Tet offensive question

Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
the radio about the tet offensive.

The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
world as a North Vietnamese victory.

I profess ignorance to the Vietnam war. It was before my time. Can
somebody please enlarge on this subject and post links.

Thanks in advance.

There are military defeats or victories and strategic defeats or victories.

The tet offensive was a decisive military defeat. The tet offensive was,
however, a major strategic victory.

--
If you get what you want, what's to stop you
from asking for more?

"Nicholas Steel" wrote in message
news:e5cbdf32.0311160510.7f47367b@posting.google.c om...
> Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
> the radio about the tet offensive.
>
> The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
> military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
> Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
> spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
> world as a North Vietnamese victory.
>
> I profess ignorance to the Vietnam war. It was before my time. Can
> somebody please enlarge on this subject and post links.
>
> Thanks in advance.

"Nicholas Steel" wrote in message
news:e5cbdf32.0311160510.7f47367b@posting.google.c om...
> Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
> the radio about the tet offensive.
>
> The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
> military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
> Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
> spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
> world as a North Vietnamese victory.
>
> I profess ignorance to the Vietnam war. It was before my time. Can
> somebody please enlarge on this subject and post links.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Except in the northern part of SVN, the Tet Offensive was primarily a Viet
Cong operation, not a North Vietnamese thing.

The Viet Cong were badly hurt during that offensive. They lost many
operatives, including some who had been deep cover, valuable assets for
years before.

The North Vietnamese army was much less damaged.

ted

On 16 Nov 2003 0543 -0800, nsteel@rabbit.com.au (Nicholas Steel)
wrote:

>Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
>the radio about the tet offensive.
>
>The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
>military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
>Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
>spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
>world as a North Vietnamese victory.
>
>I profess ignorance to the Vietnam war. It was before my time. Can
>somebody please enlarge on this subject and post links.

After the division of Viet Nam in 1954, some communists remained in
the south and others infiltrated back to the south over the following
years, particularly in the early '60s.

These southern communists, known as the VC, were primarily political
organizers, fomenting discontent among the politically fractious South
Vietnamese. As time went by, the VC became more and more militarized
and began using force, particularly in isolated areas.

During the early years of American involvment in the war, the North
increasinly infiltrated regular army units to the South. These troops
were referred to as the NVA (North Vietnamese Army).

In early 1968, the VC literally committed suicide in a failed attempt
to foment a general uprising throughout the south. By attacking all
major cities, the VC (and many NVA units as well) had hoped that the
local population would rise up and join them.

The south did not rise up and join them, but american and south
vietnamese troops decimated the the VC who ceased to exist as a viable
organization. The NVA also lost substantial troops and material, but
had not participated to same extent as the VC with the notable
exception of Hue.

The american press mistook the magnitude of this failed suicide charge
as an indication of the military strength of the communisits in the
south and reported it as a major acheivement.

The '68 Tet offensive marked the end of the VC in both military and
political terms. They all but ceased to exist. As a result, the NVA
assumed complete and total control of the war in the south.

General Abrams, Westmoreland's successor, converted the war effort
from 'search and destroy' to 'hearts and minds' where the focus was
placed upon providing security and support for villages throughout the
south.

By the early '70s, the war in the south was largely won. The NVA
continued to infiltrate troops and material, but the south vietnamese
army, with material and american air support, were generally
successful in containing the NVA.

It was after the treaty of '73, with american troops almost completely
withdrawn from Viet Nam, that the US turned its back upon the south.
We stopped the resupply efforts that we had promised and we halted the
air support.

The south, unable to match the support the north had from its allies,
despite some heroic efforts, began to fail in the war effort,
resulting in the infamous 1975 helicopter/embassy scene so widely seen
as an american military failure throughout the world.

> On 16 Nov 2003 0543 -0800, nsteel@rabbit.com.au (Nicholas Steel)
> wrote:
>
> >Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
> >the radio about the tet offensive.
> >
> >The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
> >military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
> >Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
> >spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
> >world as a North Vietnamese victory.

What you heard was incorrect. To see how incorrect it was, just look
at the number of Americans killed in action. If the Communist forces
had had little or no military capability, they wouldn't have been able
to kill a lot of American soldiers. The Tet Offensive began in late
January 1968. Some people treat it as having been relatively brief,
lasting a few weeks; others define a considerably longer period of
combat, in extreme cases lasting to the end of 1968, as having been
"the Tet Offensive."

The months in which more than 1,000 American military personnel were
killed by hostile action in Vietnam were:
May of 1967;
January, February, March, April, May, June, August, and September of
1968;
February, March, May, and June of 1969.

Clearly, there were more months of heavy U.S. casualties after the Tet
Offensive than before it, by any definition of "the Tet Offensive"
that I have ever seen. So it is clear that Communist combat
capabilities cannot have been destroyed or almost destroyed in the Tet
Offensive.


Matt Osborn wrote in message news:...

> In early 1968, the VC literally committed suicide in a failed attempt
> to foment a general uprising throughout the south. By attacking all
> major cities, the VC (and many NVA units as well) had hoped that the
> local population would rise up and join them.
>
> The south did not rise up and join them, but american and south
> vietnamese troops decimated the the VC who ceased to exist as a viable
> organization. The NVA also lost substantial troops and material, but
> had not participated to same extent as the VC with the notable
> exception of Hue.
>
>
> The '68 Tet offensive marked the end of the VC in both military and
> political terms. They all but ceased to exist. As a result, the NVA
> assumed complete and total control of the war in the south.

This is a wild exaggeration. The VC remained the primary Communist
force in IV Corps after Tet. And in many other areas, the VC remained
an important supplement to the NVA. Even as late as January 1973,
U.S. intelligence estimated that about one fifth of the combat troops
in the Communist forces in South Vietnam were Viet Cong. (Col.
William E. LeGro, Vietnam from Cease-Fire to Capitulation, p. 28).

When I have encountered this story about the VC having been
essentially destroyed in Tet before, and asked people the basis for
their belief, I have several times been told things like, "Well, I
never encountered significant VC after Tet, in the area where I
operated." When I asked what the area was, it always turned out to be
an area where the Communist forces had been mostly NVA even before
Tet.

Ed Moise

About an hour ago I wrote a post in which I said that U.S.
intelligence estimated that in January 1973, about one fifth of the
combat troops
in the Communist forces in South Vietnam were Viet Cong.

The correct figure was just over one sixth (25,000 out of 148,000).

I apologize for my carelessness.

Ed Moise

There were far more American casualties of all types post Tet than pre Tet.
But that describes a war in which we were faced with more "real" (NVA)
soldiers than in the previous half of the war where most of the activity was
by "citizen volunteers" (VC) in small units with relatively fewer supplies
of material. By early '68 and throughout the rest of the American
participation we were fighting more of a "real" war than an insurgency.

--


Don Thompson

Ex ROMAD


"Ed Moise" wrote in message
news:145c66a2.0311161314.7fc1aa80@posting.google.c om...
> > On 16 Nov 2003 0543 -0800, nsteel@rabbit.com.au (Nicholas Steel)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
> > >the radio about the tet offensive.
> > >
> > >The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
> > >military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
> > >Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
> > >spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
> > >world as a North Vietnamese victory.
>
> What you heard was incorrect. To see how incorrect it was, just look
> at the number of Americans killed in action. If the Communist forces
> had had little or no military capability, they wouldn't have been able
> to kill a lot of American soldiers. The Tet Offensive began in late
> January 1968. Some people treat it as having been relatively brief,
> lasting a few weeks; others define a considerably longer period of
> combat, in extreme cases lasting to the end of 1968, as having been
> "the Tet Offensive."
>
> The months in which more than 1,000 American military personnel were
> killed by hostile action in Vietnam were:
> May of 1967;
> January, February, March, April, May, June, August, and September of
> 1968;
> February, March, May, and June of 1969.
>
> Clearly, there were more months of heavy U.S. casualties after the Tet
> Offensive than before it, by any definition of "the Tet Offensive"
> that I have ever seen. So it is clear that Communist combat
> capabilities cannot have been destroyed or almost destroyed in the Tet
> Offensive.
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote in message
news:...
>
> > In early 1968, the VC literally committed suicide in a failed attempt
> > to foment a general uprising throughout the south. By attacking all
> > major cities, the VC (and many NVA units as well) had hoped that the
> > local population would rise up and join them.
> >
> > The south did not rise up and join them, but american and south
> > vietnamese troops decimated the the VC who ceased to exist as a viable
> > organization. The NVA also lost substantial troops and material, but
> > had not participated to same extent as the VC with the notable
> > exception of Hue.
> >
> >
> > The '68 Tet offensive marked the end of the VC in both military and
> > political terms. They all but ceased to exist. As a result, the NVA
> > assumed complete and total control of the war in the south.
>
> This is a wild exaggeration. The VC remained the primary Communist
> force in IV Corps after Tet. And in many other areas, the VC remained
> an important supplement to the NVA. Even as late as January 1973,
> U.S. intelligence estimated that about one fifth of the combat troops
> in the Communist forces in South Vietnam were Viet Cong. (Col.
> William E. LeGro, Vietnam from Cease-Fire to Capitulation, p. 28).
>
> When I have encountered this story about the VC having been
> essentially destroyed in Tet before, and asked people the basis for
> their belief, I have several times been told things like, "Well, I
> never encountered significant VC after Tet, in the area where I
> operated." When I asked what the area was, it always turned out to be
> an area where the Communist forces had been mostly NVA even before
> Tet.
>
> Ed Moise

Don Thompson wrote:
> There were far more American casualties of all types post Tet than pre Tet.
> But that describes a war in which we were faced with more "real" (NVA)
> soldiers than in the previous half of the war where most of the activity was
> by "citizen volunteers" (VC) in small units with relatively fewer supplies
> of material. By early '68 and throughout the rest of the American
> participation we were fighting more of a "real" war than an insurgency.
>

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! Just look how the lying rightwing "patriot" assholes spin spin spin...

What? I thought you assholes said the media lost the war after Tet...

spin...now...it was the "real" soldiers...more of a "real" war...

what a hoot...

References:
Posted by: nsteel@rabbit.com.au (Nicholas Steel)

>Recently whilst driving to work I heard the tail end of a program on
>the radio about the tet offensive.
>
>The premise of the program was that the tet offensive was a major
>military defeat for North Vietnam. At the end of the offensive North
>Vietnam was thoroughly depleted. They had absolutely nothing left. In
>spite of that, the tet offensive was reported throughout the Western
>world as a North Vietnamese victory.
>
>I profess ignorance to the Vietnam war. It was before my time. Can
>somebody please enlarge on this subject and post links.
>
>Thanks in advance.

The official line is that they took several times more damage than we
did. The reality is probably somewhere closer to parity; although,
you will hear wild numbers from either side.

IMO, the outcome was still in doubt when none other than Walter
Chronkite (AKA: "The most man in America") dropped his journalistic
professionalism just then and rendered a *very* persuasive essay on
how the war was "unwinnable". After that, there wasn't much doubt.
Walter didn't go back to Vietnam after that.

You'll also recall that our commander in chief (Johnson) cut and ran
for cover about that time. We lost the war over Tet, IMO. Not
because of the military casualties, although they were high, but
because of the way it was handled politically.

Jones

"Ed Moise" wrote in message
news:145c66a2.0311161415.382a8363@posting.google.c om...
> About an hour ago I wrote a post in which I said that U.S.
> intelligence estimated that in January 1973, about one fifth of the
> combat troops
> in the Communist forces in South Vietnam were Viet Cong.
>
> The correct figure was just over one sixth (25,000 out of 148,000).
>
> I apologize for my carelessness.
>
> Ed Moise

It all depends on who you are counting. And that is a very slippery slope,
indeed.

ted