the End, I volunteered remember. Plus my moms had kicked me out on the streets. I was also underage when I first signed up and she had to give Consent. :wink:

Mister D
08-20-2012, 09:53 AM
Moyar really paints the US State Department and press in a bad light as far as Diem's assassination is concerned. Wow.

MMC
08-20-2012, 10:31 AM
Well he called it the Winnable War. He not only places Vietnam in its proper geopolitical context, but demonstrates the Clausewitzian principle that war is a struggle between two active wills. An action by one side elicits a response from the other that may be unexpected.

He also thought that if the Christmas bombings would have happened earlier in the conflict. That we would have won it then. Which would have been before any other surges of Troops being sent in. That the North would have folded up. :undecided:

Seemed to me they were always willing to pay the price. Knowing it was their land. :wink:

Mister D
08-20-2012, 10:33 AM
Well he called it the Winnable War. He not only places Vietnam in its proper geopolitical context, but demonstrates the Clausewitzian principle that war is a struggle between two active wills. An action by one side elicits a response from the other that may be unexpected.

He also thought that if the Christmas bombings would have happened earlier in the conflict. That we would have won it then. Which would have been before any other surges of Troops being sent in. That the North would have folded up. :undecided:

Seemed to me they were always willing to pay the price. Knowing it was their land. :wink:

This book deals with events prior to 1965. A major aspect of his argument is that the US would not have needed a substantial ground presence had the State Department not ousted Diem.

MMC
08-20-2012, 10:41 AM
Yeah but he still acknowledged that he was corrupt and that they were so corrupt they would have never been able to hold the country. At least thats how I took it.

Mister D
08-20-2012, 10:46 AM
Yeah but he still acknowledged that he was corrupt and that they were so corrupt they would have never been able to hold the country. At least thats how I took it.

Not that I've seen. In fact, he says the opposite. Are we talking about the same author?

MMC
08-20-2012, 11:07 AM
I thought you said Moyer. I could have swore he said soemthing about Diem and his brother whats the others name Dhu, Nogo Gu, or Nhu something like that. Oh wait I may be thinking of Mendenhall's Assessment. As opposed to Krulacs assessment. I am not saying Moyar was wrong in that Others decisions that were major players didnt have any affects.

Just that despite when all were done and talking the Viet-Cong and the North were willing to die to keep their land. No Matter the Cost! Even if it meant extermination.

Mister D
08-20-2012, 11:11 AM
I thought you said Moyer. I could have swore he said soemthing about Diem and his brother whats the others name Dhu, Nogo Gu, or Nhu something like that. Oh wait I may be thinking of Mendenhall's Assessment. As opposed to Krulacs assessment. I am not saying Moyar was wrong in that Others decisions that were major players didnt have any affects.

Just that despite when all were done and talking the Viet-Cong and the North were willing to die to keep their land. No Matter the Cost! Even if it meant extermination.

Whether that's true or not is immaterial from Moyar's perspective. The VC and NVA simply would not have been able to conquer South Vietnam had we supported Diem. Moreover, we would never have had to deploy large numbers of ground troops.

MMC
08-20-2012, 11:18 AM
Yeah but Everyone knew Diem was killing Buddhists back then. Raving about being Catholic. They never did mention him killing Muslims too.

I think any that were on the ground could have told Moyar that the North was greatly affected by our Actions. Even if orthodox historians disagree.

Have you read anything he has had to say about the French?

Mister D
08-20-2012, 11:29 AM
Yeah but Everyone knew Diem was killing Buddhists back then. Raving about being Catholic. They never did mention him killing Muslims too.

I think any that were on the ground could have told Moyar that the North was greatly affected by our Actions. Even if orthodox historians disagree.

Have you read anything he has had to say about the French?

That's just it. That was all nonsense. The NYT and the State Department gave a shit about the Buddhist protests. Your average Vietnamese didn't. That was an urban phenomenon and the movement was riddled with communists. Secondly, Diem didn't kill any of the Buddhists.


The Viet Minh survived because of Chinese sanctuary and Chinese/Soviet military aid. Otherwise, they could not have resisted the French for long. Also, the French military situation was also not nearly as bad after Dien Bien Phu as some imagine.

MMC
08-20-2012, 11:48 AM
What are you talking about there was the Pic of the Buddhist Priest that immolated himself. Protests sprang up world-wide. Plus he was crushing the Montagnard. He was running Oppressives policies on both. Which we knew about but said nothing publicly.

He lived in your state back in the 50's before he went into exile or while in it. When the French started to decline is when he really Rose to power. Eisenhower backed Dai who made Diem Prime Minister.

Mister D
08-20-2012, 11:56 AM
What are you talking about there was the Pic of the Buddhist Priest that immolated himself. Protests sprang up world-wide. Plus he was crushing the Montagnard. He was running Oppressives policies on both. Which we knew about but said nothing publicly.

He lived in your state back in the 50's before he went into exile or while in it. When the French started to decline is when he really Rose to power. Eisenhower backed Dai who made Diem Prime Minister.

Yes, the monk immolated himself. What does that have tio do with Diem? Yes, protests did spring up worldwide largely because of sometimes lazy and sometimes ideological reporting from people like David Halberstam and Sheehan. Much like our contemporary neocons, the US State Department and the press were keen on turning Vietnam into a US style republic. Diem refused to kowtow to every whim of the US. Diem had many admirers in the Defense Department and CIA while Kennedy had grown to despise certain journalists at the NYT among others for their biased reporting on the war in South Vietnam and on Diem's government. In large part, the Buddhist crisis had its origins in faulty press accounts. Few Vietnamese cared. In fact, not cracking down on the Buddhists only made Diem look weak and ineffectual.

Mister D
08-20-2012, 11:57 AM
Yeah, I thought that was interesting. Diem lived close to here actually.

MMC
08-20-2012, 12:05 PM
Yes, the monk immolated himself. What does that have tio do with Diem? Yes, protests did spring up worldwide largely because of sometimes lazy and sometimes ideological reporting from people like David Halberstam and Sheehan. Much like our contemporary neocons, the US State Department and the press were keen on turning Vietnam into a US style republic. Diem refused to kowtow to every whim of the US. Diem had many admirers in the Defense Department and CIA while Kennedy had grown to despise certain journalists at the NYT among others for their biased reporting on the war in South Vietnam and on Diem's government. In large part, the Buddhist crisis had its origins in faulty press accounts. Few Vietnamese cared. In fact, not cracking down on the Buddhists only made Diem look weak and ineffectual.


Well I wasnt lookign so much at our journalists as opposed to those in the East. But then I guess you are Right if you put in the aspect as to how the Vietmanese would have looked at him. Still I wouldnt discount everything Mendelson said or Krulac. Even tho their assessed reports varied differently. To me it shows how the State dept really didnt have a clue.

Maybe we can get RW to chime in on this too.

Mister D
08-20-2012, 12:07 PM
Well I wasnt lookign so much at our journalists as opposed to those in the East. But then I guess you are Right if you put in the aspect as to how the Vietmanese would have looked at him. Still I wouldnt discount everything Mendelson said or Krulac. Even tho their assessed reports varied differently. To me it shows how the State dept really didnt have a clue.

Maybe we can get RW to chime in on this too.

Keep in mind, I'm just conveying Moyar's arguments. I do think they are persusaive though.

MMC
08-20-2012, 05:48 PM
:laugh: Nice Avatar D! :f_applause:

Ivan88
09-09-2012, 12:01 PM
If the US had not got involved at all, things would have turned out vastly better.

Diem might have made an accomodation with the North, but we encouraged him and then betrayed him.

Diem might have succeeded if the US had not sabotaged and betrayed him.

The US never had any intention to "win" the war.

The war was designed weaken America, and make tons of money for the elites.

BTW, if the US had allowed the election to join North and South, and offered every head of household say, 10,000 bucks, who would have wanted to fight?

Paying off everyone would have been far cheaper and gained great fame for America.