trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Have a butchers at this Adler its where I found the Pics and artical http://www.bmpt.org.uk/boats/S130/index3.htm
Moral objections on warfare.
- Thread starter GT
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Very long and interesting history she has. She finally deserves to be put to rest and used as a museum piece in my opinion.
- Thread starter
- #423
Hello all of you!!!
I have been fishing and will shortly reply on the many replies on this specific topic. It is very interesting to read Fly-Babe:s posts on the Vietnam-War which really was not a declared war and instead was a couple of Presidential Bulldozer decisions.
Cheers
GT
I have been fishing and will shortly reply on the many replies on this specific topic. It is very interesting to read Fly-Babe:s posts on the Vietnam-War which really was not a declared war and instead was a couple of Presidential Bulldozer decisions.
Cheers
GT
Attachments
You are correct it was a conflict but it was the Vietnam War. Any conflict where my brothers in arms before me fought and died on a daily basis is war to me. Just like the conflict I came home from, the "war" ended about 2 months before I got there but well over a thousand fellow soldiers died while I was there and are still dieing. To me and to most other people it is still a war.
- Thread starter
- #425
Well !!
I was not a declared war and the US should not have stepped in after the colonist country of France had lost its colony at the battle of Dien Bien Phu with its French Foreign Legion trying to maintain and suppress the will of the Vietnamese people..
The Vietnam Conflict that followed was just a big and sad story to the soldiers that was killed on both sides.
Cheers
GT
I was not a declared war and the US should not have stepped in after the colonist country of France had lost its colony at the battle of Dien Bien Phu with its French Foreign Legion trying to maintain and suppress the will of the Vietnamese people..
The Vietnam Conflict that followed was just a big and sad story to the soldiers that was killed on both sides.
Cheers
GT
Attachments
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
There was nothing dishonorable or wrong about using military force to protect South Vietnam from a Communist (radical left wing socialist) land grab and thus contain the spread of communism on the Asian continent.
As I recall, Britian declared war on Germany over the issue of a Nazi (radical right wing socialist) land grab that would have led to the necessary spread of Naziism.
Both land grabs of functioning, legitimate and sovereing powers were viewed as jeopardizing the respective geopolitical position and security of the U.S. and Britain.
As I recall, Britian declared war on Germany over the issue of a Nazi (radical right wing socialist) land grab that would have led to the necessary spread of Naziism.
Both land grabs of functioning, legitimate and sovereing powers were viewed as jeopardizing the respective geopolitical position and security of the U.S. and Britain.
I agree with your point on the US attack on the Vietcong. They were stopping the aggression force of the Communist North. I don't agree you comparing it to the declaration of war Britain made against Germany in 1939.
Britain declared war for the sole reason that she had a mutual protection act with Poland. A pact that Britain wasn't going to break, she entered the war out of principal. That pact was also the reason Britain was more worried about the Soviet Union than America was.
Britain declared war for the sole reason that she had a mutual protection act with Poland. A pact that Britain wasn't going to break, she entered the war out of principal. That pact was also the reason Britain was more worried about the Soviet Union than America was.
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
I think you're playing with semantics. The United States acted in self -defense of its own security and did so in a manner consistent with its stated obligations in that region.
Letter from President Kennedy, December 14, 1961
Dear Mr. President:
I have received your recent letter in which you described so cogently the dangerous condition caused by North Vietnam's efforts to take over your country. The situation in your embattled country is well known to me and to the American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your country. Our indignation has mounted as the deliberate savagery of the Communist program of assassination, kidnapping, and wanton violence became clear.
Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown - that the campaign of force and terror now being waged against your people and your government is supported and directed from the outside by the authorities at Hanoi. They have thus violated the provisions of the Geneva Accords designed to ensure peace in Vietnam and to which they are bound themselves in 1954.
At that time, the United States, although not a party to the Accords, declared that it "would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the Agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security." We continue to maintain that view.
In accordance with that declaration, and in response to your request, we are prepared to help the Republic of Vietnam to protect its people and to preserve its independence. We shall promptly increase our assistance to your defense efort as well as help relieve the destruction of the floods which you describe. I have already given the orders to get those programs underway.
The United States, like the Republic of Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of peace and our primary purpose is to help your people maintain their independence. If the Communist authorities in North Vietnam will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defense efforts will no longer be necesary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case, we are confident that the Vietnamese people will preserve their independence and gain the peace and prosperity for which they have fought so hard and so long.
President Johnson's address to Congress, August 5, 1964
Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime has given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were further defined in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty approved by the Senate in February 1955. This treaty with its accompanying protocol obligates the United States and other members to act in accordance with their constitutional processes to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties or protocol states. Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions: 1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments. 2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us. 3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area. 4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence. The threat to the free nations of southeast Asia has long been clear. The North Vietnamese regime has constantly sought to take over South Vietnam and Laos. This Communist regime has violated the Geneva accords for Vietnam. It has systematically conducted a campaign of subversion, which includes the direction, training, and supply of personnel and arms for the conduct of guerrilla warfare in South Vietnamese territory. In Laos, the North Vietnamese regime has maintained military forces, used Laotian territory for infiltration into South Vietnam, and most recently carried out combat operations - all in direct violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1962. In recent months, the actions of the North Vietnamese regime have become steadily more threatening... As President of the United States I have concluded that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met, and that the United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom. As I have repeatedly made clear, the United States intends no rashness, and seeks no wider war. We must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area. We seek the full and effective restoration of the international agreements signed in Geneva in 1954, with respect to South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, with respect to Laos... 2. Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964 (Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom. Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
Letter from President Kennedy, December 14, 1961
Dear Mr. President:
I have received your recent letter in which you described so cogently the dangerous condition caused by North Vietnam's efforts to take over your country. The situation in your embattled country is well known to me and to the American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your country. Our indignation has mounted as the deliberate savagery of the Communist program of assassination, kidnapping, and wanton violence became clear.
Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown - that the campaign of force and terror now being waged against your people and your government is supported and directed from the outside by the authorities at Hanoi. They have thus violated the provisions of the Geneva Accords designed to ensure peace in Vietnam and to which they are bound themselves in 1954.
At that time, the United States, although not a party to the Accords, declared that it "would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the Agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security." We continue to maintain that view.
In accordance with that declaration, and in response to your request, we are prepared to help the Republic of Vietnam to protect its people and to preserve its independence. We shall promptly increase our assistance to your defense efort as well as help relieve the destruction of the floods which you describe. I have already given the orders to get those programs underway.
The United States, like the Republic of Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of peace and our primary purpose is to help your people maintain their independence. If the Communist authorities in North Vietnam will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defense efforts will no longer be necesary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case, we are confident that the Vietnamese people will preserve their independence and gain the peace and prosperity for which they have fought so hard and so long.
President Johnson's address to Congress, August 5, 1964
Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and I had therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime has given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia. Our commitments in that area are well known to the Congress. They were first made in 1954 by President Eisenhower. They were further defined in the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty approved by the Senate in February 1955. This treaty with its accompanying protocol obligates the United States and other members to act in accordance with their constitutional processes to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties or protocol states. Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions: 1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments. 2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us. 3. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area. 4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen their independence. The threat to the free nations of southeast Asia has long been clear. The North Vietnamese regime has constantly sought to take over South Vietnam and Laos. This Communist regime has violated the Geneva accords for Vietnam. It has systematically conducted a campaign of subversion, which includes the direction, training, and supply of personnel and arms for the conduct of guerrilla warfare in South Vietnamese territory. In Laos, the North Vietnamese regime has maintained military forces, used Laotian territory for infiltration into South Vietnam, and most recently carried out combat operations - all in direct violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1962. In recent months, the actions of the North Vietnamese regime have become steadily more threatening... As President of the United States I have concluded that I should now ask the Congress, on its part, to join in affirming the national determination that all such attacks will be met, and that the United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom. As I have repeatedly made clear, the United States intends no rashness, and seeks no wider war. We must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area. We seek the full and effective restoration of the international agreements signed in Geneva in 1954, with respect to South Vietnam, and again in Geneva in 1962, with respect to Laos... 2. Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964 (Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom. Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Well that little "police action" in Korea some years back was never technically a declared war either. It was all about land grabbing and people dying, so I fail to see a big difference.
For that matter we've been working under nothing but an extended truce for the past fifty-two years, and border incidents still occur now and then in which soldiers die. Whatever you choose to call it or however it began, if the fighting men (and women) of opposing nations are slugging it out and killing each other, you're in a war.
For that matter we've been working under nothing but an extended truce for the past fifty-two years, and border incidents still occur now and then in which soldiers die. Whatever you choose to call it or however it began, if the fighting men (and women) of opposing nations are slugging it out and killing each other, you're in a war.
You take the words of Americans to compare the reasons for war with Britain and Germany, with those of America and North Vietnam?
They were entered in complete different circumstances. Britain entered on a matter of principal because it held a mutual defence pact with Poland. America entered for no self-defence but for the stop of an agressive Communist state. Just like Britain and America did in Korea, and just like Britain did in Indonesia.
They were entered in complete different circumstances. Britain entered on a matter of principal because it held a mutual defence pact with Poland. America entered for no self-defence but for the stop of an agressive Communist state. Just like Britain and America did in Korea, and just like Britain did in Indonesia.
GT said:
Well!! (I can do that too, ha ha!!)
Dont get your panties in a bind because people see it differently then you. Any conflict where soldiers are being killed on a day to day basis is war. Yes the conflict is a sad story just like any WAR is. However you are wrong my friend.
Also the war in Vietnam can not be compared to anything in WW2. The reason behind both conflicts were completely different.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
plan_D said:
There is a distinct difference between WWII and Korea/Vietnam/Malaya situations. The Allies in WWII entered the war because of either pre-war pacts or because they were attacked first. As far as I'm aware there weren't any similar pacts with Korea, Nam or Malaya.
N.B. the only one of there where communism was completely removed was Malaya because the British forces had no restraints on what they could attack
AAAHHH Get out of his head!
The only possible way you can compare them is the fact that they were wars against aggressive backwards governments. WW2 = Hilter and Fachism trying to reshape the world. Korea/Vietnam = Communism trying to reshape the world. The comparison stops there. Different reasons, different times, different wars.
The only possible way you can compare them is the fact that they were wars against aggressive backwards governments. WW2 = Hilter and Fachism trying to reshape the world. Korea/Vietnam = Communism trying to reshape the world. The comparison stops there. Different reasons, different times, different wars.
- Thread starter
- #435
For those who wasn't´t born in those days like I was, here are some information about the whole matter:
PART 1:
Nippon planned during 1940 to use Vietnam as a base. The French Indochina Colonists Had no support from their occupied home country, at that made it impossible to resist the Japanese.
The Vietnam Liberation Army wanted National Independence and moderate reforms and not Communist aims. It was organized from a broad National Front-Group called Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh and built up their Liberation Army well ahead and in preparation for the Pacific War to end and the that Nippon Army would leave. When Nippon surrendered, the Vietnam Liberation Army declared the independent republic of Vietnam.
The French Colonists would not give the Vietnamese their independence, and in late 1945 they took control over the Southern provinces from retreating Viet Minh and other nationalist forces.
In France 1946 negotiations to seek a compromise solution were held but they failed to resolve the existing differences and when Vietnam Liberation Army attacked French Colonists positions in Hanoi, the war was a fact.
The French Colonists formed a rival Vietnamese Government under Bao Dai, the last emperor of the Nguyen dynasty and that happened only after failing to capture Ho Chi Minh and destroy the Liberation Movement,
The US recognized Bao Dai's government and began to provide military and economic aid to the French. Bao Dai abdicated the throne in favor of Ho Chi Minh´s Republic. The Vietnamese Liberation Movement was not strong enough to defeat the French Colonists Army but the Movement had grown in popularity amongst the Vietnamese people and that prevented a French victory.
In March 1954 Vietnamese forces attacked the French Military outpost of Dien Bien Phu which was defended by the French Foreign Legion. France agreed therefore to hold Peace negotiations at Geneva, Switzerland. On 7 May ,however Dien Bien Phu fell to the Vietnamese Liberation Forces.
The French agreed at Geneva to a compromise which called for the withdrawal of French Colonists Troops and a temporary split of Vietnam into 2 separate zones and elections were to be held in 1956 which were intended to bring about a reunified Vietnam.
For the first time in many years (5 years) a period of peace followed. In Hanoi, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party lay the foundations towards a National Reunification by holding elections, which were widely expected to favor the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party which were leaning over to communism.
In South Vietnam, Dai was replaced by Diem, an well known Anti-Communist Catholic who refused to hold National Elections as promised at Geneva. The US who was sympathetic to Diem´s Anti-Communist beliefs and Diem´s claim that Vietnam's French Colonial oppressors had negotiated the agreements.
After elections that only took place in South Vietnam, Diem became the president of the Republic of Vietnam and a new constitution was written with the support of the US.
Diem´ regime tried by any means to crush the growing support for the Viet Minh in South Vietnam and that triggered a growing hostility from many South Vietnamese towards Diem, his actions and his regime. During that time Diem's economic and social programs failed and therefore North Vietnam adopted a policy of Revolutionary War with the main goal to topple Diem's government and bringing about National Reunification.
The US provided military assistance and advisers to help Diem's regime but conditions worsened and Diem became more and more unpopular. That was the main reason for the Viet Cong to gain control of much of the countryside.
Dissident elements in the Army launched a coup in Nov 1963 to overthrow Diem with US approval, and he was killed in the attack. In the political confusion that followed, the security situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate, putting the Communists within reach of total victory. In early 1965, faced with the South's imminent collapse Lyndon Johnson ordered the intensive bombing of North Vietnam and the dispatch of U.S. combat troops into the South.
Cheers
GT
PART 1:
Nippon planned during 1940 to use Vietnam as a base. The French Indochina Colonists Had no support from their occupied home country, at that made it impossible to resist the Japanese.
The Vietnam Liberation Army wanted National Independence and moderate reforms and not Communist aims. It was organized from a broad National Front-Group called Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh and built up their Liberation Army well ahead and in preparation for the Pacific War to end and the that Nippon Army would leave. When Nippon surrendered, the Vietnam Liberation Army declared the independent republic of Vietnam.
The French Colonists would not give the Vietnamese their independence, and in late 1945 they took control over the Southern provinces from retreating Viet Minh and other nationalist forces.
In France 1946 negotiations to seek a compromise solution were held but they failed to resolve the existing differences and when Vietnam Liberation Army attacked French Colonists positions in Hanoi, the war was a fact.
The French Colonists formed a rival Vietnamese Government under Bao Dai, the last emperor of the Nguyen dynasty and that happened only after failing to capture Ho Chi Minh and destroy the Liberation Movement,
The US recognized Bao Dai's government and began to provide military and economic aid to the French. Bao Dai abdicated the throne in favor of Ho Chi Minh´s Republic. The Vietnamese Liberation Movement was not strong enough to defeat the French Colonists Army but the Movement had grown in popularity amongst the Vietnamese people and that prevented a French victory.
In March 1954 Vietnamese forces attacked the French Military outpost of Dien Bien Phu which was defended by the French Foreign Legion. France agreed therefore to hold Peace negotiations at Geneva, Switzerland. On 7 May ,however Dien Bien Phu fell to the Vietnamese Liberation Forces.
The French agreed at Geneva to a compromise which called for the withdrawal of French Colonists Troops and a temporary split of Vietnam into 2 separate zones and elections were to be held in 1956 which were intended to bring about a reunified Vietnam.
For the first time in many years (5 years) a period of peace followed. In Hanoi, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party lay the foundations towards a National Reunification by holding elections, which were widely expected to favor the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Party which were leaning over to communism.
In South Vietnam, Dai was replaced by Diem, an well known Anti-Communist Catholic who refused to hold National Elections as promised at Geneva. The US who was sympathetic to Diem´s Anti-Communist beliefs and Diem´s claim that Vietnam's French Colonial oppressors had negotiated the agreements.
After elections that only took place in South Vietnam, Diem became the president of the Republic of Vietnam and a new constitution was written with the support of the US.
Diem´ regime tried by any means to crush the growing support for the Viet Minh in South Vietnam and that triggered a growing hostility from many South Vietnamese towards Diem, his actions and his regime. During that time Diem's economic and social programs failed and therefore North Vietnam adopted a policy of Revolutionary War with the main goal to topple Diem's government and bringing about National Reunification.
The US provided military assistance and advisers to help Diem's regime but conditions worsened and Diem became more and more unpopular. That was the main reason for the Viet Cong to gain control of much of the countryside.
Dissident elements in the Army launched a coup in Nov 1963 to overthrow Diem with US approval, and he was killed in the attack. In the political confusion that followed, the security situation in South Vietnam continued to deteriorate, putting the Communists within reach of total victory. In early 1965, faced with the South's imminent collapse Lyndon Johnson ordered the intensive bombing of North Vietnam and the dispatch of U.S. combat troops into the South.
Cheers
GT
Attachments
Vietnam did have a long history of war even before the war against the United States. For the longest time it is all that the people of Vietnam new.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Very well put - my earlier point was outside the politics behind the Viet Nam War. The vast majority of US soldiers who were sent there fought well. Many were conscripts, made to do a job with little or no clear military direction and then taking political the fall for the ill conceived brainchild of members of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. I believe those folks wanted to show the Communist world they were tough, but just went short of direct confrontation. In any case people like my brother were scoffed and spat at when they returned from Viet Nam. Personally I have deep contempt for both Kennedy and Johnson.
FLYBOYJ said:
Another problem with this is the NCO Corps as we know it today (Seargent through Seargent Major) was not the same. The Corps was not as trained as it is today in leading soldiers and taking care of them on and off the battle field. It was not until after the Vietnam War that the US Army realized how valuable this was and set up real NCO Acadamies as we know them today. The soldiers today are led better by there NCO's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Another problem with this is the NCO Corps as we know it today (Seargent through Seargent Major) was not the same. The Corps was not as trained as it is today in leading soldiers and taking care of them on and off the battle field. It was not until after the Vietnam War that the US Army realized how valuable this was and set up real NCO Acadamies as we know them today. The soldiers today are led better by there NCO's.[/quote]
You bet, today we see many NCOs with all kinds of degrees. During the Viet Nam era I bet there were still a sizable number of NCOs without a high school diploma!
You bet, today we see many NCOs with all kinds of degrees. During the Viet Nam era I bet there were still a sizable number of NCOs without a high school diploma!
You are very correct. Most were just promoted over time or as slots became available in there units which in the case of combat was not very good because the soldier did not have eneogh experience to truely lead men into combat and get them out alive.
- Status
