How many were killed in the Vietnam War?

[MorkandMindy]

Your whole response contradicts your previous post where you said the media painted a rosy picture.

I'm glad you asked.

The media were initially very positive on the prospects for US victory and my own recollection is of a lot of abstract though positive descriptions.

The turning point is debated and most likely several factors played a role.

The total surprise of the Tet Offensive (Jan 31, 1968) demoralised the public and convinced a lot of the big money that the war would be a money loser for them. If it was going to be a money loser for everyone or pretty well everyone then it would have stopped then and there. Once a lot of the big money saw losses ahead they changed their minds and the media some of them owned began suggesting the war was a bad idea.

It could be debated that reporting of the war had increased over the preceding year. But TV networks did not want anything gruesome on during evening meal time for fear viewers would change channels. And there was the more practical point that the equipment needed to take newsreel footage was very heavy and reporters did not go out into the jungle areas where most of the fierce fighting had been taking place.

Although I'm not aware that this was the intent; the Tet Offensive did bring the war into the cities and therefore within easy reach of our reporters.


What I find worrying, and it is the point of this thread, was the dispute among Americans was and often still is, not about the morality of the war, but just about whether it was 'winnable'.

And equally what dissuaded the majority of the public appears to be not who we killed and the lives we ruined, but only the losses our side had. And this appears to have been repeated in Iraq.

 

[Chesterton]

What I find worrying, and it is the point of this thread, was the dispute among Americans was and often still is, not about the morality of the war, but just about whether it was 'winnable'.

And equally what dissuaded the majority of the public appears to be not who we killed and the lives we ruined, but only the losses our side had. And this appears to have been repeated in Iraq.

You're just wrong.

 

[Gracchus]

I remember every day on the 6 o'clock news the first story was always Vietnam. Now you wouldn't even know we are in wars in Iraq and A-stan. They hardly even mention it.

It just seemed like there was always going to be a Vietnam war.

The warmakers seemed to have learned some valuable lessons. Control the press coverage, hide the casualties, and play down the atrocities.

Then, there is the fact that the Americans over there are all volunteers, not conscripts, and many people think it is their own fault they are there, protecting the interests of the oil cartel. It is hard to feel sorry for the mercenary or the fool. After all, the military requires high-school grads now so whose fault is it if they slept through history?

 

[michael32]

Then, there is the fact that the Americans over there are all volunteers, not conscripts, and many people think it is their own fault they are there, protecting the interests of the oil cartel. It is hard to feel sorry for the mercenary or the fool. After all, the military requires high-school grads now so whose fault is it if they slept through history?

Perhaps they have a different perspective than you on duty to the country.

Your sanctimony is repulsive.

 

[Gracchus]

Perhaps they have a different perspective than you on duty to the country.

Your sanctimony is repulsive.

Well, someone once said you cannot serve two masters, and that certainly includes combinations of God and money and God and Caesar.

And I happen to find the act of bombing and torturing civilians in their own country repulsive. But of course it is a matter of taste.

I was a fool, fifty years ago, but I learned better than to fall for the "Duty, Honor, Country" mantra. I learned better than to abandon my conscience for obedience. If you go to some other man's country to murder him, or bend him to your will, it is hard for me to feel sorry for you if you get a bad result. Not impossible, mind you, but hard!

 

[michael32]

Well, someone once said you cannot serve two masters, and that certainly includes combinations of God and money and God and Caesar.

And I happen to find the act of bombing and torturing civilians in their own country repulsive. But of course it is a matter of taste.

I was a fool, fifty years ago, but I learned better than to fall for the "Duty, Honor, Country" mantra. I learned better than to abandon my conscience for obedience. If you go to some other man's country to murder him, or bend him to your will, it is hard for me to feel sorry for you if you get a bad result. Not impossible, mind you, but hard!

None of which justifies your snide and denigrating remarks.

 

[Gracchus]

None of which justifies your snide and denigrating remarks.

Oh my! I surely did not intend to snidely denigrate murdering pirate mercenaries or flag-wrapped fools. Surely they deserve our respect. My apologies.

 

[michael32]

Oh my! I surely did not intend to snidely denigrate murdering pirate mercenaries or flag-wrapped fools. Surely they deserve our respect. My apologies.

Sorry, after reviewing my comments, they have come across more embittered than I intended. I am just sensitive to the patriotism and intelligence of our young men and women being denigrated. Their views are every bit as important as yours or mine, and need to be respected.

 

[Gracchus]

Sorry, after reviewing my comments, they have come across more embittered than I intended. I am just sensitive to the patriotism and intelligence of our young men and women being denigrated. Their views are every bit as important as yours or mine, and need to be respected.

We can agree that people deserve some degree of respect.
Opinions, however, deserve respect only if they are well-supported by evidence and reason. Persons who march off to kill people in a foreign land on the basis of unsupported and unreasoned opinions, in blind obedience, or for social approval, have forfeited their right to some basic respect.

After sixty years of studying history, I have come to the conclusion that all patriots fall into three categories: Those who are fools, those who are scoundrels, and those who are both.

 

[MorkandMindy]

TOTALS
Civilians: 4,331,000
Servicemen: 1,492,846

Conclusion: being a civilian can be dangerous

What I find worrying, and it is the point of this thread, was the dispute among Americans was and often still is, not about the morality of the war, but just about whether it was 'winnable'.

And equally what dissuaded the majority of the public appears to be not who we killed and the lives we ruined, but only the losses our side had. And this appears to have been repeated in Iraq.

You're just wrong.

About which bit?
1. Total deaths in the American war in Vietnam

2. Dispute is not about the morality of the war but whether it was winnable

3. No concern about losses of 'the other side'

4. And this appears to have been repeated in Iraq

 

[MorkandMindy]

Well, someone once said you cannot serve two masters, and that certainly includes combinations of God and money and God and Caesar.

And I happen to find the act of bombing and torturing civilians in their own country repulsive. But of course it is a matter of taste.

I was a fool, fifty years ago, but I learned better than to fall for the "Duty, Honor, Country" mantra. I learned better than to abandon my conscience for obedience. If you go to some other man's country to murder him, or bend him to your will, it is hard for me to feel sorry for you if you get a bad result. Not impossible, mind you, but hard!

Well it didn't turn out that badly, we killed millions of them trying to get control of their country and consequently the oil, we failed pretty much and they just let us off. There are still lots of Vietnamese born with nasty defects due to the dioxin we spread around, and sure they'd like some compensation, but they aren't doing anything else


Imagine if they were like us!

 

[Supreme]

Well it didn't turn out that badly, we killed millions of them trying to get control of their country and consequently the oil, we failed pretty much and they just let us off. There are still lots of Vietnamese born with nasty defects due to the dioxin we spread around, and sure they'd like some compensation, but they aren't doing anything else


Imagine if they were like us!

They are like us.

And please don't claim a war didn't out 'that badly'- the Vietnams war is one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent modern history. It completely transformed that nation, and poignantly sent a country's greatest asset- it's young people- home in hundreds of thousands of body bags, on both sides.

 

[MorkandMindy]

They are like us.

And please don't claim a war didn't out 'that badly'- the Vietnams war is one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent modern history. It completely transformed that nation, and poignantly sent a country's greatest asset- it's young people- home in hundreds of thousands of body bags, on both sides.

If you have time read the rest of the thread

if not I'm perfectly happy to fill in the context from this point, but not today, it is 10:30PM.

kindest regards, M of M&M

 

[Montalban]

How many were killed in the Vietnam War?

My guess is more than in Iraq because there was no body armor, but then there were no IEDs either.

There was body armour during the Vietnam War.

Here's body armour used in Vietnam, first developed in the Korean War

Furthermore, they had booby-traps.

Also what was the overall goal of the Vietnam War and was it achieved?

If it was not achieved than what ended up happening as a result of not achieving it?

The goal of whom?

The Vietnamese communist government wanted the unification of Vietnam under a communist government. This was achieved.

The USA wanted to stop communism taking over all of Vietnam and pushed for a separate South Vietnamese state. A large group of people also 'voted with their feet' and left the north, for the south to avoid communism.

 

[Montalban]

What I find worrying, and it is the point of this thread, was the dispute among Americans was and often still is, not about the morality of the war, but just about whether it was 'winnable'.

And equally what dissuaded the majority of the public appears to be not who we killed and the lives we ruined, but only the losses our side had. And this appears to have been repeated in Iraq.
[/SIZE]

I don't believe that's true. Australia became involved, as an ally of the USA (ANZUS). As soon as National Service (or, conscription) came into being a group of concerned citizens called SOS (Save Our Sons) was formed because they thought it immoral to force young men into service overseas. SOS were formed in 1965, years before Tet!

Americans were burning their draft-cards in 1964!

 

[MorkandMindy]

Was Vietnam a war of choice or a war of necessity?

I recall we were told if we didn't go over there and kill them they would soon be over here killing us. Well we lost and they didn't come over here, so go figure.

 

[MorkandMindy]

From the online wiki, "By war's end, 58,193 soldiers were killed...".

The wiki also discusses insights into your other two questions.

Vietnam War

By the war's end about 1 million soldiers had been killed

Well, which is it?

 

[Montalban]

Well, which is it?

Maybe one figure relates only to how many of 'us' were killed and not include how many of 'them' were killed

 

[Montalban]

I recall we were told if we didn't go over there and kill them they would soon be over here killing us. Well we lost and they didn't come over here, so go figure.

Are you from the UK, or just living there?

The reason I ask is 'cause the UK wasn't involved in the Vietnam War

 

[Gracchus]

Maybe one figure relates only to how many of 'us' were killed and not include how many of 'them' were killed

Well, after all who cared about about a bunch of "slopes". Indeed, fewer and fewer remain who even care about our own "Heroes".