Warfare and the acceptance of casualties

[Orionblamblam]

That might be what "warefare" is about. Warfare OTOH is about achieving a politic end with the lowest casualties possible.

Well... maybe. Look at wars of the last decade, on up to and including the Happy Fun Times Sibling Party currently going on in Syria. Many combatants give not one damn about minimizing casualties, nor about winning hearts and minds... just in killing the enemy and destroying their stuff (witness in particular the evident *joy* being taken in blowing up The Other Guy's minarrettes).

And stuff like ethnic wars (Hutus/Tutsis, frex) are all about maximising casualties.

Kill large numbers on either side and resentment sets in and grudges created.

To which the historically usual response has been "yeah, so?"

Only amateurs believe is all about a war of attrition. That failed dismally in WWI and in Vietnam.

Not really sure I agree with you. WWI was won by the western powers who were happy to use attrition; the US achieved its aims in Viet Nam despite politicians running the war, not warriors. People often forget that from the viewpoint of the US, that war achieved its goals. (It was the war that came a few years later that upset everything)

 

[tround]

which goals?

 

[Jemiba]

As long as this thread is apparently about Bob Diemert, could one of the mods correct the spelling of his name in the title?

Of course !
And perhaps we could get a little closer again to that aircraft project, please ? The Defender was
rarely mentioned in the last posts.

 

[Orionblamblam]

which goals?

Drive the communists out of South Viet Nam and end their war of conquest. This was accomplished. And a few years later, the North tried again, found the US was unwilling to go back, and conquered the South.

 

[Bill Walker]

One man's war of conquest is another man's popular uprising. The Americans drove the Communists out of a few well garrisoned large cities.

Totally off topic, feel free to delete this message.

 

[Rickshaw]

That might be what "warefare" is about. Warfare OTOH is about achieving a politic end with the lowest casualties possible.

Well... maybe. Look at wars of the last decade, on up to and including the Happy Fun Times Sibling Party currently going on in Syria. Many combatants give not one damn about minimizing casualties, nor about winning hearts and minds... just in killing the enemy and destroying their stuff (witness in particular the evident *joy* being taken in blowing up The Other Guy's minarrettes).

If in those wars, a political objective is sought. Even in those wars, restraint is shown. Bashar al Assad is not a patch on his father as far as inflicting harm on his own subjects is concerned but even is father sought to ensure his own rule by inflicting not the maximum possible but the minimum necessary to ensure his rule of Syria.

As for breaking stuff, killing people to "break the enemy's will" I would point you to the failures of where maximum casualties were sought in the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They failed dismally to "break the enemy's will". It was not until ground forces fought their way to the "lair of the fascist beast" in Germany and threat of continued atomic bombing and invasion of Japan that the enemy's will did finally break and even then it was a touch-and-go situation at the end with a military putsch attempted to stop the surrender. The civilian will in that case may have broken but that of the militarists hadn't.

And stuff like ethnic wars (Hutus/Tutsis, frex) are all about maximising casualties.

That was not a war, that was a genocide. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to the meaning of words?

Kill large numbers on either side and resentment sets in and grudges created.

To which the historically usual response has been "yeah, so?"

You appear to have forgotten that WWI settled little in Europe and that the simmering hatreds resulted in WWII. There are numerous other examples from history which show the same point.

Only amateurs believe is all about a war of attrition. That failed dismally in WWI and in Vietnam.

Not really sure I agree with you. WWI was won by the western powers who were happy to use attrition; the US achieved its aims in Viet Nam despite politicians running the war, not warriors. People often forget that from the viewpoint of the US, that war achieved its goals. (It was the war that came a few years later that upset everything)

The Western Allies did not use "attrition". The Germans did, in WWI. The Western Allies used what is now called "Operational Strategy" and which was referred to then as "Grand Tactics" to defeat the Germans on the Western Front and force them into wholesale retreat. You appear to believe in some sort of Hollywood history. I recommend you study The Hundred Days campaign.

As for Vietnam, it was the military men who ran that war and devised the strategy of attrition, not the politicians. It is a common myth amongst many to blame the politicians. It reminds me most forcibly of the Nazis' "stab in the back" claims as to why Germany lost WWI. America created a temporary breathing space long enough to allow itself to exit Vietnam with it's military forces, nothing more. The Vietnamese let the USA leave and it left a broken nation with it's tail between it's legs. Then the real war, the one which the USA had interrupted resumed and the Vietnamese fought to their political objective - the defeat of the neo-colonial regime in the South. The USA made the mistake of fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong war for the wrong objectives. A remarkable achievement in the annals of history and one which should be sheeted home to the politicians.

Military men are not "Warriors". Modern military people have discipline and use their intelligence. Warriors don't, they rely on their physical prowess to carry the day. Which would you prefer to think of your military forces as? A rabble or a well disciplined and intelligently directed force?

This though, is wandering considerably off topic. Perhaps the moderators might like to move it to a more appropriate one?

 

[Avimimus]

That movie is kind of like the "Red Green" show of Canadian aviation! All that was missing was duct tape.
The concept of overwhelming the enemy with thousands of aircraft is a bit cold blooded. Shows a bit of lack of value of a human life. How would you like to go into battle knowing that "they just don't have enough guns and missiles to shoot us all down" but also knowing that many of you are going to die?

We're Canadians - shock troops and accepting casualties for King and Country has a long tradition

So far as can be ascertained, 22 officers and 758 other ranks were directly involved in the advance.[25] Of these, all the officers and slightly under 658 other ranks became casualties.[25] Of the 780 men who went forward only about 110 survived unscathed, of whom only 68 were available for roll call the following day.[25] For all intents and purposes the Newfoundland Regiment had been wiped out, the unit as a whole having suffered a casualty rate of approximately 90 percent. The only unit to suffer greater casualties during the attack was the 10th Battalion of the West Yorkshire Regiment, attacking west of Fricourt village.[26]

The losses at Dieppe were claimed to be a necessary evil.[30] Mountbatten later justified the raid by arguing that lessons learned at Dieppe in 1942 were put to good use later in the war. He later claimed, “I have no doubt that the Battle of Normandy was won on the beaches of Dieppe. For every man who died in Dieppe, at least 10 more must have been spared in Normandy in 1944." In direct response to the raid on Dieppe, Winston Churchill remarked that, “My Impression of 'Jubilee' is that the results fully justified the heavy cost” and that it “was a Canadian contribution of the greatest significance to final victory.”[31][...]Of the nearly 5,000-strong Canadian contingent, 3,367 were killed, wounded or taken prisoner, an exceptional casualty rate of 68%.[29] The 1,000 British Commandos lost 247 men. The Royal Navy lost one destroyer (HMS Berkeley) and 33 landing craft, suffering 550 dead and wounded. The RAF lost 106 aircraft to the 48 lost by the Luftwaffe. The German Army had 591 casualties.[9]

That aside - the idea of deploying large numbers of maneuverable aircraft at low speed and extremely low altitude is somewhat viable. They wouldn't be that much less effective than helicopters and most of the strain but on both skill and avionics would be removed. Time delayed bombs delivered at point-blank can be almost as accurate as smart-bombs. If the aircraft is expendable than the risk of premature detonations doesn't matter as much. It would work in many third-world conflicts. Not that I'm advocating such horrors.

 

[Orionblamblam]

As for breaking stuff, killing people to "break the enemy's will" I would point you to the failures of where maximum casualties were sought in the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They failed dismally to "break the enemy's will".

Yeah, but they broke the enemies *stuff.*

And stuff like ethnic wars (Hutus/Tutsis, frex) are all about maximising casualties.

That was not a war, that was a genocide. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to the meaning of words?

Really? Given that one of the Nazis goal was the extermination of the Slavs, is it your contention that Germany was *not* waging war against the Soviet Union? How about the Bangladesh Liberation War of '71, where the Pakistani leadership planned to exterminate the Bengali Hindus? "War" and "genocide" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Sometimes wholesale extermination is part and parcel of war planning.

Kill large numbers on either side and resentment sets in and grudges created.

To which the historically usual response has been "yeah, so?"

You appear to have forgotten ...

... nothing. I'm simply pointing out history: most of the time, for the last 6,000 years, people running wars tend to not care if they annoy the enemy populace.

As for Vietnam, it was the military men who ran that war and devised the strategy of attrition, not the politicians.

And yet it was Congress that chose to not aid South Viet Nam in April of 1975.

The USA made the mistake of fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong war for the wrong objectives.

And yet while the US was slogging through VN, the Soviets did not spen as much effort on expansion as they had previously... no doubt in at least part due to their recognition that Americans were willign to spend blood and treasure to stop communism. And when the US demonstrated that it *wouldn't* step in to stop communist expansion, the Soviets up and invaded Afghanistan.

 

[Bill Walker]

We're Canadians - shock troops and accepting casualties for King and Country has a long tradition

The correct wording is "had a brief tradition". Read about the politicans and senior commanders in the Second World War, who remembered the trenches, and how it affected their thinking. Canadian strategy from 1919 forward was intent on NOT repeating the wastage of the First War. BCATP yes, expeditionary forces no. Dieppe was UK strategy, not Canadian strategy. As an aside, the first Canadian to win a Nobel Peace Prize was a former First World War Army officer - Lester B. Pearson. He didn't win it for taking casualties for anybody.

And your quote about the Newfoundland Regiment - this was not a Canadian unit in either World War. It was funded and adminstered directly by the Brits. Again, read a little history.

 

[Grey Havoc]

For bush wars and police actions in other words.

 

[tround]

Even not, with a maximum speed of 160kmh, they are easy to shoot down .

 

[Avimimus]

We're Canadians - shock troops and accepting casualties for King and Country has a long tradition

The correct wording is "had a brief tradition". Read about the politicans and senior commanders in the Second World War, who remembered the trenches, and how it affected their thinking. Canadian strategy from 1919 forward was intent on NOT repeating the wastage of the First War. BCATP yes, expeditionary forces no. Dieppe was UK strategy, not Canadian strategy. As an aside, the first Canadian to win a Nobel Peace Prize was a former First World War Army officer - Lester B. Pearson. He didn't win it for taking casualties for anybody.

And your quote about the Newfoundland Regiment - this was not a Canadian unit in either World War. It was funded and adminstered directly by the Brits. Again, read a little history.

1. Dieppe was a U.K. strategy making use of Canadian troops.

2. I agree that we moved away from this role by Korea - however, we accepted some of the highest casualty roles in Afghanistan (with the highest casualties per capita amongst NATO forces during several periods) - so it is a 'living tradition'. Albiet not necessarily a desirable one.

3. With regard to the Newfoundlanders - Did Anne Hutchinson die in the United States? Answer that question and you'll have my response.

So - yes, I do read history.

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

I remember seeing this thing on Canadian television about 30 days ago and being mildly bemused and embarrassed about it. To think we once built the Avro Arrow.

 

[Bill Walker]

1. Dieppe was a U.K. strategy making use of Canadian troops.

So taking high casualties for King and Country is a UK tradition.

2. I agree that we moved away from this role by Korea - however, we accepted some of the highest casualty roles in Afghanistan (with the highest casualties per capita amongst NATO forces during several periods) - so it is a 'living tradition'. Albiet not necessarily a desirable one.

A statistical anomaly, resulting from Canada's relatively small population and the refusal of most NATO countries to accept ANY casualties. Are you seriously suggesting that the volunteers in the Canadian Army signed up in hopes of dying in Afghanistan? Or that Canadian politicians sent them there in hopes of a high body count to show the Queen?

3. With regard to the Newfoundlanders - Did Anne Hutchinson die in the United States? Answer that question and you'll have my response.

The actions of citizens of predecessor states is one of many of the sources of a nation's traditions. The native North American tradition of counting coup is a valid part of the modern Canadian tradition. Being mislead by your Colonial masters hardly counts.

Have you discussed what the Canadian military expects in the modern world with any current members of the Canadian military? That, to me, is the current Canadian military tradition. And to get back on topic, I had several discussions back in the 1980s with serving and recently retired Canadian military members about Diemert's theories. Most responses were unprintable. I don't remember anybody saying "sign me up".

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

There seems to be some "lost in translation" issues here:

As for breaking stuff, killing people to "break the enemy's will" I would point you to the failures of where maximum casualties were sought in the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They failed dismally to "break the enemy's will". It was not until ground forces fought their way to the "lair of the fascist beast" in Germany and threat of continued atomic bombing and invasion of Japan that the enemy's will did finally break and even then it was a touch-and-go situation at the end with a military putsch attempted to stop the surrender. The civilian will in that case may have broken but that of the militarists hadn't.

I think OBB means "breaking stuff" as in taking tanks, planes, ship, infrastructure, etc and destroying it. You took this as will power.

Military men are not "Warriors". Modern military people have discipline and use their intelligence. Warriors don't, they rely on their physical prowess to carry the day. Which would you prefer to think of your military forces as? A rabble or a well disciplined and intelligently directed force?

Warrior is a commonly used phrase to denote fighting men even in modern western armed forces. "warrior ethos" is not about a spear and loin cloth.

A warrior is "one who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause or conflict;"

http://www.hill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180429

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

 

[Antonio]

Warfare and the acceptance of casualties, what works in military strategy, Me P 1011 vs La 15 in a Russian vs German War in 1948...is this a forum about unbuilt designs or am I missing something?!. I think off-topics are growing since a few weeks ago

 

[topspeed3]

Warfare and the acceptance of casualties, what works in military strategy, Me P 1011 vs La 15 in a Russian vs German War in 1948...is this a forum about unbuilt designs or am I missing something?!. I think off-topics are growing since a few weeks ago

I think Diemerts Defender video where he states he could build 5000 of these at price of 135 Hornets started this of topic conversation.....which by the way is very interesting.

 

[Antonio]

Diemerts Defender is off topic itself since it isn't an unbuilt project.

 

[Avimimus]

1. Dieppe was a U.K. strategy making use of Canadian troops.

So taking high casualties for King and Country is a UK tradition.

2. I agree that we moved away from this role by Korea - however, we accepted some of the highest casualty roles in Afghanistan (with the highest casualties per capita amongst NATO forces during several periods) - so it is a 'living tradition'. Albiet not necessarily a desirable one.

A statistical anomaly, resulting from Canada's relatively small population and the refusal of most NATO countries to accept ANY casualties. Are you seriously suggesting that the volunteers in the Canadian Army signed up in hopes of dying in Afghanistan? Or that Canadian politicians sent them there in hopes of a high body count to show the Queen?

3. With regard to the Newfoundlanders - Did Anne Hutchinson die in the United States? Answer that question and you'll have my response.

The actions of citizens of predecessor states is one of many of the sources of a nation's traditions. The native North American tradition of counting coup is a valid part of the modern Canadian tradition. Being mislead by your Colonial masters hardly counts.

Have you discussed what the Canadian military expects in the modern world with any current members of the Canadian military? That, to me, is the current Canadian military tradition. And to get back on topic, I had several discussions back in the 1980s with serving and recently retired Canadian military members about Diemert's theories. Most responses were unprintable. I don't remember anybody saying "sign me up".

I basically agree that Canadians did not want to climb into this thing.

However, I would argue that there is a consistent trend in putting colonial troops into some of the roughest areas (in U.K. strategy). I suspect that one of the reasons is that political fallout is minimized in the home country (U.K.) if casualties are from a smaller colony.

I would also suggest that colonial troops tend to be fighting for more abstract reasons (i.e. they've never seen what they are defending) and that colonial populations are used to making sacrifices for distant 'mother countries' - which makes them somewhat amicable.

I would extend this hypothesis to ANZAACs, Gurkhas and South Africans - not just Canadians.

So - part of my nascent nationalism is being mislead (or at least lead into combat) by my Colonial masters... and I'm proud of it.

 

[Avimimus]

By the way - any speculation on what the casualty rate was like for Roman Auxiliaries?

 

[Orionblamblam]

By the way - any speculation on what the casualty rate was like for Roman Auxiliaries?

100%. They're all dead.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Hahaha!

Yes. Life has a 100% casualty rate.

 

[Avimimus]

See told'ya

;D

 

[RanulfC]

There seems to be some "lost in translation" issues here:

Military men are not "Warriors". Modern military people have discipline and use their intelligence. Warriors don't, they rely on their physical prowess to carry the day. Which would you prefer to think of your military forces as? A rabble or a well disciplined and intelligently directed force?

Warrior is a commonly used phrase to denote fighting men even in modern western armed forces. "warrior ethos" is not about a spear and loin cloth.

No it's not about "spear-and-loin-cloth" but that's a recent "meaning" more than anything else. I'm probably mis-remembering I'm sure but I think it was a Roman General that observed something to the effect that 10 soldiers will beat 100 warriors every time, but one solider will always fall to one warrior.

Warrior is a "mindset" as well as a cultural definition, just as soldier is. HOW these labels are applied varies greatly across cultures and time.

A warrior is "one who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause or conflict;"

http://www.hill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180429

Funny you should pick that one, I was reading it again for another reason a few weeks ago. 20 years ago someone in the military got in trouble for calling himself a "warrior" because, (as it was explained by a senior-NCO) we were "soldiers" not warriors. The above "quote" was paraphrased from that lecture. Back then the "Warrior-Ethos" was the "Soldiers-Creed" instead but the overall "meaning" was and remains the same.

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

Probably correct but OBB is clearly trying to boil the whole discussion nice "simple" terms and there he's wrong. Militaries don't normally CARE about anything but winning. That's their task, their job, its what they do.

However, having said that militaries in general over the ages have had to also take into consideration longer term and more comprehensive near-term "goals" as well or they do not "win" in the end. Most militaries are "constrained" by political and other considerations by the "government" they are beholden too. In many cases this will set "limits" on the acceptance of casualties especially among non-combatants. Other times it will not. To a military the "acceptable" number of casualties on YOUR side is the minimum needed to get the job done, (preferably none) meanwhile the acceptable casualties for the OTHER side is the minimum needed to cause them to cease to be an effective fighting force. There are variances though, a lot of them in fact.

If the military "need" is to destroy the infrastructure that supports the enemy fighting force then non-combatant casualties are acceptable, pretty much inevitable actually. If the enemy forces are using their own, or other non-combantants as "shields" then military needs would accept the non-combatants as acceptable casualties, however historically and in modern times it has been found that by TRYING to restrain such casualties has benificial side effects as long as it does not totally compromise military effectivness. (Effects such as finding car-bombers taped to light poles {naked} with duct tape, civilians wrestling and beating snipers, etc)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two examples of military need to convince the enemy that the only alternative to surrender is total destruction. Historically total "destruction" has been used to either permanently remove an enemy from ever being a threat again, or in some cases to ensure an enemies surrender or capitulation.

Historically a great deal of what is "military necessity" and what is not has changed along with military doctrine, technology, and culture. Today it is VERY easy to "destroy" large segments of any military and/or non-combatant enemy if one has the political and cultural will to do so and the proper weapons. On the other hand restricting casualties both combantant and non-combatant has become much more difficult. Along with the fact that it is no longer politically acceptable to actually "conquer" or destroy nation-states has made the military definition of "winning" a lot more "flexible" than historically, there is the fact that few militaries are geared for such activities anymore. (It not being economically or politically sustainable to raise and maintain such military forces these days)

With that in mind modern military forces are loath to inflict large amounts of casualties on non-combatants since in all likely hood "winning" will end up being a political and not a military decision. Given that there will almost certainly not be enough military strength left "in-place" to effectivly garrision the post-war area there is both a need and a desire to have some "good-will" to build upon with the local population. Given the "fact" that continued enemy activity will be difficult at best to route out and destroy because of various factors the main military mission becomes trying to ensure that a least a large segment of the local population sees them not as "occupiers/conquerors" but at the very least as the "lesser" of two evils, and in the best case as "guardians" and protectors.

In the end the military has to and will "accept" whatever amount of casualties on both sides it take to "win" a conflict. The bottom line will always be trying to ensure the minimum amount necessary on YOUR side with little or no regard to the amount on the OTHER side.

Randy

 

[Rickshaw]

which goals?

Drive the communists out of South Viet Nam and end their war of conquest. This was accomplished. And a few years later, the North tried again, found the US was unwilling to go back, and conquered the South.

What "war of conquest"? You speak as if the Communists were some sort of alien invaders.

They weren't. They were Vietnamese, the same people who live in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was a neo-colonial construct, created by US interference in the agreed upon terms from the 1954 Geneva Accords. If the US had not interfered, the Communists would have won the elections which were called for under those accords and no second Indochina War would have eventuated. The Vietnamese people had chosen the Communists over the French colonists. They had supported them to victory.

 

[Rickshaw]

There seems to be some "lost in translation" issues here:

As for breaking stuff, killing people to "break the enemy's will" I would point you to the failures of where maximum casualties were sought in the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. They failed dismally to "break the enemy's will". It was not until ground forces fought their way to the "lair of the fascist beast" in Germany and threat of continued atomic bombing and invasion of Japan that the enemy's will did finally break and even then it was a touch-and-go situation at the end with a military putsch attempted to stop the surrender. The civilian will in that case may have broken but that of the militarists hadn't.

I think OBB means "breaking stuff" as in taking tanks, planes, ship, infrastructure, etc and destroying it. You took this as will power.

OBB has made it clear he makes no differentiation. He simplistically refers to it as "breaking stuff".

Military men are not "Warriors". Modern military people have discipline and use their intelligence. Warriors don't, they rely on their physical prowess to carry the day. Which would you prefer to think of your military forces as? A rabble or a well disciplined and intelligently directed force?

Warrior is a commonly used phrase to denote fighting men even in modern western armed forces. "warrior ethos" is not about a spear and loin cloth.

"Warrior ethos" is bullshit. No soldier outside of the United States Army speaks in that way or even considers themselves as "warriors". They view themselves and their comrades as soldiers - disciplined, soldiers.

A warrior is "one who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause or conflict;"

http://www.hill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123180429

A very broad definition which allows one to use the term outside the military context. Within the military context, no modern military outside the US one has this stuff. Does it make the US military better than other militaries? I doubt it.

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

I am not aware of any modern Western military that thinks in these terms. Care to provide some examples?

 

[Orionblamblam]

If the US had not interfered, the Communists would have won the elections which were called for under those accords and no second Indochina War would have eventuated.

True. Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

 

[Bill Walker]

True. Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

Typical American unfounded paranoia. The North "invaders" DID win, remember? Did they or have they progressed beyond securing their borders in Laos and Cambodia?

We sometimes forget that the modern borders in much of Asia and Africa were drawn by Europeans who had no idea or interest it what the locals thought were borders. A lot of minor wars in these areas are just the locals setting things right.

 

[Orionblamblam]

True. Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

Typical American unfounded paranoia.

Wrong.

The North "invaders" DID win, remember? Did they or have they progressed beyond securing their borders in Laos and Cambodia?

Yes. Within a few years of the US abandoning VN, the communists invaded Afghanistan. While that proved disastrous for the Soviets, history demonstrated that while the US was fighting communism
in VN, the Soviets did not expend much effort to expand; once the US stopped fighting communist expansion, communists expanded.

Why does anyone think that an alternate history where the US does not stand up to communism leads to communism *not* expanding?

 

[Rickshaw]

If the US had not interfered, the Communists would have won the elections which were called for under those accords and no second Indochina War would have eventuated.

True.

So why therefore assume that fighting in Vietnam "stopped the advance of Communism"?

Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

Your hyperbole as usual gets the better of you and shows that your mind is closed to any alternatives.

Why would the Communists want New Guinea or Australia? :

 

[Rickshaw]

True. Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

Typical American unfounded paranoia.

Wrong.

The North "invaders" DID win, remember? Did they or have they progressed beyond securing their borders in Laos and Cambodia?

Yes. Within a few years of the US abandoning VN, the communists invaded Afghanistan. While that proved disastrous for the Soviets, history demonstrated that while the US was fighting communism in VN, the Soviets did not expend much effort to expand; once the US stopped fighting communist expansion, communists expanded.

Yet again you're still showing that you think that "Communism" was a monolithic ideology. The Soviets didn't own it. They didn't control it. The "brush-fire wars" after Vietnam were local affairs, fought over local issues and happened invariably despite what the Soviets said should happen.

Why does anyone think that an alternate history where the US does not stand up to communism leads to communism *not* expanding?

Why do you assume that anything the US did actually stopped local revolutionary movements? Why do you assume that "the spread of Communism" wasn't about a contest between the world's two superpowers but rather because of local conditions created by the US supporting oppressive, dictatorial and tyrannical governments?

You've admitted that the US caused the Second Indochina War through it's interference. Why should what Washington thought should happen be more important than what the local Vietnamese thought should happen?

The US proved in the case of Yugoslavia and later China that it could cope with the idea of different strains of Communism, yet in Vietnam, its suddenly all the Soviet's fault, despite the evidence showing that Ho Chi Min was not a puppet of the Kremlin? Your thinking is inconsistent. :

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why would the Communists want New Guinea or Australia? :

Really? Really?

Communism is a *universalist* ideology.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

I am not aware of any modern Western military that thinks in these terms.

Why do you want to limit the discussion solely to "modern" and "Western?"

 

[bobbymike]

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

I am not aware of any modern Western military that thinks in these terms.

Why do you want to limit the discussion solely to "modern" and "Western?"

I find it interesting that the nations we pratically wiped out Germany, Japan became very close allies while our more recent limited engagements have all left enemies behind that continue to hinder peace.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I find it interesting that the nations we pratically wiped out Germany, Japan became very close allies while our more recent limited engagements have all left enemies behind that continue to hinder peace.

That's because we've become "nicer" in terms of warfare. And "nice" doesn't win wars... it's the determination to kill people and break stuff until the other guy gives up. Importantly, followed by the willingness to then march in, take over the joint, and remake the local culture into what you want it to be.

 

[chuck4]

I find it interesting that the nations we pratically wiped out Germany, Japan became very close allies while our more recent limited engagements have all left enemies behind that continue to hinder peace.

Germany and Japan became allies because they were modern nations with large and skilled populations, history of industrialization, established tradition of modern effective central government, civil service beaucracy, legal structure needed for efficient implementation of policy. They also occupy the front line between the American block and the Soviet block, and they were worth the cost of making them take their place on our side.

The nations we fought in since then were all small fry of little skill, economic potentisal and intrinsic value, no concept of modern legal structure, and no system for efficient implementation of policy. Such civil service beaucracy they might have had was hastily dismissed by the US and thus lost as a tool for implement American occupation policy in one case. They weren't really worth fighting for in the first place and isn't worth a whole lot whether they are now for us or against us. If they are for us then they are more liability then asset, if they are against us we couldn't care very much less.

 

[bobbymike]

I find it interesting that the nations we pratically wiped out Germany, Japan became very close allies while our more recent limited engagements have all left enemies behind that continue to hinder peace.

Germany and Japan became allies because they were modern nations with large and skilled populations, history of industrialization, established tradition of modern effective central government, civil service beaucracy, legal structure needed for efficient implementation of policy. They also occupy the front line between the American block and the Soviet block, and they were worth the cost of making them take their place on our side.

The nations we fought in since then were all small fry of little skill, economic potentisal and intrinsic value, no concept of modern legal structure, and no system for efficient implementation of policy. Such civil service beaucracy they might have had was hastily dismissed by the US and thus lost as a tool for implement American occupation policy in one case. They weren't really worth fighting for in the first place and isn't worth a whole lot whether they are now for us or against us. If they are for us then they are more liability then asset, if they are against us we couldn't care very much less.

What you say is absolutely correct if we were talking exclusively about the speed of the recovery of the 'civil society' ans their economies but having a 'modern' system would not mean much to me when you've just incinerated millions of my countrymen (and probably my family as well)

Also counter to these countries so-called modernity they sure acted like barbarians when it came to war. I think it would be more accurate to say that they became allies not because of their modern systems but because we ruthlessly destroyed the systems they had in place and they had to become part of the US sphere IMHO.

In the other cases our 'weak' form of war left too much of the old system in place, for example, how many Nazi's were there after the war ended, now how many Taliban are left over in A-stan? Might be different if we eradicated them and not actually brought them to the peace table.

 

[mjinnj]

If the US had not interfered, the Communists would have won the elections which were called for under those accords and no second Indochina War would have eventuated.

True. Instead of fighting the commies in VN, the US might have had to fight them in New Guinea or Australia.

i have a question about that statement. according to the pentagon papers a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:

• 70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.
• 20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
• 10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
• ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
• NOT - To "help a friend"

isn't that quite a stretch to say that new guinea or australia was going to be a war zone?

 

[Rickshaw]

Why would the Communists want New Guinea or Australia? :

Really? Really?

Communism is a *universalist* ideology.

Is it? Why then did Communist ideologues believe that societies needed to reach a particular stage in their development in order to be "ripe for revolution". That stage was industrialisation and when revolutionaries such as Mao and Ho proposed that it was not necessary, they were invariably initially brought to heel and then later purged.

Communism is no more "universalist" than is Capitalism. :

 

[Rickshaw]

I think OBBs original point is that a lot of militaries don't really care about minimizing casualties. (in some cases on either side) in fact some not only hope to win but maximize casualties on the opponents side regardless of their combatant status.

I am not aware of any modern Western military that thinks in these terms.

Why do you want to limit the discussion solely to "modern" and "Western?"

'cause "Modern and Western" are considered the most advanced societies. Their militaries are also the ones that the USA's are compared to. Are you suggesting that the US Military is neither "modern" nor "Western" in it's outlook? :