Vietnam: McNamara's Morons Go to Battle!

16 746 119
Vietnam: McNamara's Morons Go to Battle!


The Tet rout led to two results. First, General Westmoreland, impressed by the victory, began demanding an additional 206 troops from Lyndon Johnson—for the final purge of "commies" from South Vietnam. Since American politicians are always on edge on the eve of elections, someone at the meeting leaked this fact to the press, adding that this would require calling up reservists.




Anti-war demonstration in the United States

After the Tet battle footage hyped by journalists, anti-war sentiment had already intensified significantly, and the publication of a possible call-up of reservists... Johnson realized he wouldn't be elected with such PR and announced he was withdrawing from a second term. Secondly, regular VPA units, much better trained, armed, and disciplined, began fighting in the south. And the soldiers didn't commit the kind of horrific reprisals against civilians suspected of collaborating with the Saigon regime or "long noses" that the Viet Cong regularly carried out, limiting themselves to vulgar executions.


Nguyen Van Thieu, President of the Republic of Vietnam

In short, the Tet debacle didn't make the war any easier for the Americans and their allies. On June 20, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu declared a general mobilization. The morale of the Arwen soldiers was at rock bottom: many believed the Americans had deliberately allowed the Charlies to attack Saigon to force the South Vietnamese to fight. But worst of all, the Americans now began to ask themselves: was it even possible to win this war? The honest answer, as a rule, was not encouraging...


Who asked for a map? I borrowed a real one from the USMC archives...

And the war was going on like in the song: "The pony runs in circles." Battles, even victorious ones, did not result in territorial gains. Divisions whose task was to break the Soviet tank The wedges in Germany were unable to do anything against the Vietnamese troops fighting in the jungle. M48A2 Patton tanks sat uselessly in garages, and soldiers regularly conducted cleanups in the same areas. "There were times when they'd drop us off at a landing zone where we'd been just a couple of weeks before—our old junk was still there! Naturally, the question arose: why not take this war seriously, go all out on them, or get out of here?" asked Sergeant Jim Stevens. However, this doesn't mean that this war didn't have brutal and bloody battles: there was plenty of that stuff—more than enough! For example, the infamous battle for forester's hut, the village of Daido...


McNamara and his morons

Before discussing him, it's worth mentioning a category of US military personnel that emerged in Vietnam. These are the infamous "McNamara Morons." Shortly before his dismissal as Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara launched Project 100,000. It was intended to compensate for personnel losses by lowering the physical and mental requirements for recruits. As a result, over the course of five years, approximately 345,000 outright morons (with an IQ of no more than 85!) entered the army, accounting for 13% of the total number of Americans serving in Vietnam. The battle for Dido became their baptism of fire! Although sometimes it seems as if it was precisely from this contingent that the US Army's commanders were recruited.


2nd Battalion, 4th Marines: "The Magnificent Bastards"

By April 30, 1968, the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, had seen a fair amount of combat, and its condition was far from stellar. It had gotten to the point where the battalion chaplain's wife had become an anti-war activist and filed for divorce. The rest of the battalion was no better—a significant portion of the personnel were those same "McNamara morons." Furthermore, due to constant rotations, officers simply didn't have time to recognize their soldiers by name, instead giving them memorable nicknames. One lance corporal wrote a hysterical letter home, claiming that no one in the battalion would survive. It's hard to say how hysterical this was: in March 1968 alone, the battalion lost 59 men killed and 360 wounded.


I only found a photo of Weiss as a brigadier general, awarding some marine...

The battalion commander, a Korean War veteran, Colonel William Weiss (sometimes spelled "Wild Bill"), was no tactical genius, but he was conscientious in his duties and possessed excellent professional training. He worked hard to establish order within the battalion, teach his subordinates basic combat skills, restore morale after losses, and maintain discipline—no easy feat with such a unique contingent!


Chinh Thi Ngo, aka "Hannah from Hanoi" weapon The DRV, which broke brains no weaker than a nuclear bomb!

As soon as the battalion was transferred to the Kiaviet River, North Vietnamese radio, through its permanent anchor, Hannah, congratulated the Marines from Hanoi on their arrival in full... Well, basically, she explained in simple terms what awaited them there. This lack of control of the situation sent the GI morale plummeting. On the night of April 27, Captain Robert Mastrion's G Company (Golf) received its first mission to search for NVA forces. The captain had recently taken over the company and hadn't yet earned the love or respect of his subordinates, who had dubbed him a moron.


Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment disembark from SR-34 helicopters on the aircraft carrier USS Iwo Jima.

Soon, the eight-man lead squad found itself under fire; survivors later claimed to have stumbled upon a NVA column crossing the trail they were traveling along. Mastrion called for reinforcements, but the battalion commander advised them to rely on themselves: Weiss feared that his subordinates would shoot each other in the darkness. A CH-34 Sea Horse from the aircraft carrier Iwo Jima was called in to evacuate the wounded, but during loading, an RPG hit its window, knocking out the pilot's left eye. The co-pilot managed to raise the helicopter and return to the carrier, but one of the seriously wounded remained on the ground, and Mastrion stayed with him until he died.

When the company returned to base, the GIs claimed they'd survived the worst day in Vietnam, and Captain Mastrion went to the hospital with back pain, leaving the company in the hands of Captain Jay Vargas. In all fairness, the battalion should have been sent to rest, but the 3rd Marine Regiment commander, Colonel Milton Hill, who was leading the operation, had plans for it: he feared the regiment would be cut off from its logistics hub in Dong Ha, so he deployed troops in a line along the Kiaviet River and its tributaries. A thin line, dangerously thin...


Fight at Daido

Meanwhile, the Vietnamese had the 52nd Regiment operating in the river area, with its 6th Battalion dug in on the banks of the Bozieu, a tributary of the same Kiaviet. The battalion was supported by two heavy guns and had dug well into its fortifications, complete with barbed wire, a well-developed fire system, telephone lines between strongpoints, and other amenities. However, the Vietnamese's objective wasn't to engage the Americans, but to fire on the US river flotilla ships operating on the river and its tributaries with a pair of 57mm recoilless rifles. But... life intervened—on the morning of April 30, four companies of "McNamara's morons," commanded by Weiss, unexpectedly descended on the 6th Battalion.


I couldn't find a photo of O'Neill, but that's Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper in Vietnam at the time. He scored 93 "gooks"...

At 08:18, sniper Lance Corporal James O'Neill, accompanying Captain James Williams's H Company, reported, "Sir, I think there's a whole bunch of Gooks up ahead." The commander ordered him to pick someone off, which the sniper did. Wace then ordered Williams and his company to attack the village of Dong Hoang from the north, while F Company attacked the village of Dai Do, a couple of kilometers to the west. The regimental command had forbidden the battalion commander from committing large forces, which resulted in the defending and entrenched Vietnamese being outnumbered!


Shallow-draft river monitor

Each of the attacking companies had fewer than a hundred Marines—malaria, discharges, and combat losses had taken their toll. Weiss and the command group boarded a shallow-draft river monitor to monitor the battle from the water, moving parallel to the infantry. Artillery, represented by 105 and 155 mm howitzers, supported the attack with high-explosive and smoke shells.


Skimmer "fleet brown water" in Vietnam

At 13:30, the lead platoons of Company H approached the village of Dong Hoang and encountered dagger-like fire from well-concealed positions. The battalion commander reported encountering a large enemy force and received reinforcements: a pair of M48 tanks and artillery support from the flotilla's ships. The Marines crawled toward the village, then rose to their full height and, firing from the hip, advanced in a loose line. At that moment, a grenade was thrown at Captain Williams' feet, the explosion knocking him down, peppering his thighs and buttocks with shrapnel. The company commander then handed over command to Lieutenant Alex "Scotty" Prescott and retreated to the rear. The company took the village after a 15-minute battle, after which the remnants of Company H formed a perimeter around the village, where they dragged numerous wounded. It was impossible to evacuate them by helicopter under heavy fire, but the naval command sent small skimmer boats to the village, which took out 30 people.


"A miracle of hostile technology" - the LVTP-5 tracked amphibious armored personnel carrier

The worst thing in combat is when higher-ups show up and start asking the officers leading the fight stupid questions. That's exactly what "Scotty" Prescott encountered: Colonel Hull arrived in the village and began urging the companies to attack the enemy, claiming the battalion wasn't pushing hard enough. Meanwhile, while Company H was already engaged in combat, Company F was just approaching Dido in LVTP-5 amphibious assault vehicles. Suddenly, the vehicles were hit by RPGs, sending the Marines sprawling and taking cover, with one platoon trapped in a small cemetery. The company commander, Captain James Butler, called in Aviation, requesting a napalm strike on the village. One of the canisters landed 40 meters from the Marines' positions, fortunately without harming anyone. However, with only 26 combat-ready Marines left in the company, Butler requested permission from Weiss to withdraw to Dong Hoang and received it. However, it took two hours to revive the demoralized soldiers and, under air and armored personnel carrier cover, lead them back to Company H.


The more you read about the Vietnam War, the more you realize that Platoon is practically a documentary...

Seeing that the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, was struggling, command decided to ferry Company B of the 1st Marine Battalion across the river. The company wasn't exactly the best—the sergeants were feuding with each other (the movie "Platoon" rocks!), discipline was lax, and a stoned radio operator once threatened to blow everyone up with a grenade. It was a pretty mediocre unit. And when the floating armored personnel carriers carrying the company emerged on the opposite bank of the river, they were immediately fired upon: the company commander, one of the platoon commanders, a sergeant, and seven other Marines. kids Soldiers were killed, and another 14 were seriously wounded. "It was total chaos, everyone was shitting their pants. We stopped being a company. We were just a bunch of people huddled on the ground," Lance Corporal Doug Urban, a participant in the event, later recalled.


More shallow-draft river monitors in the studio! Incidentally, the flamethrower version was nicknamed "Zippo"—a nod to trench humor...

It must be said that both sides misjudged the enemy's strength: the Americans thought they were up against an entire regiment, while the Vietnamese also believed they were being attacked by two battalions supported by 12 tanks. However, the Vietnamese's reaction is understandable: they were greatly harassed by American artillery (the shells couldn't take the Vietnamese trenches and dugouts, but they tore through telephone wires like a dog through a hot water bottle!) and the river flotilla, which pounded the shore with 12,7mm Brownings and 81mm mortars (the monitor also mentions a 90mm gun, but usually these were either 40mm cannons or 105mm howitzers).


Marines at the Battle of Dido

As dusk fell, Colonel Wace began calling for reinforcements: "It's pure hell out here. There's a whole bunch of bad guys here, and us, a handful of good guys, can't do anything about them," he reported to the regiment commander. But the commander replied that Wace wasn't the only one in trouble—six miles from Dido, another battalion had lost 144 men in heavy fighting and was locked in combat. The regiment's chief of operations, Major "Fritz" Warren, would later write: "Bill Wace is in a shit sandwich."

Ultimately, the battalion commander only secured permission to commit his own "Golf Company" to the battle. However, getting there wasn't without incident—an attempt to fly Sea Knight helicopters failed, as the vehicles came under such intense fire that they couldn't land. They were forced to walk—three kilometers through jungle-covered mountains. In the darkness, sergeants shouted urging on the stragglers, revealing the Marines' location, which was then subjected to artillery and mortar fire (the VNA had acquired artillery!). Ultimately, Captain Vargas had a hard time keeping his men under control...

Night revealed to Weiss that his subordinates, to put it mildly... The officers were giving false information. For example, Captain Butler reported that he had 26 men left in Foxtrot Company, after which he received permission to withdraw. In reality, there were 55 Marines still in the ranks. And "McNamara's idiots" themselves were simply outrageous: one tried to urinate in the mouth of a dead Vietnamese soldier, and the others were no less vile. In general, the darkness did not bring relief to the Americans: a surrounded group of VNA soldiers tried to break through to their own, Vietnamese electronic warfare operators successfully jammed radio communications (and when Weiss went ashore to request a frequency change, he received a mortar fragment in the thigh), and illumination bombs did not allow the Americans to conduct aimed fire (the Vietnamese were masters of camouflage!), but, on the contrary, illuminated the Marines themselves for enemy snipers.


PBR river boats

Captain Vargas, commander of Golf Company, was knocked into a stream by a nearby artillery shell, sustaining shrapnel in his shin and knee, but remained in the line of battle. He was consoled by the promise that boats would be sent to transport the company to the target (which was only a hundred meters away) by river. However, the boat commanders, upon arriving, found the shelling too intense and turned back. So, at 1:00 AM on May 01, the captain assembled his platoon commanders and conducted a briefing before launching a new attack on Daido.


"Phantom" burns with napalm!

At dawn, Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion, which had made such a poor landing, took the village of Anlak at the cost of five more Marines. True, the Americans' morale was somewhat boosted by the repelled attack and the napalm canisters dropped on the Vietnamese positions by a pair of Phantoms, but... This didn't spur the Marines on: they couldn't budge either that day or the next. However, Golf Company managed to galvanize the attack on Daido...


"But your mother is a teacher, your father is a pianist, but with you it's the other way around, what kind of tank driver are you?"

The Marines, supported by a pair of tanks, advanced across open ground for about 500 meters toward the dug-in Vietnamese, who had received reinforcements from a company of the 48th Regiment (was it for nothing that the commander reported that his three battalions with tanks would attack tomorrow?). The NVA soldiers opened fire when the American line approached to within 200 meters. Lieutenant Ferland's platoon went down, and Captain Vargas rushed to revive them. Meanwhile, Bravo Company, entrenched in the village of Anlak, reported seeing about 100 Gooks on the left flank of the advancing Golf. One of the tanks headed their way, and a Marine from it adjusted fire until an explosion knocked him to the ground, and the tank commander, alarmed, reversed. Vargas shouted into the intercom on the tank's hull that he would court-martial the tanker, but was sent packing: the only thing the tank commander agreed to do was take several wounded onto the tank's armor and take them to the rear.

The second tank had expended its entire ammunition supply and also headed for the rear. The captain began yelling into the radio again, promising the tankers all the punishments of heaven and earth, but received the reply: "I can't help you anymore." "You can, you can!" Vargas cajoled the tank commander, explaining that the steel monster on the battlefield was terrifying to the enemy even when it wasn't firing, but it took a personal order from Weiss to leave the tank on the battlefield.


Relaxing in a ditch...

Meanwhile, the Vietnamese artillery shifted fire to Foxtrot Company, wounding eight men. The Marines lay low in the tall grass, hoping neither the Vietnamese nor their own commanders would be able to find them. However, this didn't mean life was any easier for Golf Company: mortars continued to pound them, slowly chipping away at their personnel and the last vestiges of morale. Finally, one Marine scooped up the headless corpse of a comrade and, using it as cover, ran for the rear. He was the first, but not the last: at 4:25 PM, Vargas's entire company began to retreat under the cover of air strikes. By evening, the captain counted the remaining Marines: of the 150 men in Golf Company, only 45 remained, hiding in a drainage ditch. The Vietnamese counted more than 300 corpses of "long-noses" on the battlefield.

At 17:00 PM, Weiss decided to send Bravo Company to Vargas's aid. How naive! The company's personnel were embroiled in a brutal battle: Marines were storming a truck carrying rations... When they were kicked away from the truck and herded into amtracs, such reinforcements were of little use: as soon as the enemy opened fire, the company went into hiding. When a new company commander was sent to replace the one killed during the landing, he, with his demands to rise and attack, was sent far away and into the forest. However, a grenade soon exploded near the new captain, severing his shoulder. Now the only officer left in the company was a young lieutenant, who immediately began to panic, shouting over the airwaves: "Help us! We're surrounded! They're everywhere! They'll kill us all!" Vargas tried to bring the lieutenant back to his senses over the radio, but to no avail.


That same Vietnamese cemetery

Seeing that help was not forthcoming, Captain Vargas took advantage of the distraction Bravo Company had caused to the Vietnamese and led the remnants of his company to the cemetery. There, they repelled several NVA attacks throughout the night, taking cover behind the burial mounds. The Americans were again saved by artillery and air strikes: without air support and artillery strikes, the company would have been lost, fortunately, they wouldn't have had to carry the bodies far.

True, shortly before Bravo Company became bogged down on the approaches to Dido, Echo Company, which the regimental commander had authorized for use in the battle, arrived to assist Wace. The company was commanded by Captain James Livingstone, an experienced officer who enjoyed organizing runs in flak jackets for his booze- and drug-addicted men. Generally speaking, the captain was disliked, but respected. The company arrived by river, having lost several men during the crossing, at Anlak, where it was tasked with covering Bravo Company's retreat. "Those Bravo guys were screwed!" Livingstone minced no words.


VNA radio operator, the same locations, but filmed in 1970...

On the evening of May 1, the situation could be described as follows: the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, found itself blocked by a Vietnamese battalion of roughly equal strength. Meanwhile, the regimental commander demanded that Weiss and his company commanders maintain constant attacks, which, given the heavily dug-in Vietnamese fighters, only resulted in losses. However, the Vietnamese commanders were also considering retreat: they had been assigned to Bozieu to shell American ships, not to fight the Marines. But after careful consideration, it was decided that the point of war was to kill Americans, so why abandon a place where it was so effective? Especially since the 3rd Battalion, 48th Regiment, which had not yet seen combat, had come to the aid of the 6th Battalion, 52nd Regiment, which had suffered serious losses. To command the combined forces, a field headquarters was formed from political officers of the 52nd and 48th regiments.


Colonel Milton Hull, judging by his command style, is also "McNamara's moron"...

And what about the Americans? Well, Weiss also gathered his commanders and ordered Livingston to attack Dido at dawn with his Echo Company and the remnants of Golf. The captain was pleased with the order: he already had the Silver and Bronze Stars, and now the Medal of Honor was his goal. So in the morning, he ordered the Marines to fix bayonets and advance with Vargas's company.

At 07:15 AM, Echo Company was 200 meters from the Vietnamese positions when the NVA opened fire. The two leading platoons slowed, but the third, passing between them, stormed into the village. At 09:14 AM, Livingston reported the village had been captured; the Americans had lost 10 killed and 60 wounded in the battle. The company's new positions immediately came under fire from Vietnamese mortars when Colonel Hull arrived in a skimmer. The regimental commander told Weiss that they needed to continue the advance and take the neighboring village of Dinh To. He assured the battalion commander that the Arwen mechanized battalion would assist them on the left flank. Weiss proposed a change to the plan: fresh units would strike from the north, dislodging the enemy from their positions and forcing them to retreat to American-held Dido, where the Marines would shoot them down like partridges. But Hull rejected the plan, insisting that Hotel Company continue the advance.


This photo is from that operation.

Prescott's company was down to 75 men when it launched its attack at 09:55 a.m. on May 2, 1968. It was a hot, windless day, with 500 meters of open ground separating the Marines from enemy positions. As the Americans advanced across the open ground, their main enemies were the heat and dust, but as soon as the company reached the banana grove, it began! According to those involved, fire came from all sides simultaneously, and every M-16 in the company jammed, leaving grenades as the most effective weapon. The Marines took cover behind every uneven surface, but Prescott couldn't call down artillery and mortar fire—the Vietnamese were too close! At 12:00 p.m., he reported to the battalion commander that unless reinforced, the company would flee. The captain himself was wounded: he couldn't move his lower body and lost feeling in his back. As it turned out later, the bullet pierced his canteen, ricocheted off a rivet on his ammunition, pierced a second canteen and caused a huge bruise on his lower back.


The M3 submachine gun, commonly known as the "oiler"

Weiss radioed the "Hotel" company to hold, announcing that he was sending in "Echo" for reinforcements. Livingston's company did indeed arrive: the captain raced ahead, firing his "Oil Can"—an M3 submachine gun. Meanwhile, the regimental commander radioed for them to move forward and "exploit their success!" This was a bit absurd: at 13:40 p.m., the enemy launched a counterattack, Livingston's "Oil Can" jammed, and the M-16s had long since been out of action, leaving only the Colt 1911s. In short, even the medal-winner realized that if they didn't retreat, everyone was screwed, and he ordered an orderly retreat. Covering the retreat, the captain took a bullet in the leg and shrapnel in the thigh. "I was bleeding profusely, and I told them to leave me. But two black guys dragged me along," Livingston later recalled.

It must be said that who wounded the company commander remains unclear: the Marines respected their commander, but were angry at Livingston for leading them so far into the attack. In any case, the captain's wound completely shattered the company's morale, and the Americans retreated: without their ironclad commander, the company was little different from the Bravo Company and other less-than-stellar units.


Throw away your M-16 and pick up a gun!

Weiss explained to Hull that the battalion was exhausted, but the regimental commander was adamant: continue the offensive, forward with all forces, the South Vietnamese would soon arrive from the left flank! The battalion commander's only remaining forces were the remnants of Golf and Foxtrot companies, a total of 54 soldiers. True, the Marines had already abandoned their M-16s and replaced them with reliable captured AK-47s. Wanting to encourage his men, Weiss personally led the attack, which initially proceeded calmly, but suddenly shelling erupted from the left flank, where the Arwen soldiers were supposed to attack. At first, the colonel suspected friendly fire, but it soon became clear that there were no allies on the battlefield, and the VNA was on the battalion's flank.


The shotgun can be used in... different ways.

At 15:05, Weiss led the battalion into the attack again, but Foxtrot Company was pinned down, and Captain Butler reported he couldn't revive them. At 16:45, two VNA companies attacked Golf Company, which fled in panic. "Big John"—a World War II and Korean War veteran, Sergeant John Malnar, a legend of the U.S. Marine Corps—was left to cover the retreat with a pump-action shotgun. He was hit by an RPG—for a legend to die from a bullet would have been shameful! Weiss took another AK-47 bullet and lost consciousness, Captain Vargas was wounded three more times, but remained in command of the retreat. "McNamara's idiots" behaved like idiots: one Marine ran across the field naked, wearing only his boots, while others shouted, "Retreat!" and "They'll kill us all!"

In the attack on Dinh To, the battalion lost 41 men killed. During the night, the Vietnamese withdrew, and another Marine battalion occupied the village without a fight. The Americans claim to have killed 537 enemy soldiers during three days of fighting, with another 268 killed in air strikes. The ships supporting the offensive fired 2383 shells, the artillery fired 5272 shells, and the mortars fired 1147 mines. Aircraft carried out 27 air strikes. The battalion (according to American data!) lost 81 men killed, 297 wounded, and another 100 lightly wounded. Most of the losses occurred on May 2 during attempts to take Dinh To. On April 30, the battalion had 650 fighters; on May 1, it was reinforced by two companies; by the end of the battle, 150 combat-ready Marines and one officer, "Fritz" Warren, remained in the ranks.


IQ - 85? Good enough!

Why is the Battle of Daito worth telling? It's not because the division and regiment command made every possible mistake in planning the operation and conducting the battle. Just try comparing the actions of the rank and file soldiers and their commanders with the cavalry at Ia Drang two and a half years earlier. It's like night and day! The quality of personnel is below the level of a city sewer; officers lie, panic, and refuse to follow orders. And these weren't the infantry, which the Americans never achieved, but the Marines, whose training was always superior, and whose discipline was considered exemplary!

Three years in Vietnam had already disintegrated the army, and the incest victims rounded up in Midwestern towns had no desire to fight, preferring to drink, smoke weed, and inject morphine from personal first-aid kits. And all this against the backdrop of anti-war protests growing stronger with each passing year. The war was already lost, and many in the United States already realized it. There was just one thing they couldn't figure out: how to get out of Vietnam without seriously damaging the superpower's reputation? The search for an answer to this question would take another six years.
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    26 August 2026 04: 30
    I'll quote the beginning of the article: "The Tet rout led to two results. First, General Westmoreland, impressed by the victory, began demanding an additional 206 men from Lyndon Johnson—for the final cleansing of South Vietnam from the "commies.""
    So, before the Viet Cong's New Year's offensive, the American command was satisfied with the number of troops. But after the decisive victory, when, according to their reports, the Viet Cong had been destroyed, the same command urgently needed reinforcements. Am I correct?
    We had a discussion under your previous article about the Viet Cong destroyed, according to American data. During this discussion, you obviously overlooked my question about the sources of information about the Viet Cong's destruction. I'll repeat my final question from that discussion.

    "Let me expand on my question. First, does the "consensus patrol" you mentioned include the Vietnamese point of view? And second, are all the other studies independent work or simply a retelling of American reports on the destruction of the Viet Cong?"
    Thanks in advance for your reply.
    1. +6
      26 August 2026 13: 03
      The Americans began to spin the defeat of the Terek Offensive as a major victory (which, in fact, it was), and Westmoreland, riding this wave, began demanding reinforcements: people profiting from war are always inclined to escalate the conflict. As for the Vietnamese officialdom's attitude toward this battle, it is rather reserved in acknowledging the mistakes made – the event was so large-scale that it was impossible to completely ignore it, as was its outcome. They mainly emphasize that the media effect was beneficial to the DRV.
      1. 0
        26 August 2026 15: 34
        That's odd. I thought the term "consensus patrol" you used implied a universal unity of opinion on this issue. That's exactly what you wrote when you said everyone agreed the Viet Cong were wiped out. But here it turns out our Vietnamese comrades have their own, different opinion. That doesn't sound like a "consensus patrol."
        I'd also like to remind you that my question wasn't about whether the operation's goals were achieved or not. Nor was it about the mistakes made during it, which always happen (and which, as I understand it, are being investigated by the "Vietnamese officialdom").
        The question concerned where the information that the Viet Cong had been completely wiped out came from, and an additional question that arose during the discussion.

        "Second. Are all the other studies independent work or simply a retelling in their own words of American reports on the destruction of the Viet Cong?"
        Thanks in advance for your reply.
        Thank you especially for your answer to my first question regarding the Vietnamese side’s point of view.
        1. +6
          26 August 2026 16: 19
          So, the fact that after the defeat of the Tet and mini-Tet offensives, the Viet Cong no longer appear in descriptions of military operations means nothing?
          1. +1
            26 August 2026 17: 43
            They (the Viet Cong units) don't appear in the description of the battle in the Ia Drang Valley, and the local guerrillas there (who took part in the battle) aren't even mentioned in American reports. Although they were definitely there. As I wrote to you earlier, "It's also natural that, against the backdrop of the large number of VPA divisions, the Viet Cong units simply dissolve. I wouldn't be surprised if they (at least some of them), to facilitate command, were simply absorbed into these very units." I wrote this to you under your previous article. You've obviously forgotten that. I wouldn't be surprised if they do "appear" in Vietnamese sources (which you don't use).
            Now that we've sorted out the "consensus patrol" issue, I'll return to the question that started our discussion, which you, unfortunately, didn't answer.
            Where did you get the information that "the Viet Cong were simply physically destroyed"?
            1. +4
              26 August 2026 18: 38
              I propose an experiment: follow the military operations in the former Ukrainian SSR for a month exclusively through the newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda." After that, you'll understand everything from the Vietnamese sources. As for the Viet Cong, I repeat – it was no more! And how many people died, how many deserted (and given the forced mobilization into this organization, there were deserters en masse), and how many joined the ranks of the VNA – it makes no difference! The Viet Cong are gone, just as Levinson's partisan detachment from Fadeyev's "The Rout" is gone – Levinson remained, with 19 men, but the detachment was "destroyed as a combat unit." That's why the novel is called "The Rout." It's the same thing with the Viet Cong: there was a partisan army, but after the Tet Offensive, it was gone. That's it. Nope. Gone. And what exactly happened to its members is of secondary importance.
              1. -2
                26 August 2026 19: 53
                I don't follow the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper specifically. So, I'll ask you a question right away. What, in your opinion, is wrong with the publications of this media outlet?

                If my question, with which the discussion began,
                "Where does this conclusion come from, 'After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong disappeared. The NLF armed forces were simply physically destroyed'?" A straightforward and concise answer would have been given.
                "All sources are American. Then this answer would have satisfied me completely, as it confirmed my assumption."

                Or perhaps you could elaborate. For example, say that everything you've written in your articles is based on American sources, including the information about the complete annihilation of the Viet Cong. That the "consensus patrol" you mentioned (except, it turns out, your Vietnamese comrades) also only uses American materials.

                All this is of course only if I have not made any mistakes and everything I have said is true.
                1. +3
                  26 August 2026 22: 19
                  Who said our Vietnamese comrades don't confirm this? They don't talk much about it, but facts are stubborn things. The Viet Cong are gone.
                  1. +5
                    26 August 2026 22: 47
                    Most likely, the Viet Cong "disappeared" by merging into a "single organism" with the combat units of the VNA that arrived in the South.
                    The units and individual fighters who survived Tet simply joined the ranks of the VNA units, where they were re-equipped and re-dressed.
                    1. +1
                      26 August 2026 23: 28
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Most likely, the Viet Cong "disappeared" by merging into a "single organism" with the combat units of the VNA that arrived in the South.

                      The transformation of the Viet Cong is vividly illustrated by the example of Nguyen Van Bong, a Vietnamese writer who belonged to its "silver bells" and won the ideological war against France, South Vietnamese puppets, and the US propaganda apparatus. He fought against the French in South Vietnam. After the division of the country, he moved to the North. In 1963, under the name Tran Hieu Minh, he fought in the South and wrote about the war under his new name. In 1975, immediately after his release, he told a Soviet colleague that after the country's reunification, secrecy had been abandoned and he could be openly called by his old name. Before Operation Tet, Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap sought to conceal the participation of North Vietnamese special forces and the army in the war in South Vietnam. After that operation, on the contrary, they began to portray the war against the Americans and their puppets as a common cause for all Vietnamese.
                    2. 0
                      27 August 2026 00: 29
                      Not intended as a response, just an observation. Rereading your article "Vietnam: The Tet Offensive. The Death of the Viet Cong..." I noticed the photographs in it. The photograph you captioned "Victims of the Battle of Hue" appears online with the caption "Massacre in My Lai." This is about the crimes committed by American troops. I don't know which caption is correct.
                    3. +2
                      27 August 2026 01: 12
                      That's right: the units that remained after the defeat had no combat value, disappeared as combat units, and joined the VNA.
                  2. 0
                    27 August 2026 00: 13
                    I already gave an example where I compared the American fight against the Viet Cong and the German fight against the Soviet partisans. The reports are exactly the same. When the Red Army arrived, the partisans also disappeared. And considering that the Germans fought them, one can conclude that it was the Germans who destroyed them all. Just like the Viet Cong in the American reports. Or is the situation somewhat different? Personally, I recommend not taking the information from the American reports as the ultimate truth.
                    The command, having missed the attack, tried hard to justify it in their reports. They claimed to have destroyed tens of thousands of enemies. I'm sure intelligence wasn't far behind. People who hadn't discovered the concentration of such forces later obtained information that the Viet Cong had been destroyed. I personally wouldn't trust such people. But you, I take it, believe all of this?
                    1. +3
                      27 August 2026 01: 10
                      In 1944, a partisan parade took place in Minsk (Egorov, if I'm not mistaken, participated in it, raising the flag over the Reichstag). The Viet Cong didn't organize anything like that. And not because they didn't want to: the Viet Minh entered Saigon in a parade. Why?
                      1. +1
                        27 August 2026 02: 58
                        I saw the previously unfamiliar word "V'tmin" (V'tmin'). An internet search revealed that this organization was active until 1951. Subsequently, it underwent a series of transformations and name changes. Ultimately, it became known as the Fatherland Front.
                        Regarding the parade march. This is exactly what I wrote to you about. There were partisans, they fought the Germans, then the Red Army arrived, and the partisans disappeared. Despite fierce fighting, they weren't destroyed, and like Yegorov (the majority) ended up in the ranks of the Red Army. Yegorov participated in the capture of Berlin. It's all very reminiscent of the capture of Saigon. Specifically, if we're talking about Minsk, the Red Army liberated it (with, of course, significant participation by the partisans). In fact, all the units operating in South Vietnam were formally part of the NLF. And it was also NLF units that captured Saigon. Even the unification took place on behalf of the NLF.
                      2. +3
                        27 August 2026 08: 34
                        Half, maybe less, I can't say here, of the partisan detachments were organized and led by career officers from the NKVD, there were detachments entirely of career military personnel, there were detachments entirely of encircled people, there were also purely "popular" ones, and so on, there were, let's call them that, Makhnovist ones, with whom they later dealt, all sorts of things happened.
  2. +1
    26 August 2026 04: 53
    Frankly, I'm tired of reading American memoirs. It feels like they were fighting some kind of demons. Will I ever see the Vietnam War from a Vietnamese perspective?
    1. + 13
      26 August 2026 05: 38
      You're being overly critical; it's a good series of articles and easy to read. Regarding the Vietnamese perspective, don't forget the difficulty of finding information (specifically from Vietnamese sources), and the challenges of translation. But that's my opinion, and I might be wrong.
      1. +3
        26 August 2026 12: 42
        I completely agree with you. It's a delight to read. Thank you so much to the author for such a brilliant approach to describing the events of the past!
    2. +6
      26 August 2026 08: 17
      It'll be the same thing, but from a different perspective: the same war with demons. The real war will never be shown; the enemy will always be either demonized or portrayed as a buffoon.
      1. +4
        26 August 2026 09: 35
        If we looked at the war from two opposing sides, we could, in any case, understand the psychology and motives of all the participants. But since Gorbachev, we've seen everything exclusively through American eyes—movies, television, radio, the press. This creates the impression that the US's adversaries are nothing but savages.
        1. -1
          26 August 2026 10: 20
          If we look at the war from two opposite sides, then in any case it would be possible to understand the psychology and motives of the behavior of all participants in the war.

          There's the Kursk Bulge, and there are the recollections of the participants, so look at its results from both sides...
        2. +3
          27 August 2026 01: 16
          Can you find a Vietnamese source that's as informative as Moore's "We Were Soldiers"? Well, then go ahead and criticize its one-sided coverage. I've combed through a ton of Vietnam memoirs and found nothing worthwhile. Perhaps there are some, but they haven't been translated into either Russian or English.
    3. +8
      26 August 2026 12: 39
      Are you fluent in Vietnamese? I'm not. There are, of course, translated books, but... have you tried reading them? The thing is, in the US, there were different groups of people with different views on the war: from die-hard anti-communists ready to fight anywhere in the world against what they considered communism, to hippies with their "It's better to make love than war." But in Vietnam, there was only one, distilled, propagandistic point of view on everything. Therefore, in Vietnamese sources, you won't find anything except "soar, soar." There are memoirs of Vietnamese participants in the war, given in interviews to Western authors, and I use them. As for the Vietnamese officialdom... Sorry, you can't get anything out of it except heartburn; it's extremely uninformative! Incidentally, I stumbled upon this back in the Korean War: Peng Dehuai's "Memoirs of a Marshal" is simply worthless, and yet he was one of the main participants in those events. But there is an even less informative source: the memoirs of Kim Il Sung...
      1. +3
        26 August 2026 16: 48
        A very long time ago, even before the "Bronze Age catastrophe," the famous Battle of Kadesh took place. The Egyptians fought against the Hittites. It is famous, in addition to its military and political consequences, for being one of the first (if not the first) battles where the recorded results are diametrically opposed. This refers to the surviving chronicles. The Hittites tell a story of how they simply crushed the Egyptians. Accordingly, the Egyptian accounts are the opposite. As a result, attempting to describe the battle based on the accounts of only one side would lead to, to put it mildly, an inaccurate result.
        Your attempt to describe the war based on data from only one side also leads to, to put it mildly, an incorrect result.
        It's very strange that you're unwilling to exploit what you call the Vietnamese side's "distilled, propagandistic viewpoint on everything." No matter how polished it may be, it's a point that needs to be exploited.
        Personally, I believe that if the flow of information from the American side were supplemented with the Vietnamese point of view, even if it's what you consider a "distilled propaganda" one, the overall understanding of events would be greatly enhanced.
        1. +4
          26 August 2026 18: 51
          Damn... For this, we need reliable Vietnamese sources! Perhaps they exist. In Vietnamese. Do you read Vietnamese? Can you search for a Vietnamese query? And figure out which of the returned results is real information and which are legends and myths of ancient Vietnam? That's one thing. And secondly, I do regularly include excerpts from interviews with Viet Cong figures. Another thing is that these are interviews with veterans by Western journalists. There are our publications, but they mostly offer a satellite view, not a bird's-eye view—global processes with global conclusions. There are some excerpts from Vietnam veterans' memoirs in the translation; I used them in the same story about the battle in the Ia Drang Valley, but they are heavily edited: you can feel the hand of a literary editor who left nothing of the memoirs, yet the result is beautiful and heroic. The Vietnamese sources are useless, sadly.
          1. -4
            26 August 2026 20: 42
            Well, judging by your conclusions about the "distilled propaganda point of view" of Vietnamese sources, these sources do contain some information. As do the sources themselves. Otherwise, how would you have conducted such an analysis without sources? If that's not the case, then it would be a good idea (in my opinion) to add, for example, "the events are described from the American point of view," "according to the opinion of the American command," "according to American sources," or "the Vietnamese version of events is unknown." Instead of presenting the American version of events as the only correct one. At least I personally would have fewer questions.
            1. +5
              26 August 2026 22: 24
              And that's what I always write when I present the same casualty figures: the Americans counted this many, the Vietnamese counted that many. But to analyze each episode from both sides... I'm not defending a dissertation. This is journalism, and it requires different standards for working with sources.
              1. -3
                26 August 2026 22: 51
                In this particular article, I counted exactly two phrases that could be loosely attributed to Vietnamese sources: "The Vietnamese counted more than 300 'long-nosed' corpses on the battlefield" and "but the Vietnamese also believed they were being attacked by two battalions supported by 12 tanks." I couldn't find any more.
                If any sources exist, even if they don't, in your opinion, meet the lofty title of "adequate Vietnamese sources," then they should still be used. Preferably, phrases not taken out of context. And, if they exist, of course, conclusions. We're not talking about a dissertation. But describing the battle without providing the conclusions reached by both sides after the fighting... That's odd.
                1. +3
                  27 August 2026 01: 18
                  So, cite those sources! Learn Vietnamese, sift through a mountain of memoirs in it, and tell me which one I've missed. Otherwise, it's just a conversation for the poor.
                  1. -3
                    27 August 2026 01: 34
                    Here, you and I are, on the one hand, in a similar position. We both don't speak Vietnamese. That's one thing. But on the other, there's a huge difference. I'm not going to write articles on a topic I'm unfamiliar with, especially if that topic requires specific knowledge or capabilities.
                    As advice, I can only quote myself from the comment above.
                    "It would be nice (in my opinion) to add, for example, 'the events are described from the American point of view,' 'in the opinion of the American command,' 'according to the American side,' or 'the Vietnamese version of events is unknown.' Rather than presenting the American version of events as the only correct one. At least I personally would have fewer questions."
                    1. +4
                      27 August 2026 01: 43
                      And I'll repeat: Vietnam veterans are often quoted by American authors. Moore, for example, spoke with An, his adversary at Ia Drang, after the war and cites his answers and additions in his book. Hastings also interviewed Vietnam veterans for his book. And other sources I use also take into account the memoirs of Vietnamese participants. Incidentally, in my story about Tet, I quoted a Vietnamese guerrilla liaison. So I don't consider what I've written a one-sided view of the Vietnam War.
                      1. -3
                        27 August 2026 01: 58
                        Personally, I wouldn't recommend paying too much attention to such interviews. Here, when it comes to interviews in Russian, you constantly hear accusations against journalists that they've distorted and misrepresented everything. Incidentally, the same is said about American journalists interviewing fellow Americans.
                        Distorting the words of some Vietnamese man (who doesn't understand English and whom you'll never see again) is a terrible idea. Especially since he clearly won't go to court. Regarding my conversation with An, I'll say this: If he said anything against the party line in his conversation with Moore, it simply wouldn't have made it into the book. Ultimately, it was Moore who chose which of his questions and, consequently, which answers to include.
    4. -2
      26 August 2026 23: 39
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Will I ever see the Vietnam War from a Vietnamese perspective?

      I've spoken with the Chinese. They forbid discussing many events in Russian history. A friend of mine knew information about ammunition expenditure during the Sino-Vietnamese War, but only learned from me that the war was fought exclusively on Vietnamese territory. Although she was able to communicate regularly, frankly, and completely confidentially with those who fought in the war. But where the war actually took place, whether the Chinese really started it, and whether the Chinese army received orders to commit atrocities in the captured territories—she only asked in the heat of the moment. Many fiction books about that war have been published in Vietnam. Some of them are written more frankly than Soviet and Russian literature about the events of the 1920s-2000s.
  3. +8
    26 August 2026 07: 06
    Naturally, the question arose: why not take on this war properly, come down on them with all our might - or get out of here?”

    What a familiar question...
  4. + 11
    26 August 2026 07: 07
    The more you read about the Vietnam War, the more you realize that Platoon is practically a documentary.

    It's a great film, and the great masters of the "past" had exactly the same kind of films... but I wanted to say that your texts visualize the picture just as well :)
    continuation is welcome!
    1. + 13
      26 August 2026 08: 20
      Stone fought in Vietnam for over a year, from September 1967 to November 1968, participating in the major battle for Fire Support Base Burt and being wounded twice. Returning from the war with several combat awards (including the Bronze Star and Purple Heart), Oliver enrolled at New York University, where he studied under Martin Scorsese.
    2. -7
      26 August 2026 09: 40
      How do we know it's all "documentary"? An American tells the story of the heroism and tragedy of Americans and for Americans. This isn't a documentary, but pure propaganda: "Yes, we fought in a dirty war. But how heroic!" This film, like many similar ones, is not at all anti-war.
      1. + 11
        26 August 2026 12: 42
        From there. If Stone had shown anything incorrectly, veterans would have spat at him right there in the theater. That's one thing. And secondly, many other people besides Stone have made films about Vietnam and shown roughly the same things, which suggests that Stone's film portrays reality fairly objectively.
        1. +3
          26 August 2026 14: 54
          There's also a film called "Callsign BET21" about how they pulled their electronic warfare general out of the jungle.
  5. +9
    26 August 2026 07: 28
    The more you read about the Vietnam War, the more you realize that Platoon is practically a documentary...

    Yes, I watched this film in my youth, it made a painful impression, I really sympathized with Sergeant Elias.
    These are the infamous "stupid people McNamara." The fact is that shortly before his dismissal as Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara launched "Project 100,000." It was intended to compensate for losses in personnel, for which purpose the physical and mental requirements for conscripts were lowered. As a result, over the course of five years, approximately 345,000 outright (with an IQ of no more than 85!)

    Then the plot from "Forrest Gump" about his service in Vietnam is practically based on real events about "D... McNamara."
    North Vietnamese radio, through its permanent host Hannah from Hanoi, congratulated the Marines on their arrival in full... Well, basically, she explained in simple terms what awaited them here. Such a command of the situation brought the GI morale down to the floor.

    I heard that US Marines don't consider themselves "GIs," but that's slang for US Army infantry.
    1. -3
      26 August 2026 09: 41
      And you didn't sympathize with the Vietnamese?
      1. +9
        26 August 2026 12: 49
        To the Vietnamese, yes. To the Viet Cong... It's quite complicated. In the previous article in this series, I shared the famous photo of a Viet Cong captain being executed in the street after the failed Tet Offensive. But I didn't go into detail about why he was executed. Just for you: he personally slit the throats of a Saigon police officer's family – seven people, including an 86-year-old grandmother and 11-year-old twins. And there are tons of such stories. Should we sympathize with poor "Charlie"? Ho Chi Minh truly looks like a great statesman compared to the Saigon rabble, and I agree that at that time there was no better REAL alternative. But that doesn't mean I'm thrilled with the Hanoi regime and its, frankly, horrific practices...
        1. +7
          26 August 2026 14: 15
          But this doesn’t mean that I’m delighted with the Hanoi regime and its, frankly, creepy practices…

          Most likely, these were not “practices” according to the manuals from Hanoi, but “improvisations” of the locals.
          I feel sorry for the children and the old woman.
          But what is known about the father of the family who served in the Saigon police?

          "Practices" of US Army soldiers in Russia in 1918-1920
          US soldiers regularly executed and sadistically murdered Russians in the Olginsky district. For example, having captured the peasants Gonevchuk, Gorshkov, Oparin, and Murashko, the Americans buried them alive, and the peasant woman Boychuko's body was stabbed with bayonets and drowned. Bochkarev was mutilated beyond recognition with bayonets and knives: his nose, lips, and ears were cut off, his jaw was shattered, his face and eyes were pierced with bayonets, and his entire body was cut up. At Sviyagino station, the Americans quartered the partisan Myasnikov in medieval fashion: his ears, nose, arms, and legs were cut off, and he was chopped into pieces while still alive.


          I wonder when the US Army started recruiting soldiers based on IQ?
          1. +6
            26 August 2026 16: 22
            My father and his family were slaughtered, and IQ testing became a standard for recruitment after World War II, if I'm not mistaken. First, it was for pilots, then it was extended to everyone else. But I could be wrong here; I'm not a psychologist myself, and I read about this topic twenty years ago, if not more...
            1. +1
              26 August 2026 16: 37
              The father was stabbed to death along with his family.

              During civil wars, security forces and officials are always subject to pressure, and some are even completely exterminated.
              Regarding the stabbed police officer: "What did he do to distinguish himself in the service? What feats did he perform in the fight against crime?"
              1. +5
                26 August 2026 18: 55
                But here, it didn't matter. The Viet Cong exterminated everyone who collaborated with the Saigon regime, right down to the village elders who collected taxes for them or sent people to do public works (what if they didn't?). They even killed all the officials, soldiers, and police officers. And, yes, they did it, whenever possible, along with their families. Always. I suspect it all started with old Confucius: collective responsibility was fully present in ancient China, too.
                1. +2
                  26 August 2026 19: 06
                  I don't know if the Finns behaved this way during the Finnish Civil War, but they write that the "white" terror surpassed the "red" terror.
                  If the "whites" had won in Vietnam, they would have acted no less bloodily, and the world community would have calmly turned a blind eye to it.
                  How it closed to various "democratic" methods of pacifying the losing "reds" in different countries of the world.
                  1. +3
                    26 August 2026 22: 25
                    So – one people! The Southerners had no softer morals than the Northerners; I seriously doubt Uncle Ho personally gave the order to bury enemies alive.
                    1. +2
                      26 August 2026 22: 43
                      That is the point.
                      "The Man with the Gun" administered justice as he saw fit.
                      This is largely why many revolutionary commanders (in countries where the Revolution was victorious) were relegated to the background during peacetime, and sometimes even sent to the scaffold themselves because of their “strange” views on building a peaceful life in the new country.
                      Something similar happened in the USSR.
                      When a global reform in the Red Army was imminent and ranks were introduced in the Red Army in 1935, many "old Bolsheviks" grumbled and expressed anger at what had happened.
                      They fought with captains and colonels, and now they themselves are awarded the rank of captain or colonel.
            2. +1
              26 August 2026 16: 39
              This means that everyone was sent to Europe for the First World War and to Russia in 1918.
              From Wall Street brokers to "incest victims" from the cotton fields of Texas or the orange orchards of Florida
              1. +4
                27 August 2026 01: 22
                No, they didn't send people away from the cotton fields; they only started drafting blacks during World War II, if I'm not mistaken. Racists, sir...
                1. 0
                  27 August 2026 17: 24
                  Were only "African Americans" working in the cotton fields in Texas?
                  White children from the age of 10 were taken to work on tobacco plantations and tobacco factories.
        2. -2
          26 August 2026 15: 47
          I may be tiresomely trying to get to the source of my information. But I'd still like to clarify: how do we know that the man who was shot actually did everything he's accused of? Aside from the words of Police Chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan, of course.
          1. +3
            26 August 2026 16: 26
            Do you need archival data, or what? What evidence could there possibly be here other than the word of a police chief whose subordinate was killed? Is he obligated to provide a certificate to an American journalist? Photos from the scene? There's plenty of evidence that the "Charlie" men were ferocious beasts, but they didn't write reports of their actions, so naturally all the evidence comes from the Americans and Saigon. But knowing the nature of the Viet Minh during the First Indochina War, there's no doubt. Or maybe, in addition to the Americans and their moonshine, the French are also lying.
            1. +1
              26 August 2026 16: 50
              Well, in addition to the Americans, the French also lie about moonshine.

              One would think the Japanese would have behaved more "civilized" in the Asia-Pacific region than the Moroccans and Algerians recruited by the French in Italy in 1943-1944.
              Or in our Civil War or the rebellions of Bulavin, Razin, Pugachev and others, all the actors "honored the Criminal Code" or the "Hague Conventions"?
              And in modern Russia there have been plenty of "inter-tribal" bloody showdowns with the slaughter of ordinary people.
            2. 0
              26 August 2026 17: 16
              So, as I understand the chronology of events, first, the police chief shamelessly carries out executions right on the street. This execution (possibly not the first, but there's no evidence) is captured on a journalist's photo, resulting in a scandal. Then follows the police chief's self-defensive account, claiming the man shot was a bad man, had killed old women, children, and was, in fact, a Viet Cong captain. And there's nothing wrong with that. Am I right?
              One can only admire Nguyen Ngoc Loan's operational skills and how deftly he solved the crime. I personally thought that in the corrupt Saigon regime, the local police chief was corruption squared. But he (or his subordinates) solve crimes right during the fighting. A true professional.
              As I understand it, you have complete confidence in the police chief’s story, and no doubts or questions?
              1. +3
                26 August 2026 19: 00
                I completely trust the police chief's story, since this was standard practice for the Viet Cong. These guys buried village elders who collaborated with the regime alive, along with their families, en masse. But in Saigon, there was asphalt, so they couldn't bury them there (and it would take a long time, as time was tight in the heat of the battle). So I have no reason to doubt him. His victim was doing exactly the same thing as all her colleagues before her. It was standard practice.
                1. -1
                  26 August 2026 19: 58
                  I can only be pleasantly surprised by such faith in people's honesty.
                  1. +3
                    26 August 2026 22: 31
                    What does faith have to do with this? There's a well-established practice of eliminating Saigon regime officials and their families using the most brutal methods. There's ample evidence of this. This case is simply a modified application of this practice, explained by local conditions...
                    1. -4
                      26 August 2026 23: 39
                      I haven't personally studied the Viet Cong's repressions. But I would be extremely wary of any information provided by the Americans and the South regarding the denigration of their Northern adversaries. North and South Korea are a good example. They're always shooting some regime enemy with mortars and then feeding them to the dogs.
                      Regarding faith, here's the data from your article. Ambassador Bunker wrote to Lyndon Johnson: "The enemy lost about 25 men killed, about 5 captured, more than 5500 light weapons and 900 heavy weapons... Total friendly losses: 2043 killed (703 U.S., 1304 Army of the Republic of Vietnam, and 37 Free World countries)." The number of killed is five times greater than the number of weapons captured. This is taking into account the fact that the weapons collected at the scene of the battles were not only Viet Cong weapons, but also American and Southern weapons. Any captured armory from a local police department would also be included in the general list. And there were plenty of weapons in Chinatown (triads, pirates, and so on).
                      I'll translate it in my own words. They shot everyone suspicious or otherwise unpopular. This particular police chief was in charge of this. The guilt of the man he shot is unknown. Perhaps he looked insolent, or maybe something else. He seemed suspicious, after all. And to accept the justifications this corrupt criminal (in such a position, he was bound to be) makes to journalists is very strange. To think such a man speaks only the truth is astonishing.
                      1. +3
                        27 August 2026 01: 31
                        The lack of weapons is more easily explained: they couldn't smuggle them into the city. There were roadblocks there, after all. The partisans themselves sneaked in disguised as peasants going to a festival, but they didn't carry weapons. Moreover, the plan was precisely to seize military units and police stations. But it didn't work out. The fact that they executed far more people than there were actual participants is normal: after the Krasnaya Presnya uprising, a bunch of innocent people were shot. It's the same story after the Paris Commune and the Yaroslavl and Tambov uprisings. The military doesn't have time to sort things out during a battle, but they want to protect their rear from hidden rebels.
                      2. -3
                        27 August 2026 01: 42
                        My comment wasn't really about the fighting in the city or the lack of weapons, but about your, to put it mildly, faith in people. I'll quote you: "The police chief's story inspires complete confidence in me."
                        Personally, I don't trust this police chief and his stories to journalists in the style of "Rafik is not guilty of anything."
                      3. +4
                        27 August 2026 01: 52
                        The point is that Tet happened in front of a crowd of journalists. It was difficult to hide anything and then get away with it—there were tons of corpses and even more witnesses—neighbors, friends, servants, and just passersby. And American journalism back then was… very pro-Vietnam and took fact-checking more seriously than it does now.
                      4. -4
                        27 August 2026 02: 10
                        What does American journalism have to do with the fact that a police chief shot a man? A man about whom he later told terrifying stories?

                        And by the way, since we're on the subject, did all this American pro-Vietnam journalism notice the massacres committed by South Vietnamese police and troops? At least in Saigon?
                    2. -2
                      26 August 2026 23: 49
                      Quote: Georgy Tomin
                      There is an established practice of eliminating officials of the Saigon regime

                      In such cases, American intelligence agencies operate in exactly the same way as practitioner Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky. An intelligence officer searches for the enemy, conducts an investigation, interrogates, tortures, and executes them in whatever manner he deems appropriate. This happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and it's happening in Ukraine. Ukrainian intelligence officers, when attempting to recruit Russians, often vividly describe the process using American techniques. It seems to me that only by murdering the families of Vietnamese has the Vietnamese been able to wean their compatriots off working for foreigners.
                      1. +3
                        27 August 2026 01: 33
                        And how many were brutalized in the process? There, in the mountains, partisans ran wild for a long time after the war...
                      2. -2
                        27 August 2026 01: 40
                        Quote: Georgy Tomin
                        And how many were embittered in the process?

                        Unifying a country is a complex process. Without this brutality, Vietnam would still be divided, or the communists there would have been slaughtered as in Malaysia and Indonesia. CIA repressions in Indonesia were comparable in scale to Stalin's. Moreover, those involved in organizing these repressions later became focal points for human rights activities in Eastern Europe.
                      3. +4
                        27 August 2026 01: 56
                        It's not a given. There are countless options for reuniting the country, and the USSR wasn't opposed to elections either. A military unification of the country was solely Uncle Ho's initiative. Yes, a peaceful solution would have taken longer, but a lot of people would have survived. Vietnam's losses, percentage-wise, are higher than those of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War...
                      4. -3
                        27 August 2026 02: 06
                        Quote: Georgy Tomin
                        Vietnam's losses, as a percentage, are higher than those of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War...

                        The USSR had 170 million troops against the Germans' 70 million. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1965 had approximately 18 million troops, the United States 200 million, South Vietnam 16 million, and South Korea 30 million. It's unlikely the USSR would have won in 1945, even with an enemy as superior in manpower and technical resources as Vietnam had in 1965. Ho Chi Minh, Le Duan, and Vo Nguyen Giap were truly outstanding politicians and strategists.
      2. man
        0
        26 August 2026 23: 19
        Quote: Yuras_Belarus
        And you didn't sympathize with the Vietnamese?

        The guy watched "Platoon" in his youth... which means he was relatively young... and back then, the "democratic" media and TV were kissing the West's ass... apparently, that had an influence...
        And in the 60s I watched the Vietnamese film "Young Fighter" ... it's true about the liberation war with the French, but still, my attitude towards the Vietnamese was purely positive ... I understand that you have the same love
        And I also remember in the 60s how the military, drinking in our kitchen, calmly (!!!) talked about inevitability our war with the USA, but they agreed that it would happen after the fall of Vietnam... people were experienced, almost all of them fought in the Great Patriotic War... And I dreamed of fighting then... what boy is afraid of war... only when I grew up I realized that There is nothing worse than war и forever I maintained a warm attitude towards these little people who, with their amazing tenacity, albeit with our colossal help, did not draw the USSR into a direct war with the USA...
    2. +4
      26 August 2026 12: 17
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Then the plot from "Forrest Gump" about his service in Vietnam is practically based on real events about "D... McNamara."

      "They took it off the tongue!"
      "Run Forrest, run!.."
  6. AMG
    +7
    26 August 2026 07: 39
    The picture shows not a Phantom, but an F-105; the F-4 has two engines.
    1. +2
      26 August 2026 12: 51
      Perhaps he's not a great aviation expert. Thanks for the clarification!
      1. +3
        27 August 2026 00: 33
        A characteristic feature of the Phantom is the downward-curved stabilizers, which is a rather rare design.
    2. +6
      26 August 2026 13: 06
      Quote from AMG
      The picture shows not a Phantom, but an F-105; the F-4 has two engines.

      The photo shows an F-100D Super Sabre. The Thunderchief had wing-root intakes and was a mid-wing monoplane, while the F-100D had a nose intake and was a low-wing monoplane. The Thad's standard refueling probe was retractable in the nose, unlike the Supersabre's, which had a fixed one. And the Thad was larger...
      1. 0
        27 August 2026 14: 53
        You're absolutely right. I was about to ask you to correct the caption under the photo.
  7. +6
    26 August 2026 07: 57
    Thank you!
    An exceptional selection of illustrations for the article and comments to them, I laughed until I cried!
  8. +7
    26 August 2026 08: 09
    Excellent article, thank you. One clarification: in the photo, an F-100D Super Sabre fighter from the 352nd Tactical Fighter Squadron drops napalm near Bien Hoa. Here is an F-4 Phantom.
  9. +2
    26 August 2026 08: 14
    85 isn't exactly a level, it's normal for a soldier. For comparison, tests in Uzbek schools showed that the average level for Russian children was around 103, while for Uzbeks and Kazakhs it was around 80. That's about it. When I was at a military academy in Dnepropetrovsk during the Soviet era, I think 50% of students would have scored 90.
    1. +5
      26 August 2026 12: 52
      Yes, I remember, old-school officers recalled with horror the Central Asians who served in the Soviet Army and the Navy)))
      1. +6
        26 August 2026 17: 03
        My father served as a BC-5 commander on a cruiser. He praised the Uzbeks, for example. They served for three years, the first year they were trained, and then there were no complaints. They were disciplined and diligent. And service there is no cakewalk in the engine room.
        1. +6
          26 August 2026 19: 03
          There were a ton of problems with the Caucasians, although if a commander, after expending a great deal of effort and nerve, put them in their place early in their service, they'd have ideal squad leaders by the end. Regarding the Central Asians, the main complaint was illiteracy—most of their high school years there had been spent picking cotton, so if they could speak Russian, they were good, and if they could read, they were a real gem!
          1. +7
            26 August 2026 20: 49
            I think there were significant differences between life on a ship in the army and in the navy. An officer is just steps away, the equipment is complex and unforgiving, and team spirit and intergenerational continuity are established, as pompous as that may sound. But firstly, not every commander is capable of building a team, and secondly, the service lasted three years, which is quite a long time.
            And speaking of nationalities, each has its own distinctive traits (or, as the fashionable word goes, "mentality"). These traits can, in different situations, enhance or weaken a person's social standing. And in this thread, it's impossible to grasp in just one comment how many lances have been broken, how much rubbish has surfaced in mutual accusations. It's a very sensitive issue.
            1. +2
              26 August 2026 22: 32
              I completely agree. I served in the navy, so I can judge from the memoirs of naval officers.
  10. +6
    26 August 2026 08: 30
    The picture shows not a Phantom, but an F-105; the F-4 has two engines.
    1. AMG
      +2
      26 August 2026 19: 46
      Absolutely right, I should have been more careful.
    2. +1
      27 August 2026 04: 30
      It's truly true: "If it says 'buffalo' on an elephant's cage, don't believe your eyes." How can this be an F105 if it says right under the photo that it's an F-100D, complete with information about its affiliation and location?
      1. AMG
        0
        27 August 2026 10: 35
        Look at the dates. The article was published on August 26.08 at 03:22 AM. The first comment about the plane was at 07:39 AM. Update at 8:09 AM, photo at 8:30 AM. So, everyone needs to be careful.
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 13: 28
          Quote from AMG
          Look at the dates. The article was published on August 26.08 at 03:22 AM. The first comment about the plane was at 07:39 AM. Update at 8:09 AM, photo at 8:30 AM. So, everyone needs to be careful.

          The Koloboks were leading the investigation? Well, that's correct, from AVP 158, at 8:09. And 21 minutes later, from the same source, an "elephant in a cage" with the caption "buffalo."
          1. AMG
            0
            27 August 2026 13: 43
            So, what's wrong with you? There was another addition in 13-06 from "65." And no one's against it, you're all in on this elephant and the buns.
  11. +6
    26 August 2026 08: 51
    A good article. Lively language, lots of detail. I enjoy reading this series.
  12. +4
    26 August 2026 09: 18
    The author's article series is excellent. It's easy to read, and the writing is excellent. The article is well-illustrated. On topic, it's very difficult to conduct combat operations against guerrillas, which are represented by regular VNA units. I've already said that the defeat of the Viet Cong wasn't a fluke (described in the previous article). The replacement of the regular army occurred, and American casualties skyrocketed. And a large number of troops were required to fight the Vietnamese.
  13. +4
    26 August 2026 09: 57
    Quote: Yuras_Belarus
    And you didn't sympathize with the Vietnamese?

    Have you seen the film? Are you familiar with William Dafoe's character, Sergeant Elias? He was the one who felt sorry for the Vietnamese, unlike Sergeant Barnes.
    Or are you, as they say: I didn’t watch it, but I condemn it?!
    And yes, I sympathized with the Vietnamese.
  14. +3
    26 August 2026 11: 01
    What a fantastic series! We're looking forward to the next one! After a couple of years in Vietnam, it's three times more interesting to read! The Vietnamese remember our help and treat Russians with respect. Many know a few Russian words, and a slightly smaller number even speak a little Russian.
    The War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City leaves a very heavy impression... The West did there roughly the same thing as the fascists did on our land, or Ukrainians In Donbas (reminds me of the torture chamber footage from Mariupol). Although, what's surprising, the source (the West/Anglo-Saxons) is the same...
    The emblem of the second battalion is "second to none" - the best, unsurpassed (literally "second to none", i.e. there is no one in front of them).
    1. +4
      26 August 2026 12: 09
      Quote: Casey_Ryback
      The Vietnamese remember our help and treat Russians with respect.

      Yeah. My first trip was to Vietnam. I experienced it firsthand. I'll never go there again.
    2. +5
      26 August 2026 12: 55
      I was in Da Nang in 2005 and loved it. Although, they say Vietnam has changed a lot now, and the youth, for whom this war has become a Trojan War, are more oriented toward the Americans.
      1. +3
        26 August 2026 13: 16
        There's such a thing. Cars have stickers with American flags and soldier silhouettes, rain capes (for riding mopeds) with US ARMY, etc.
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 07: 51
          Apparently, the illusion is akin to our “let’s drink Bavarian ©”, in the case of Vietnam, probably Budweiser.
  15. +4
    26 August 2026 11: 04
    At that moment, a grenade was thrown at Captain Williams' feet, the explosion of which knocked him off his feet, riddling his thighs and buttocks with shrapnel, after which the company commander handed over command to Lieutenant Alex "Scotty" Prescott and left for the rear.

    When a new company commander was sent to the hunkered-down Bravo unit to replace the one killed during the landing, he was sent far away and into the forest with his demands to rise and attack. However, a grenade soon exploded near the new captain, severing his shoulder.

    The Vietnamese grenade throwers are so accurate—they knock out demanding officers with such precision. Well, those were Vietnamese grenades, right? smile
    1. +2
      26 August 2026 11: 57
      Do you think Private "Kucha" never learned how to use hand grenades?
      Or some American soldiers had such sweaty palms that hand grenades would slip out of them just before they were thrown.
      They slipped out so deftly that they resulted in American officers being injured.
    2. +6
      26 August 2026 12: 56
      Difficult question: stupid people The McNamaras are capable of great things!
  16. +3
    26 August 2026 11: 54
    On June 20, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu declared a general mobilization. The mood among the Arwen soldiers was at rock bottom: many believed the Americans had deliberately allowed the Charlies to attack Saigon to force the South Vietnamese troops to fight.


    Were Arwen soldiers tested for IQ before they were given a helmet and rifle?
    1. +6
      26 August 2026 12: 57
      I doubt it. Something tells me that most of the conscripts were illiterate peasants, whose IQs were difficult to measure…
      1. +4
        26 August 2026 14: 05
        There have been, are, and will be problems with local residents of many countries when conscripting them into local armies.
  17. +3
    26 August 2026 12: 41
    "Phantom" burns with napalm!
    To correct the respected author, this is not a Phantom, the photo shows a North American F-100D Super Sabre.
  18. +1
    26 August 2026 14: 57
    Regarding the map, there are no tanks marked on it.
  19. +2
    27 August 2026 04: 21
    The fact is that shortly before his dismissal as Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara launched Project 100,000. It was intended to compensate for losses in personnel, for which purpose the physical and mental fitness requirements for conscripts were lowered.

    Classic!
    "It was a difficult year: taxes, disasters, prostitution, banditry, and under-recruitment. The latter was unacceptable, so a knowledgeable man—our military commissar—got down to business. He rounded up all the loafers, fools, and cripples in the area, even assigning the deaf to the Alpine Black Grouse border detachment. So many years have passed, and they're still up to their mischief somewhere!"
  20. +1
    27 August 2026 07: 32
    Thanks for the article series. And thanks for the photo selection. But the text is very similar to Max Hastings's 2021 book "Vietnam: A History of Tragedy 1945-1975." Sincerely, BBC.
    1. +2
      27 August 2026 16: 40
      Well, let's put it this way: Hastings' book is one source, the primary one in this article, while in others it's used to a much lesser extent. In some, it's not used at all.
      1. 0
        28 August 2026 08: 23
        Sorry, but I've never seen so many photos from anyone. With respect, BBC. Thank you.
  21. +1
    27 August 2026 07: 36
    "Oh, I forgot!" stupid people McNamara" is "Forrest Gump" classic IMHO.
  22. +3
    27 August 2026 09: 01
    Thank you, George!
    Very exciting and informative.
    A clear example of how politics devoured victory and led to the collapse of a campaign. Fighting to please "public opinion" is simply impossible. We must always understand that war is a mass, serious crime involving murder, violence, and destruction. Even if it is a national liberation war.
    And let me give you some advice:
    Don't get involved in endless discussions with the AI—it doesn't care and doesn't accept reasonable arguments. So if it keeps pestering you with questions, just ignore it. Then it usually starts flooding your conversation, but no one cares.
    1. -3
      27 August 2026 19: 17
      Hello. I personally engaged in a discussion with the author of this article about several issues. To be more precise, I commented on 18 of my comments during the conversation. And I understand that you described this conversation as an "endless discussion with AI." That's, of course, assuming I'm not mistaken and the conversation is specifically about me. So, if this is about me, please clarify two points for me.
      First, why did you decide that I am an AI?
      And secondly, where exactly do you think I quote, "he usually starts spamming." And where exactly do you think I exhibit such qualities? I quote, again, "he doesn't accept sound arguments."
      I will wait for your reply.
    2. 0
      29 August 2026 19: 41
      Hello. Unfortunately, after two days, you still haven't answered my question. From this, I conclude (possibly incorrectly) that you believe I'm, as you put it, an AI, and communicating with me is pointless. No problem, I'll ask this question, as well as others, under your comments in other threads. For example, regarding your statement that "war is a mass, serious crime involving murder, violence, and destruction. Even if it's for national liberation." Am I correct in assuming that during WWII, for example, our soldiers were "rapists and criminals"? And other questions have come up, too.
      I understand you're communicating with the author of this article. I'd like to ask him to point out that he still hasn't answered my question about "Red Star." The issue of attitudes toward the SVO is important to me, so I'd like to see his response in the discussion below this article. If he doesn't deem it necessary or can't find the time, that's okay too. I'll ask this question under his next article.
      And a separate request. I understand you've been on this site for a while. Could you tell me how to contact the site's administrators?
      1. 0
        30 August 2026 09: 18
        My father definitely killed two people in the war. SS men. They were lying around with some of our women, they jumped out, and then ours came. The captain ordered my father: ask them to surrender. My father (and he was a good interpreter) ordered them: Nieder der Waffen, hende hoch!
        And they're mad with fear: they stand there shaking, but they won't raise their hands or drop their weapons. Then the captain orders: shoot!
        My father (and he was an enthusiastic young man) said, "I'll go and disarm them." And the captain (he was Armenian) shouted, "Fire!"
        Well, Dad cut them down with one burst.
        Here is an episode.
        What you imagine about me is your business, but the button to report me is easy to find. And don't scare me, I won't run.
        It will be clear from your answer or silence who you really are.
        1. 0
          30 August 2026 23: 42
          Thank you for your reply; now I know for sure you were specifically addressing me. It's not entirely clear why you cited your father's military service example. But I want to point out that you still haven't answered the questions I asked.
          Specifically, "Did I understand correctly that during, for example, WWII, our soldiers were "rapists and criminals"?"
          I'm also interested. What makes you think I'm an AI?
          Well, of course. Where exactly do you think I quote, "he usually starts spamming." And where exactly do you think I exhibit such qualities? I quote, again, "he doesn't accept sound arguments."
          I will wait for your reply.
          What if all this really is true? I might not see it myself, but you, from the outside, as they say, know it better.
          1. 0
            31 August 2026 06: 53
            Thank you for your reply. Everything is clear to me, but I don't intend to answer your questions. You are not an investigator, and I am not a patient.
            And you reject sound arguments that any war is violence and mass murder, but legitimized by the authorities and ideology—just as you understood nothing of Georgy's remarkably consistent answers. So I won't tell you about the argument between the artillerymen, about my grandfather, the Semyonovites, and the Magyars—it's pointless.
            Finally, I will repeat George’s advice, paraphrased:
            Use your own sources and describe an interesting historical event from your perspective (it won't be objective anyway). If your readers like it, you're right, and no one will hold you accountable for bias.
            1. 0
              31 August 2026 08: 42
              You know, there's a category of people who, when they hear criticism, say things like, "What are you criticizing? If you don't like it, do it better! And if you can't, then there's nothing to criticize."
              Personally, I find this position to be incorrect. For example, my culinary skills are extremely limited (scrambled eggs, sandwiches, a semblance of shashlik, etc.). Yet, when I go to a restaurant, I'm perfectly capable of noticing that the soup, for example, is too salty, the meat is overcooked, etc. It would be strange for the chef, in response to my dissatisfaction, to tell me to go back to the kitchen and do better, since he's so smart. This applies, if not to everything, then to a great deal. If, for example, I'm dissatisfied with the quality of a film, expressing dissatisfaction with the director, the script, and so on, it would be strange to hear in response, "Go and make a better one!"
              Your advice to take up literary work if you are not satisfied with the quality of the work also seems strange to me.

              As for your unwillingness to explain to another person why you started accusing them of various suspicious things, and why you made such negative comments about them, that says a lot about you. And your unwillingness to answer questions about WWII. Well, that's your position. This, along with your philosophical reflections on the nature of war, has clarified a lot about you, for me personally.
  23. The comment was deleted.