Military Review

Seven reasons for the defeat of the United States in Vietnam

81
15 January 1973, the US Army and its allies ceased to conduct military operations in Vietnam. The peace of the American military was explained by the fact that after four years of negotiations in Paris, the participants in the armed conflict reached a definite agreement. A few days later, on January 27, a peace treaty was signed. According to the agreements reached, American troops, having lost thousands of people killed by 1965 from 58 of the year, left South Vietnam. Until now, historians, military and politicians can not unequivocally answer the question: "How did the Americans lose the war if they did not lose a single battle?"


We present several expert opinions on this subject.

Seven reasons for the defeat of the United States in Vietnam


1. Hellish disco in the jungle. That is how American soldiers and officers called the Vietnam War. Despite the overwhelming superiority in armaments and forces (the number of US troops in Vietnam in 1968 was 540 thousand people), they failed to defeat the partisans. Even carpet bombing, during which the American aviation dropped 6,7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, failed to "drive the Vietnamese into the Stone Age." At the same time, the losses of the US Army and its allies were constantly growing. During the war years, Americans lost 58 thousand people in the jungle killed, 2300 missing and more than 150 thousand wounded. At the same time, Puerto Ricans, who were hired by the American army to obtain United States citizenship, were not included in the list of official losses. Despite some successful military operations, President Richard Nixon realized that a final victory would not be possible.



2. Demoralization of the US Army. Desertion during the Vietnamese campaign was fairly widespread. Suffice it to recall that the renowned American heavyweight boxer Cassius Clay adopted Islam at the peak of his career and took the name of Mohammed Ali to avoid serving in the American army. For this act, he was deprived of all titles and suspended from participation in competitions for more than three years. After the war, President Gerald Ford, in 1974, offered pardon to all those who had evaded conscription and deserters. 27 thousands of people came to confess. Later, in 1977, the next head of the White House, Jimmy Carter, pardoned those who fled the United States so as not to be called upon.



3. "We knew that stocks of bombs and rockets would be exhausted by you before the fighting spirit of our fighters", - former Viet Congue Bei Kao told American historian and veteran of the Indochina war to David Hackworth. He also added: "Yes, we were weaker in material terms, but our fighting spirit and will were stronger than yours. Our war was fair, and yours was not. Your infantrymen knew this, as did the American people." This position is shared by the historian Philip Davidson, who wrote: “Throughout the war, the United States did not think much about the political, economic and psychological consequences of their military operations. No one paid attention to the death of the civilian population, unnecessary destruction, and yet both negative political effect. "



4. People's war. Most of the Vietnamese were on the side of the partisans. They provided them with food, intelligence, and recruits and labor. In his writings, David Hackworth quotes Mao Zedong’s maxim that "the people are what the water is for the guerrillas: remove the water and the fish will die." "The factor soldering and cementing the communists from the very beginning was their strategy of the revolutionary liberation war. Without this strategy, the victory of the communists would have been impossible. The Vietnam War should be viewed through the strategy of popular war, that this is not a matter of manpower and technology, things are not related to the problem, "wrote another American historian Philip Davidson.



5. Professionals against amateurs. The soldiers and officers of the Vietnamese army were much better prepared for the war in the jungle than the Americans, because they fought for the liberation of Indochina since the Second World War. First, Japan was their adversary, then France, then the USA. “While in May Hiepe, I also met with Colonels Lee La-mom and Dang Viet Mei. They served battalion commanders for almost 15 for years,” recalls David Hackworth. “The average American battalion or brigade commander served in Vietnam for one six-month period. Lam and Meya could be compared with coaches of professional football teams playing each season in the final for the super prize, while the American commanders were like rosy-cheeked mathematics teachers, put in place of our professional coaches, brought careerism in the sacrifice. In order to become generals, our "players" have risked their lives, commanding battalions in Vietnam for six months, and America has lost. "

6. Anti-war protests and attitudes of American society. America was shaken by thousands of protest demonstrations against the Vietnam War. A new movement, hippies, has emerged from young people protesting against this war. The movement culminated in the so-called Pentagon Campaign, when in October 1967, Washington gathered up to 100 thousands of young people protesting against the war, as well as protests during the US Democratic Party congress in Chicago in August 1968. Suffice it to recall that John Lennon, who opposed the war, wrote the song "Give the World a Chance." Drug addiction, suicide, desertion spread among the servicemen. Veterans were persecuted by the "Vietnamese syndrome", which is why thousands of former soldiers and officers committed suicide. In such circumstances, to continue the war was pointless.

7. The help of China and the USSR. Moreover, if the comrades from the Celestial Empire provided mainly economic assistance and living power, the Soviet Union provided Vietnam with the most sophisticated weapons. So, according to rough estimates, Soviet aid is estimated at 8-15 billions of dollars, and the US financial costs, based on current estimates, have exceeded a trillion US dollars. In addition to weapons, the Soviet Union sent military specialists to Vietnam. From July 1965 to the end of 1974, around 6,5 thousands of officers and generals took part in the fighting, as well as more than 4,5 thousands of soldiers and sergeants of the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, training of Vietnamese military personnel began in military schools and academies of the USSR — these are more than 10 thousand people.
Well, just to remember the topic.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.rg.ru/2014/01/15/vietnam-site.html
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. La-5
    La-5 17 January 2014 08: 25
    +35
    "Until now, historians, military men and politicians cannot unequivocally answer the question:" How did the Americans lose the war if they did not lose a single battle? "- everything is simple, the goal of the war is not to destroy as many enemy soldiers and equipment as possible, and not to win all battles.The goal is to force the enemy to accept their conditions, to accept defeat, the Americans did not achieve their goal in Vietnam, therefore they lost the war.
    1. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 17 January 2014 09: 56
      +23
      And they will not achieve it anywhere and never! Neither in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq, nor in Egypt, nor Syria - ANYWHERE! They will only increase their military budget and poison the whole world with your presence!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Horde
      Horde 17 January 2014 20: 53
      -1
      Seven reasons for the defeat of the United States in Vietnam


      Nikolay Grishchenko did not name the MAIN REASON
      A FALSE LUNAR PROGRAM required FULL CONTROL, and who could doubt and criticize the lunar falsification? only the USSR, therefore, the Americans agreed with the Brezhnev Vietnam + something else on the little things, grain, for SILENCE about the moon Hollywood SHOW.
      As for the delirium about the IMPOSSIBILITY of conquering Vietnam, the US economy was such that they could many times
      plow all of Vietnam and even without much stress ...
      1. Assistant
        Assistant 18 January 2014 02: 57
        0
        what could they REALLY
        plow all of Vietnam and even without much stress ...


        Why do mattresses need an uninhabited desert? Here, having an economically and politically dependent country, with a fully controlled leadership, next door to China is another matter. And actually, the de facto United States entered the Vietnam Civil War on the side of its protege. In such a situation, there is no sense in making a scorched desert out of a potential colony, otherwise why was it necessary to start up this bootleg?
        1. Horde
          Horde 18 January 2014 09: 31
          0
          Quote: Assistant
          Why do mattresses need an uninhabited desert?


          do you think pin_dos needed the Vietnamese? The purpose of the war is to prevent the spread of communism, and by what means it will be done even if the grass does not grow.
  2. Predator-74
    Predator-74 17 January 2014 08: 32
    +20
    The brilliant victory of the Soviet Union !!!
    The article does not say that for many years and maybe still the results of this war have a destructive effect on the morale of the army and on the civilian population, which after this war received many physically and psychologically disabled people and a lot of unanswered questions: "Why is this did we need to? "
  3. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 17 January 2014 08: 46
    +20
    Honor and sincere respect for the proud people of the DRV!
  4. invisibility
    invisibility 17 January 2014 08: 51
    +11
    And in my opinion the sequence of reasons was not named correctly. And it turns out that at first the US Army was demoralized at a hellish disco, and the people's liberation war was somewhere on the sidelines.
  5. Stiletto
    Stiletto 17 January 2014 09: 03
    +15
    What is the strength in, brother? Do you think money is power ?!
    1. wolfhunter2035
      wolfhunter2035 17 January 2014 12: 00
      +10
      Power is in the truth! Who is for the truth, so God! This means that despite the superiority of the enemy in numbers and weapons, if you have a fighting spirit and if you are for the truth, then no one can defeat you!
  6. leks
    leks 17 January 2014 09: 10
    +4
    This is not to fight in the desert, the jungle, and this was a huge advantage of the Viet Cong plus Soviet assistance in the supply of small arms and air defense systems.
    1. Gregazov
      Gregazov 17 January 2014 17: 52
      +3
      And here is the desert? Geographical conditions with such superiority of the US Army did not solve anything. Only fighting spirit decided. And he was stronger among the Vietnamese.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 17 January 2014 17: 57
        +8
        Quote: GregAzov
        stronger.

        I would say above!
      2. Bosk
        Bosk 18 January 2014 14: 25
        +1
        Geography is also of no small importance, this can be seen from the fact that after Vietnam Vietnam did not have a weak phobia for fighting in the jungle.
      3. Fedya
        Fedya 18 January 2014 23: 43
        +1
        10 years ago 30th Alpha was celebrated (by the way, 40th in this, respectively). So, one Alfovets told how he drove the Vietnamese around the training ground in gas masks because the landfill was a chemical, they tested all sorts of it, there were carcasses of animals processed by chemistry. The spectacle, as the officer said, was brutal, everyone who was there for the first time tried to tear off a gas mask, for which our warrior beat hands! And then, among the Vietnamese, he saw a vomit in gas masks. The officer gave a sign - leave! The senior Vietnamese showed that it wasn’t necessary. After some time, Alfovets saw that the gas masks were empty. The Vietnamese gobbled up their vomit back! Which of us could do that !?
  7. LION
    LION 17 January 2014 09: 51
    +13
    Point number 7 must be put in the first three places. Joke. Vietnamese! Give up! The Vietnamese do not give up. Petrenko, another shell.
  8. Horst78
    Horst78 17 January 2014 09: 54
    +10
    You can defeat the territory on the map, but you can not defeat the people.
    1. LION
      LION 17 January 2014 17: 05
      +3
      It depends on what. Here are Czechs, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, you can. There are no Russians, Poles, Serbs, Vietnamese, Afghans.
      1. 31231
        31231 17 January 2014 22: 32
        +4
        But how did the Poles get on the list of invincibles? in 1939 or what?
        1. LION
          LION 18 January 2014 11: 22
          0
          Well, at least remember the Craiova Army. The performance assessment is mixed, but they fought for Poland and the Germans in Poland did not feel at home
  9. Prometey
    Prometey 17 January 2014 09: 59
    +9
    The only war that de jure recorded the defeat of the United States. And it turns out Vietnam - the only state that won the military confrontation with the states. Although in fact there was a war between the USSR and the USA.
  10. sergey72
    sergey72 17 January 2014 10: 10
    +7
    About ten years ago I bought a book by Philip B. Davidson "The Vietnam War" ...... It left an ambiguous impression: while the French were involved, they had a complete failure ...... The Americans started, the "Vietcong" had continuous defeats .. .. and constant mantras about the success of anti-war propaganda and its main role in the defeat of the Yankees ...
  11. ko88
    ko88 17 January 2014 11: 00
    +2
    It turns out that Vietnam cannot be defeated. The military spirit is due.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 17 January 2014 11: 11
      +7
      Quote: ko88
      It turns out that Vietnam cannot be defeated. The military spirit is due.

      In modern warfare, military spirit is not enough - you need weapons. If there hadn’t been such a giant as the USSR behind the FER, the Yankees would have grind the Viet Cong.
  12. Xolod
    Xolod 17 January 2014 11: 05
    0
    Recipe for a good article rating:
    Shapkoakazatelsto.
    Anti-Americanism.
    Disrespect for the enemy.
    Why did we lose in Afghanistan? And why did we both merge Chechnya? And why are we not using Chechen experience? And why do we wahi people undermine? No, these questions are too complicated, it’s better to take off our hats and throw up the weak, worthless, numbing Americans, who refuse to fight without ice cream.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 17 January 2014 11: 09
      +1
      Quote: Xolod
      Recipe for a good article rating:
      Shapkoakazatelsto.
      Anti-Americanism.

      You are mistaken. I personally didn’t like the article on informativeness - it’s too scarce, so I didn’t put any rating (I don’t put any minuses to the authors).
      1. FormerMariman
        FormerMariman 17 January 2014 18: 01
        -6
        Quote: Prometey
        Quote: Xolod
        Recipe for a good article rating:
        Shapkoakazatelsto.
        Anti-Americanism.

        You are mistaken. I personally didn’t like the article on informativeness - it’s too scarce, so I didn’t put any rating (I don’t put any minuses to the authors).

        It's actually ironic! And the sad truth: the site is not IN, but crap the "enemy, neighbor"!
        1. kplayer
          kplayer 27 January 2014 01: 48
          -1
          I agree!
          Anti-Americanism - populism, as synonyms, even if you are a complete fofan (dilettante) in the military topic, it is enough to "knock the tops off".
          I personally do not care about politics, politicians and their decisions (wow-rods!), And any army is primarily an army and nothing more than the level of its quality.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. invisibility
      invisibility 17 January 2014 12: 32
      -2
      Why did we lose in Afghanistan?
    3. invisibility
      invisibility 17 January 2014 12: 32
      -2
      Why did we lose in Afghanistan?
      1. Stiletto
        Stiletto 17 January 2014 13: 48
        +15
        Quote: invisible
        Why did we lose in Afghanistan?


        Why did we lose? We left in an organized manner, preserving battle formations, preserving banners, preserving honor, finally. If necessary, the capabilities of the Soviet military machine would be quite enough to level Afghanistan to the ground, simply no one had set such a task for themselves. On the contrary, we built hospitals, schools, bridges and roads there, and developed infrastructure. The fact that no one could (the republics of Central Asia, where yurts appeared near the nine-story buildings we built - without Russians, no one knew what to do with the broken water supply), or didn’t want to (Sprotlandia, completely rebuilt, Ukraine (completely gasified, unlike for example, from my native Tver region) the opportunities offered by the USSR to use, they don’t like us and don’t value what has been done for them. As they say - don’t do good to people - you won’t get evil in return.
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 17 January 2014 20: 43
          +1
          So about the same one who said they lost in Afghanistan?
          The Soviet Army completed its task from and to.
      2. Bosk
        Bosk 18 January 2014 14: 35
        0
        Our guys "culturally" entered Afghanistan ... "culturally" they gave anyone in the Mordas and "culturally" left ... that there is no loss, but the fact that they later gave Afghanistan politically ... then this is a completely different "crankshaft" ...
      3. Fedya
        Fedya 18 January 2014 23: 32
        +1
        And you heard that the Afghans are now saying: Shuravi should not have left! They were real warriors compared to the Yankees!
    4. Besoffner
      Besoffner 17 January 2014 16: 22
      +12
      > Why did we lose in Afghanistan?
      Calm There was a task that the army completed. Further, the leadership changed, the goals changed. The war in Afghanistan did not fit into these goals, and therefore it was withdrawn. Let's just say that we did not lose the war, but left Afghanistan ugly.
      > Why did we both merge Chechnya?
      Again. The army won the first Chechen Campaign. Political goals were slurred, plus confusion and vacillation in the country's leadership.
      In the second Chechen country, it won unambiguously. Both military and political goals have been achieved.
      > Why do we not use the Chechen experience?
      How we use it. You just need not sit at the computer, but go there and "work" on the side of the federal forces.
      > Why do we undermine the Wahi people?
      Recently, terrorist attacks have been carried out by Russians. And, as you say, "Wahi" was an attempt with the help of the "Caucasian trace" to cause a split in society so that hatred of Caucasians would pour out into the streets, and then try to organize it to overthrow the government, as it was in February 1917. By the way, the events in Moscow Biryulyovo clearly demonstrate this to us.
      But all attempts to create a new Sumgait or Ossetian-Ingush conflict in Russia failed, so now the Russians are blowing up the buses.
      > No, these questions are too complicated
      In fact, they are much simpler than you think. It is only necessary to collect information and turn on the head for its analysis and everything falls into place.
      > better let's take off our hats
      We won’t be better
      > cast aside the weak, useless, powerless Americans who refuse to fight without ice cream.
      Is the seizure beginning again? The American army is not as strong as it is painted. But this is a very dangerous adversary and a direct military clash is best avoided. But, if the question is fundamental, then asking for a direct clash is better by concentrating the maximum possible forces. For example, in the operation to prevent NATO intervention in Syria.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. dustycat
      dustycat 17 January 2014 17: 10
      +4
      But did the USSR lose in Afghanistan?
      The mattresses in Vietnam had a task to keep the territory.
      The task failed.
      The USSR in Afghanistan had a task to reduce drug trafficking to Europe.
      A reduction in drug trafficking has been achieved - traffic has decreased by 30 times (according to Western data). Mission accomplished.
      The mattress workers had a task in Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorists and their source of income. Drug trafficking increased five times against 1972. The mattress covers do not interfere with terrorists very much. The task failed.
      Syria....
      1. invisibility
        invisibility 17 January 2014 20: 47
        +2
        Enrages the layman's attitude to that war. Like, it was not a necessary war?!?!
        Do not insult the memory of those who died and performed their duty.
    7. Gregazov
      Gregazov 17 January 2014 18: 00
      +2
      Who merged both Chechnya? Leaked only the first and politicians. Losses in Afghanistan amounted to 15 thousand people, and the amers in Vietnam are four times more. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is a betrayal of politicians. In my opinion, other options were possible. When entering the states, they found a common language with former opponents, they could find it before. Well, the fact that in Vietnam there have been cases of surrender due to breach of contract (lack of oranges) is a known fact.
    8. 31231
      31231 17 January 2014 22: 35
      0
      And why did we both merge Chechnya?

      And when did you manage the second? You yourself after it signed a peace treaty with the Chechen Republic and the troops withdrew?
      It is strange, it seems like as part of the Russian Federation she and Kadyrov Woland swear allegiance.
  13. Chaplain
    Chaplain 17 January 2014 11: 33
    +6
    The main and most basic reason for the defeat of the Americans in Vietnam is the lack of meaning in the military operations of the US troops and the motivation of the Vietnamese. And the war was not fought for the complete and total destruction of the local population. Only the USSR waged and won such a war.
    1. Besoffner
      Besoffner 17 January 2014 16: 24
      +3
      > The main and most important reason for the defeat of the Americans in Vietnam
      a misunderstanding by the US leadership of what it wants, the absence, in this regard, of clear tasks for the army, and, most importantly, the help of the USSR. In the economic blockade, the Viet Cong would not have lasted long.
      Essentially, the courage and self-sacrifice of the Vietnamese people cannot be discounted. They lost 2 million there, but did not give up.
  14. kaktus
    kaktus 17 January 2014 11: 38
    +4
    8. And there was nothing to climb at all, where they did not call! wassat
    1. knn54
      knn54 17 January 2014 15: 33
      +4
      9. By the end of the war, heroin was already consumed by more than a third of American soldiers. You won’t fight with such people.
  15. barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 January 2014 12: 03
    +6
    Nifiga yourself) found seven reasons) The reason is the same and it is the most important - participation in the war of the USSR, that's all.
    The Americans won all the battles, but how can you win the war if weapons worth billions of dollars and rubles are permanently pumped into your opponent? Only a global war with the one behind Vietnam - against the USSR. The Americans did not go to war with the USSR, and therefore, any normal person immediately realized that sooner or later they would just have to leave, which they did.
    At one time, the USSR likewise left Afghanistan, the analogy is direct, for how to defeat an adversary whose bases and camps are abroad, which the USA and Pakistan are constantly arming? Our isolation did not go to isolation of Afghanistan, the Pakistanis openly attacked our planes and soldiers near the border. There is only one thing left - to leave.
    There were two ways out, either to put everything on the shackles totally, or to leave.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 17 January 2014 17: 29
      +1
      Sing swallow sing.
      How many weapons, how many who spent in the article are.
      And there is an internet.
      Bother to read.
      In Korea, the mattresses lost to the less-tech adversary.
      The world went to the world there because of the threat of nuclear war - the mattresses were seriously preparing to deliver nuclear strikes over the UN mandate and it was parallel to them that some of the goals were in the USSR.
  16. Normman
    Normman 17 January 2014 12: 09
    +3
    The defeat of the Americans in Vietnam is a good reason to poke their nose into this matter every time when there is a desire to fight somewhere else. They need to be constantly reminded of this. Here, for example, make a good feature film together with Vietnam, such a scandalous blockbuster, on the anniversary of the defeat. Weakly to the Bondarchuk and Mikhalkov?
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 17 January 2014 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: Normman
      They need to be constantly reminded of this. Here, for example, shoot a good feature film together with Vietnam

      What for? By the way, there are joint American-Vietnamese films about the war, where an attempt is made to reconcile former opponents. There is Mel Gibson's film "We Were Soldiers", which our directors can walk to as far as the moon.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 17 January 2014 17: 31
        0
        "We were soldiers" = "9th company".
        Even American film critics make fun of the Oscars awarded for him.
  17. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 17 January 2014 13: 46
    +4
    It was useless to fight amers against ALL the people ... that was all the reasons for the defeat.
    Moreover ... ahem, and we "checked in" there (and this is a complete "mascara light").
    wink

    Just good humor:

    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 17 January 2014 16: 51
      +8
      Hi Lesh, here’s another example of humor. They ask a downed American: Are you aware that a Russian pilot shot you down? That: No, I clearly heard, I’ll cover Vasya) (I’ll leave that) (wow I’ve hit me laughing
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 17 January 2014 17: 13
        +2
        Quote: Alex 241
        ) (Wow, I hit me

        laughing
        Hi Sasha!
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 17 January 2014 18: 10
          +12
          Quote, I don’t know if it is true or not:

          ... "In Vietnam, we did not officially fight. We were military experts and instructors. Finding a normal Vietnam is a problem. They are small, dead, they do not hold an overload. Our guys kept up to 10g normally, but these guys were already fainting at five. They were force-fed, they were sentenced to a tribunal if someone didn’t eat the ration of meat, they were twisted on the simulators - everything was useless. They lose consciousness and that's it. For a few seconds, but this is enough. American pilots quickly realized that the entire Vietnamese aviation is divided into Russian pilots Shooting down Vietnam is an honorable, profitable business (the money paid good), and most importantly - safe. With the Russians, the situation was much worse. will spin a figure with an awesome overload, and already on your tail. To hell with them with money and fame, so after all it will also knock you down! True, those who ejected - did not finish off. And for that, thanks to the Russians. arnyam. The Americans quickly figured out how to tell the Russian from the Vietnamese. The fight is going on, as a rule it is very fleeting. F-4 on the tail of the MiG. The MiG is making a maneuver, the overload is increasing, five, six - hop! the wings trembled, for a second, barely noticeable - everything is clear, Vietnam. You don't have to be afraid. But if on 8g the MiG maneuvers just as confidently, then there is definitely not Vietnam, but Russian, and hell knows how it all ends. Therefore, the Americans openly went on the air and with the phrase "Vanya! I'm gone!" left the battle. And rightly so. God saves man, who save himself."...

          And finally (the nursery today, however) - a slightly modified known anecdote:

          The Americans surrounded the Vietnamese:
          - Vietnamese, give in !!!
          - Yes, I hope you bach shob vietnam surrendered ?? Hai live Ridna Vietnam !!!
          drinks
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 17 January 2014 18: 32
            +6
            Lesh, everything is right about food, until they were taken from low-calorie rice and transferred to our reactive norm, the Vietnamese were hard about the participation of our pilots, here is evidence: there are many memories of the participation of anti-aircraft gunners in this war, but not a single pilot. Apparently, the reason for this is that they did not participate in the hostilities. The then USSR ambassador to the DRV, Ilya Shcherbakov, categorically denies the participation of Soviet aviators in hostilities. One has to admit that an article by a former Soviet officer, and now by American journalist Mark Sternberg, about four divisions of Soviet fighter planes that fought in Vietnam is just a cheap sensation.

            Where did Lisitsyn come from? You have to go from afar. Here are the first five Vietnamese aces of that war: Nguyen Van Kok, Mai Van Kuong, Nguyen Hong Ni, Pham Thanh Ngan, Dang Ngok Ngy. At first glance, it becomes clear that the name of Li Si Tzyn is not similar to Vietnamese. But it looks like a Chinese one. Indeed, in 1938, Soviet pilots assisted the Chinese army in the war with Japan, and this participation in the press was not covered.
            However, in 1939 and 1940 two books were published. The first, “Wings of China. Notes of a military pilot ”under the pseudonym Captain Van Xi was written by Georgy Zhukov (not a marshal and not his relative, but a Soviet international journalist). The second, Notes of Chinese Pilots, under the pseudonym Fyn Yu-ko, was prepared by another journalist, Georgy Korolkov. In these books, the mentioned surnames of Soviet pilots were also cited. In particular, they mention Hu Ben-ho (Gubenko), Wang Yu-shin (Vanyushin) and, finally, Li Si Tsyn (Lisitsyn).
            Subsequently, Soviet pilots, in the form of Chinese volunteers, fought in Korea. In the popular mind, these three wars in remote areas, populated by peoples similar to Europeans, seemed to merge into one. Old jokes simply changed the scene, and a large number of references to the American "Phantom" in the Soviet press gave rise to a famous song.
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 17 January 2014 19: 07
              +7
              McCain airplane shot down this man
    2. 31231
      31231 17 January 2014 22: 44
      +1
      In Saigon, there is a phantom among the exhibits. In general, there is a weak exposure, but there are a lot of young merikashka.
  18. konvalval
    konvalval 17 January 2014 13: 58
    +3
    The main reason: our help and the struggle of the Vietnamese people for their freedom.
  19. spirit
    spirit 17 January 2014 14: 24
    +3
    Cutting the population to the root is much easier than conquering it or keeping the territory occupied (tested by Tamerlane smile ) Afghanistan, no one has ever conquered !!! yes. BUT! If there was a goal of its complete destruction, I would not think for a long time that they would bear this proud title, not conquered by anyone. the same with Vietnam.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 17 January 2014 17: 36
      +4
      For Alexander the Great to recall?
      For the Indian Campaigns of Paul 1 to recall?
      For Budenny's campaigns to remind?
      Northern Afghans - Tajik and Uzbek are still nervously reacting to a demonstration of mustache twisting.
  20. Stasi
    Stasi 17 January 2014 14: 49
    +5
    The Vietnamese deserve respect for their stamina and high morale. But still, in the first place I would put help to the USSR with weapons and military experts, without this, the Vietnamese army would be significantly inferior to the American, which was technically much stronger. Thanks only to our specialists and weapons, mainly anti-aircraft missiles, the American army suffered the biggest defeat in its history from the Vietnamese. As for the creation of a joint feature film with the Vietnamese about the war, then this is a very good idea. Such a film should have been shot back in the Soviet Union, in which our military, who helped the Vietnamese, would be the main characters. Until now, we know little about this, and the fact that such a film was not made is a mistake of our politicians and agitprop, who hid from us what heroes our soldiers were in that war. Only here I am not sure that modern directors are capable of making a film of such a level as to plug similar American films into their belts.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 17 January 2014 17: 37
      0
      There is one such joint Soviet-Vietnamese film.
  21. RoTTor
    RoTTor 17 January 2014 16: 08
    -1
    And how the Vietnamese restored the country, making it one of the leading countries in the modern world!
    Vietnam has perfectly demonstrated to the whole world the advantage of socialism.
    And they did this already without our help.
    Glory to the invincible, heroic and hardworking Vietnamese people!
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 17 January 2014 16: 41
    +11
    I remember the story of a teacher on tactics, Colonel Petrov: “As air defense officers, Vietnam really needed us, I fought there for 2 years. The Vietnamese are good guys, at first they could not understand when the Shrike (a missile aimed at the radar beam) was on its way. cut down the station - and in the crack. We had to strain ourselves. Once the Americans landed a trooper about three hundred meters away. We grab machine guns, the adrenaline is shaking, and the Vietnamese are shouting - we ourselves. Before our eyes there was hand-to-hand combat on rice checks: healthy American paratroopers and puny Vietnamese The battle was terrible, but the Vietnamese confidently destroyed the landing. "
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 17 January 2014 17: 04
      +6
      Board daily account of the number of downed American aircraft 43 divisions. From left to right - Ershov EA, head of the SEC (reconnaissance and target designation station), Art. l-Savchenko V.I., cab technician P Art. L-Sadchikov V.N. Ershov Igor Alekseevich Photo Album “Combat Weekdays in Vietnam”.
  24. Motors1991
    Motors1991 17 January 2014 17: 11
    +5
    There were three Laotians in our construction team, one of them the eldest fought. A small, feeble. As a ten-year-old child, in Russian, he hardly connected three words, but swore perfectly. So we asked him, he had to fight with the Americans in hand-to-hand fighting, and he began to tell, as it was, more in signs, but it was understandable. He showed how to fake it with a bayonet, and the American ,, Mom ,, shouted. Asked about the Kalashnikov, raised his thumb up and joyfully said, “Fucks, fucks,” you yourself understand that it means in Russian. In general, I have to say good guys. According to the article, I’ll add that the war was won primarily economically, for every dollar invested in the USSR, the United States was forced to spend a hundred, plus the heroism of the Vietnamese, Lao, Kampucheans. That's exactly how we lost the war in Afghanistan: by every dollar spent by America, we spent a hundred. By the way, in the Middle East, we lost all the time for the same reason. How much money and equipment we didn’t get there, the result was one - defeat, and therefore, there was a cooling in relations with the Arabs and they couldn’t or didn’t want to fight, but we ourselves couldn’t get into it ourselves. As the saying goes, the feed is not in the horse.
    1. Besoffner
      Besoffner 17 January 2014 18: 07
      +1
      Quote: Motors1991
      According to the article, I add that the war was won primarily economically, for every dollar invested in the USSR, the United States was forced to spend a hundred, plus the heroism of the Vietnamese, Lao, Kampucheans. That's exactly how we lost the war in Afghanistan: for every dollar spent by America, we spent a hundred. By the way, In the Middle East, we always lost for the same reason. Since we didn’t get money and technology there, the result was one - defeat, therefore, there was a cooling in relations with the Arabs, they couldn’t or didn’t want to fight, but we ourselves got into it not with the hand. As the saying goes is not in horse feed.

      I agree. Painted briefly and competently.
      without Soviet help, they could not have won. The United States had too much logistical superiority. Roughly speaking, wall-to-wall would benefit from superior morale. but with rifles and a lack of rear against tanks and aircraft - unrealistic
  25. gych
    gych 17 January 2014 17: 31
    +1
    in my opinion the main reason for the defeat of the usa is that they fought against the ussr
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 17 January 2014 17: 41
      +4
      The underground communications of the North Vietnamese troops and the numerous traps set up everywhere were an absolute surprise for the Ingadtrastyuch troops. The pits with prisoners were actively filled with McCains. Frankly, the US Army is bogged down there.
      It will be about the shelters of the Vietnamese partisans. Entire villages lived in the tunnels, and this allowed the Vietnamese to save many lives. It housed both arms and food depots, smokeless kitchens, hospitals for the wounded, as well as living quarters, camp headquarters, shelters for women, the elderly and children.
      1. Massik
        Massik 17 January 2014 18: 18
        +2
        Ancient as the world truth, the deeper you dig the longer you live ....
  26. bomg.77
    bomg.77 17 January 2014 18: 11
    +1
    That's what the Vietnamese themselves write
    At the beginning of the 1966 year, near the town of Ku Chi, the US military began to build the headquarters of the 25 division.
    After heavy bombing and many days of artillery shelling, more than 8000 American and allied soldiers were ordered to clear the area. No one suspected that those who had been buried underground were already waiting for them.

    And they used tactics that no one was familiar with. Instead of defensive lines and fortifications - ambush shots. Lieutenant Nguyen Tang Lin, the head of the Viet Cong battalion with at least 300 militants, said: “Fighting from the tunnels was an advantage because there were few of us. Often, one or two snipers are enough to attack numerous enemies ... ".
    As soon as the allies surrounded the enemy’s position, they disappeared from the face of the earth. The first tunnel was discovered by chance when the GI sat down on the ground and directly on a nail sticking out of the hatch. Smoke grenades were thrown at the entrance and after a while the smoke appeared in several places, removed from each other, from the foliage. Over the next weeks, soldiers further and further came upon tunnels.

    To destroy the underground labyrinth, the Americans used all their weapons technology: poison gas, napalm, carpet bombing, bulldozers tore giant pits in the ground. Everything was unsuccessful. 100-pound bombs and 60-ton heavy tanks could not destroy the tunnel. Even the use of shepherd dogs was useless: the Vietnamese sprinkled pepper on their tracks. In addition, they washed themselves with American soap from the black market and animals mixed up smells: where is their own, where is a stranger.

    There was only one thing left: someone should voluntarily climb into holes and track down the Viet Cong. Especially for this purpose, the "academy" was founded at the headquarters of the 25 brigade. For five months, the preparation of "tunnel rats" continued. Many volunteers were miniature Puerto Ricans, Americans of Cuban or Filipino descent. The training was so difficult that only five of the 50 candidates were able to complete the training.
  27. Radoslav
    Radoslav 17 January 2014 18: 19
    -2
    In the 20th century, the Americans did not win more than one military victory, only humiliating defeats, the American army is militarily completely incapable and in a hypothetical conflict with the Russian Army, the defeat of America’s feasts ... will be just awful
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 19 January 2014 20: 07
      -1
      The key here is "militarily", and militarily, without the use of weapons of mass destruction, the American army is more combat-ready (at times) in terms of the combat strength of regular combat-ready forces, the level of staffing, training, equipment and logistics, and in the guerrilla war not a single army won in the world, incl. our. They did not understand that in Vietnam they had not lost a single major or operationally significant battle.
      - This is objective, without bias and infantilism.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  28. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 17 January 2014 18: 52
    0
    During the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971, Agent Orange, a mixture of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) containing impurities, was used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War from 4,8 to XNUMX. polychlorobenzodioxins. Due to the exposure to dioxins, a significant number of both Vietnamese and soldiers who were in contact with Agent Orange were affected. Altogether, in Vietnam, there are about XNUMX million victims of defoliant spraying, including three million directly affected. An even larger number of people are registered who became disabled due to the fact that their parents, grandparents, were subjected to dioxin treatment. As a result, Vietnam suffered more from any chemical weapon than any other country in the world.
    Searching for "US chemical aggression against Vietnam"
  29. krokodil_gena71
    krokodil_gena71 17 January 2014 19: 02
    +7
    Good afternoon, night, everyone. You can, of course, talk for a long time about "our" participation in this war, discuss the number and quality of those participating, but I cannot understand the brethren who write here: when did they cut out (they shot their relatives, destroyed the family, burned them, etc., etc.). ) your village, village, settlement - how would you do? ...
    Since childhood, I remember the photographs: a burnt village, a child runs on fire, mom cries over a corpse ...
    Apocalepsis for a single nation ...
    Why be surprised if after this the people of Vietnam went to fight. Itself, bl .., without an ensemble, bl ... That’s what I think (maybe it’s not right, excuse me), and only then the cavalry (USSR, China) came up.
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 17 January 2014 20: 07
      +6
      Quote: krokodil_gena71
      Apocalepsis for a single nation ...
      I agree with you. + For us, this is geopolitics and the desire to beat the horns to the Amers, and for them the question of survival. This is their domestic war with the Nazis.
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 18 January 2014 21: 26
      -2
      Having got rid of the French, what did not live?
      Ho Chi Minh as our Lenin lived abroad, and then plunged his country into the chaos of war, again like Ilyich - well done!
      "And our whole life is a struggle ...!"
    3. The comment was deleted.
  30. kplayer
    kplayer 18 January 2014 00: 52
    -7
    Well, the "proud Vietnamese people" won and why? what is modern Vietnam, the "Asian tiger"? North Korea also remained undefeated, but what are the South and North of the peninsula? About their so-called. For the Patriotic War - massive, narrow-minded, senseless fanaticism! they could easily arrange genocide among their own, like the "Khmer Rouge", idiots!

    Admire only because their enemies were Americans.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 18 January 2014 00: 58
      +3
      Well, would the Americans win, would there be prosperity, and the triumph of democracy? In Iraq and Afghanistan, they have already put things in order!
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 27 January 2014 00: 46
      -1
      I didn’t know that a generation had grown up (the overgrown age didn’t count), eager for revenge and war, but who hadn’t seen it (only electronic games and movies), not knowing anything about the Vietnam War, and maybe about 1917, I won’t be surprised if only on the Internet did they establish themselves in the fact that in 1941 a war broke out not with the Americans and NATO, but with fascist Germany.
      The war in Vietnam is judged only by the participation of Americans and our military in it. specialists, logic and preferences are simplified and biased. They can even give them a bomb that fell in the jungle and the subsequent severe fire, like genocide against the Vietnamese people (the American and our media have always loved these tricks).
      I sit and read the theses of the Komsomol activists ("pounding").
    3. The comment was deleted.
  31. kplayer
    kplayer 18 January 2014 01: 19
    -3
    From all this political rygiginy not turn back yet !? like a military portal. In Iraq, and even more so in Afghanistan, the dushmans themselves are putting things in order, the army is not the police, it is only for distributing the pussy of the enemy army! Politics, not armies, start wars, just in all countries there are close-by herds and swarms of wild pseudo-patriots, for whom the main thing is the presence of the enemy
    1. blizart
      blizart 18 January 2014 20: 19
      +1
      War before the first shot -politik, after-revenge
  32. vm68dm
    vm68dm 18 January 2014 02: 31
    +2
    The war in Vietnam. Dance with death good
  33. leks
    leks 18 January 2014 14: 36
    +2
    Quote: GregAzov
    And here is the desert? Geographical conditions with such superiority of the US Army did not solve anything. Only fighting spirit decided. And he was stronger among the Vietnamese.

    So you wrote where the desert is here, I’ll answer 1. You can’t do any reconnaissance from planes like in a mountainous desert area, you have to send reconnaissance battalions, and they were hunted, if you were lucky not to run into traps and ambushes when transmitting data, the fact that the plane and art will work 100%.
    2. The tactics of the Viet Cong were such ambushes, traps, sabotage, in general guerrilla war, if they fought wall to wall to the wall to the smithereens and smashed the Viet Cong and fighting spirit would not help, by the way the first years of the war the Viet Cong tried to fight like that.
    3. Have you ever been in the jungle real untouched !?
    Imagine a green wall in front of you, when you go into it you seem to get into another world, go a couple of tens of meters and you don’t understand where you came from, there will be time and desire to go to Vietnam there as a tourist they will show a lot of things))) for example traps or dungeons with such a small hole there that it seems that only a child can get into it.
    The jungle is a huge advantage, even in our time, not a single UAV, Sputnik, Aircraft can penetrate a multi-meter tree crown with its sensors, cameras, optics, even thermal ones.
    And compare it to a cold night desert or mountains.
  34. kplayer
    kplayer 18 January 2014 16: 11
    -2
    Why is there no word in the article who started this war: North - Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), or South - Republic of Vietnam?
    When the DRV openly began to transfer their army formations to the south, then the United States intervened (1965), even if the transfer of their fighters, the organization and support of the North. Vietnam also formed the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF) known as the "Viet Cong", the answer is obvious and based on the official history of events.
    The Americans saw that in neighboring Laos and Cambodia (Kampuchea) the same "redness" spat and left, especially since this war was on the side of the soldiers.
    Where did this article come from in the spirit of Soviet propaganda? - This is the relevance and popularity of the anti-American theme.
    The site is becoming less military-technical topics, and the comments are simply thesis-rally.
    1. blizart
      blizart 18 January 2014 20: 17
      0
      I also do not really understand sometimes the level of discussion. Endless generalizing-narrowing theses that turn into a clarification of relations.
  35. blizart
    blizart 18 January 2014 20: 10
    0
    And after this war, the Americans decided, well, in this fig, this draft army. You cannot solve any of your financial affairs with her.
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 18 January 2014 21: 31
      -1
      So this is the secret to the economic well-being of any country!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  36. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 19 January 2014 12: 41
    +1
    GUYS, ONLY ONE REASON - USSR, THAT IS SOLAR TO OUR !! soldier
  37. leks
    leks 19 January 2014 18: 46
    0
    Quote: Radoslav
    In the 20th century, the Americans did not win more than one military victory, only humiliating defeats, the American army is militarily completely incapable and in a hypothetical conflict with the Russian Army, the defeat of America’s feasts ... will be just awful

    And the war against Japan wasn’t in their favor !?
  38. kplayer
    kplayer 27 January 2014 01: 27
    -1
    If ours "demolished" the villages in Afghanistan, then it was necessary - it is not mine to hypocrite!