Hi!  My name is John Hinchliffe.  I served in the Medical Corps in Vietnam from June 1971-April 1972.  It took me many years to understand the circumstances that led to our involvement in Vietnam and the reasons why this era eroded our national reputation and caused political and social derision.  Some historians overlook many facts about the Vietnam experience and perpetuate myths that mislead young learners who are trying to appreciate their father's or grandfather's military service.       I've researched many web sites trying to uncover a focused yet comprehensive insight into Vietnam's 30-year struggle and now invite you on a journey through history to explore the three wars of Vietnam.

• THE FIRST Vietnam war began shortly after World War II as the Vietnamese sought independence from the French Colonialists.  The French lost this war after the disastrous battle of Dien Bien Phu March 13-May 8, 1954.  The French surrendered, withdrew from Vietnam, and hostilities ceased.
• THE SECOND Vietnam war started sometime shortly after 1954, as the Viet Minh (or Northern Communists) slowly infiltrated the South and committed terrorist and hostile acts.  The U.S. became involved in this war of invasion in 1956 by providing an increasing supply of materiel and advisors, and eventually combat troops.  This war ended through a negotiated treaty on January 27, 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, and again, hostilities ceased.
• THE THIRD Vietnam war started soon after the American withdrawal.  Again the North Vietnamese violated the treaties they had signed and mounted a third insurgency which escalated into a major offensive by early 1975, resulting in the fall of Saigon in April.  This war was lost by the South Vietnamese Government.  North and South Vietnam were reunified but under a Communist regime.  The thirty-year war finally ended.

     The definition of "war" has changed over the years.  In the old days, you either declared war, invaded your enemy's land with swift and devastating effect, or slapped his face with your gauntlet.  Thus, there were few doubts about your intentions or about the precise time and place when your war started.  Similarly, war's end was usually a recognizable event with a precise time and place.  Since the Korean War however, Communism has brought a new uncertainty to humankind's oldest sport.  World War II was the last time we prevailed in a major conflict with definitive closure: Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was hanged by his own people, and Japan was bombed to its knees; each country formally surrendered.  The Korean Conflict, a war of invasion by Communists, never officially ended and we did not enjoy a clear, recognizable victory as with World War II.  A "cease fire" was negotiated which still remains in effect after almost fifty years. Communists have invaded sovereign nations by political, social, economic, or military means.  Even after the fighting has stopped, these invasions have continued in other ways.

     SINCE methods of warfare have changed along with the definition of war and peace,we need to reassess our outlook upon all types of conflict and redefine the words winning and losing to more accurately reflect the circumstances.  Therefore, it is my conclusion that since we negotiated a peace with North Vietnam, and prevailed in every major conflict (including the 1968 Tet Offensive), inflicting severe casualties in great numbers upon the North Vietnamese, we did not lose the Vietnam War!
 
 

Let's start with some historical background from World War II.  General Claire L. Chennault, Group Commander of the Flying Tigersworked closely with the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of today's Central Intelligence Agency or CIA) while leading the air war against the Japanese in the China Theatre.  General Chennault was impressed by the educated and patriotic Ho Chi Minh and recommended that Minh and his small army of Vietnamese be trained and supplied with weapons by our OSS to fight against the Japanese currently occupying Vietnam and other parts of Indo-China.  Before the newly-trained army and its American weaponry could return to Vietnam however, the war ended with the Japanese surrender.

Following the formal surrender of the Japanese aboard the U.S.S. Missouri, a small contingency of American military police entered Vietnam to arrange for the release of French prisoners of war (mostly Foreign Legionnaires), accept the surrender of local Japanese troops, and provide for the transportation of Japanese military personnel to Japan, presently occupied by the conquering Americans.  Astoundingly, some of the repatriated French forces, armed and released from their prisons, embarked on a spree of looting and rape, threatening the stability of the newly- resurrected government.  Ill-equipped and undermanned to adequately restore order, the American military police re-armed some Japanese forces, using these highly-disciplined former occupiers to maintain marshall law and protect the indigenous population.

France was anxious to restore its colonial rule in Vietnam despite Vietnamese incredulity and opposition.  Ho Chi Minh, now a political and military voice in Vietnam, claimed that France no longer legitimately held claim to colonial rule as Japan had ended that rule early in World War II by defeating the French forces.  Negotiations proved to be fruitless at the time because France was determined to bring Vietnam back into its quickly disappearing colonial empire. Accordingly, On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed Vietnam independence.  France, tired of negotiating decided to use force. During November 1946, French cruisers shelled Haiphong, killing 6,000 civilians, signaling the beginning of the first Vietnam War.

The United States’ position on French intervention/colonialism underwent several changes duringthe early years of the first Vietnam war. Initially, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was not in favor of supporting France in its colonial reacquisition of Vietnam.  (The U.S. was once a colony and had to fight to gain its independence.)  Roosevelt was in favor of a trusteeship plan which would later lead to independence for Vietnam.  Due to pressures exerted from our allies France and England, Roosevelt watered down his trusteeship plan by stating that a colony could only become a trusteeship with the approval of its mother country.
 

With the death of Roosevelt and the ascendancy of Truman to power, there was a dramaticchange in U. S. foreign policy towards France’s involvement in Vietnam. The U.S. adopted an even more favorable foreign policy toward France. There were two reasons for this: one, the U.S. commitment to stem Soviet influence in Europe, especially France. The U.S. perceived France as being vulnerable to a communist Party takeover in its country at this time. Thus, not wanting to cause dissension, the U.S. gave France somewhat a free hand in Vietnam. Two, a reason for the change in U.S. foreign policy was the coming of the Cold War. Supporting France seemed to be one way to fight the international Communist conspiracy.

France wasn't doing well militarily in Vietnam, using conventional warfare tacticswhich were ineffectual against the guerrilla warfare being waged by the Viet Minh.  The French had suffered several major defeats. One at Cao Bang, in which 6,000 French troops were captured. The other which came at a critical time during negotiations at Geneva, was at Dien Bien Phu in which 12,000 elite French soldiers were forced to surrender. These defeats coupled with the longevity of the war caused the French people to demand a quick solution.  Geneva peacetalks were seen as a viable solution.

Next, there was a change in France's leadership during the negotiations which helped insure theadoption of the Geneva Accords. At the onset of negotiations, Joseph Laniel headed the Frenchgovernment. His government was adamantly opposed to any partitioning of Vietnam (which wasone of the major points of the 1954 Accords). Laniel wanted a military victory. The Lanielgovernment was replaced by a government led by Pierre Mendes during the negotiations. Mendeswas flexible on the issue of partitioning Vietnam. He wanted a settlement. In fact, he threatened to resign if an agreement was not reached by July 21.

Finally, after Dien Bien Phu fell France only controlled a small area around Hanoi in the North and limited territory in the South below the 16th parallel. France hoped that it could receive a more favorable settlement at Geneva.

The U.S. attended the Geneva Conference reluctantly, not wanting a negotiated settlement between France and the Viet Minh. The Eisenhower administration wanted France to pursue a more aggressive military strategy, despite having refused France's request for using U.S. nuclear weapons.  At the conference, the U. S. acted like an observer, refusing to sign the Accords after they had been drafted. By not signing the agreement, the U.S. wasn't bound to honor any provisions except when it was to our advantage.

The major points of the 1954 Geneva Accords were as follows:

     1. Vietnam would be partitioned along the 17th parallel.
     2. The division of Vietnam would be temporary with reunification elections held
          during the summer of 1956.
     3. Forces would withdraw to their own partitioned zone within 300 days.
     4. Neither North nor South Vietnam could join in an alliance unless their
          security was clearly threatened.
     5. Cease-fire arrangements were made for Laos and Cambodia.
     6. Each nation's right to self defense was recognized.
 

At this time, the "Domino Theory" was used as a basis for formulating U.S. foreign policy. As aresult, the U.S. pursued a foreign policy of containment in relation to the spread of Communism.The Domino Theory which was first used to justify U. S. aid to Greece in 1947 was applied to Vietnam. This theory asserted that if the spread of Communism was left unchecked, nation after nation would fall under Communist control creating the ripple effect seen in a game of dominoes. Vietnam was viewed as a cornerstone in Southeast Asia by the U.S. Thus, from the beginning of the second Vietnam war, the U.S. was committed to supporting the anti-Communist forces in Vietnam even if it meant supporting leaders who were oppressive and outlawed or discouraged political freedom.
 

By 1956, South Vietnam, a member of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and therefore our ally, was receiving U.S. military and economic aid.   U.S. military advisors were also sent to bolster the fledgling army and air force. There were U.S. business interests in South Vietnam, particularly rubber plantations, which had been targeted for Communist terrorist attacks.  It was not difficult to justify the aid we supplied or the advisors sent to South Vietnam as the South Vietnamese Government was our ally and had asked for our help under the provisions of the SEATO Alliance.

Our role in South Vietnam gradually increased over the ensuing years and U.S. military advisors were occasionally involuntarily involved in armed conflict with North Vietnamese infiltrators and local Communist converts (Viet Cong.) As the second Vietnam War began to emerge, our role inIndo-China expanded as American servicemen were being wounded and killed.  (Because of benefit entitlements for service men and women from the U.S. government, especially the Department of Veterans Affairs, an exact date of a war's beginning and end must be determined. With the circumstances in Vietnam, and the reluctance for the U.S. to officially declare war, these dates have been arbitrarily changed over the years changing the eligibility of many veterans for benefits such as health care, pensions, and educational assistance.)

The incident that caused the U. S. to get militarily involved in Vietnam occurred on August 1, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. Involved were the US Destroyer Maddox, the US Aircraft Carrier Ticonderoga, and three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Supposedly, the US Destroyer Maddox, which was engaged in electronic espionage at the time, was attacked by the North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The Maddox and several planes from the Ticonderoga retaliated. PresidentJohnson was infuriated when he heard of the attack on the Maddox. Within days of the incidentCongress approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This gave American armed forces the authorityto use any means available to defend themselves. The Gulf of Tonkin incident led way to the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam and the introduction of combat ground troops. U. S. troops were accustomed to fighting an enemy that was easily identifiable. The guerrilla-type warfare being fought by the Viet Cong proved to be frustrating to the American soldiers.

The major confrontations during the war took place in the countryside. The Viet Cong were able to infiltrate the rural areas with the support of the villagers. The rural population, fearing retaliation, was hesitant to identify the Viet Cong to South Vietnamese and American troops.  The Viet Cong and its guerrilla warfare benefited greatly from this tacit support.

The U. S. and South Vietnam government established a hamlet program in order to win the heartsand minds of the rural population. The aim of the program was to relocate the villagers to areaswhere they could be protected from the Communists. These newly-created hamlets were toreceive technological and medical aid in an attempt to win the rural peasants support. The hamletprogram had some significant drawbacks: the villagers resented being moved from their land thatcontained their ancestors’ tombs. Also, the relocated people weren’t adequately compensated for theirland. Thus, the hamlet program did very little to undermine the support for the Viet Cong, despite Viet Cong atrocities, assassinations, and terrorist acts.

The U.S. armed forces developed a “search and destroy” strategy in response to Viet Congguerrilla warfare. Air power and the use of chemicals played a key role in this strategy. Once a specific area had been identified as a communist stronghold, it was encircled by ground troops. Next, according to U.S. army procedures, the civilians of   that area were to be warned of an impending air strike. The U.S. Air Force would level buildings thought to be harboring Viet Cong. Herbicides, such as Agent Orange were used to destroy timberlands which communisttroops used for cover. Areas that were labeled Free Fire Zones could be shelled without a warning being given to the civilian population, and a "shoot first, ask questions later " policy was in effect for ground troops in some of these areas due to a known presence of hostiles.

The frustration of not being able to identify the enemy led to one of the worst known atrocities of the Vietnam War: the My Lai Massacre. My Lai was a hamlet in the village of Song My. Lt. William Calley and his men were sent into My Lai in Search of the Viet Cong. The people of My Lai were assembled in a large group at which time the American troops opened fire killing an estimated 300-400 civilians. The Massacre occurred on March 16, 1968. It took over a year and a half before it was made public. (It should be noted that some soldiers in Calley’s outfit refused to take part in the killings, and recently, those who first reported the atrocity, have been honored by the U.S. government for their role in uncovering this tragedy and providing the information for the military courts-martial.  While stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, this author met Lt. Calley and his former company commander, Capt. Medina.)

The next aspect of the second Vietnam war that needs to be examined is President Johnson'sescalation of the war. The U. S. realized that if it did not institute the bombing of North Vietnam in the early part of 1965, South Vietnam would fall to the communists. The Johnson administrationwas willing to intensify the air raids but was still reluctant to commit large numbers of groundtroops. Two plans were instituted as retaliatory measures to Viet Cong attacks: OperationsFlaming Dart, and Rolling Thunder. These expanded the U.S. air war in Vietnam. Once the U.S. had stepped up its air strikes, General William C. Westmoreland, supreme commander in Vietnam, asked for ground troops to protect U.S. air bases from Viet Minh attacks. This made way for the introduction of large numbers of U.S.ground troops.

On July 28, 1965, President Johnson in a nation-wide televised speech apprised the Americanpeople that 50,000 additional troops were being sent to Vietnam. By 1967, over 400,000American soldiers would be stationed in Vietnam. Johnson had decided during the month of Julyto send as many troops as the situation required; there was no turning back.

The Tet Offensive in the beginning days of 1968 prompted the American people and news media to believe that they were being misled by the U.S. military leaders about the true scope of the war in Vietnam. With each new wave of American forces being sent to Vietnam, the American people would be assured that victory over the Communists would be certain. This offensive launched by the Viet Cong during Tet (lunar New Year) against the major cities in South Vietnam convinced many Americans and the media that the Vietnam War was going to be a long and costly misadventure. The Tet Offensive was a stunning military defeat for the Communists however, because in addition to being repelled on all fronts, they incurred heavy losses of men and materiel which General Giap  (the North Vietnamese commander) would later admit required more than five years to recover from.  However, the effect the offensive had on the rising discontent with the war among Americans turned the Tet Offensive into a political victory for the North Vietnamese.  (The North Vietnamese maintained paid lobbyists in Washington to ferret out congressional sympathizers, support certain candidates, and keep abreast of political trends and issues that could be useful to manipulate for propaganda.)  Cries for peace started to come from all circles of American society. The pressure would eventually cause President Johnson to withdraw from consideration for re-election and force the U.S. to extricate itself from the Vietnam War.

As the war dragged on, people in the United States grew tired of the war in Vietnam. Americans wanted the war to end. When President Nixon came into power, he promised the American people "peace with honor."  Negotiations were started in earnest. However, neither side was willing to make concessions easily, for both had invested a great deal of time, effort, and lives in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese in an attempt to break the stalemate, invaded South Vietnam. The Nixon Administration retaliated by mining Haiphong Harbor, establishing a naval blockade of North Vietnam, and increasing the numbers of air strikes against North Vietnam. When all the dust had settled, the two sides were still at an impasse, so they decided to revert back to diplomacy to achieve a settlement. But Lee Duc Tho, the chief North Vietnamese negotiator and the Communists in Paris again stalled the negotiations despite the best efforts of our shuttling diplomat, Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.(This author was still stationed in Vietnam, leaving one week before Haiphong Harbor was mined.)

Nixon, in a desperate move to bring about a settlement, authorized the most devastating airattacks of the war. They were later to be referred to as Nixon’s Christmas Bombings. No onecan be sure if these bombings helped to secure a settlement but just six days later, the North Vietnamese suddenly resumed negotiations.  Reaction back in the States to the bombing was one of outrage. Some members of Congress were ready to challenge Nixon’s foreign policy of "peacewith honor"when Congress reconvened after the holidays.  Fortunately for Nixon, and the U.S., a settlement was reached in Paris ending the war.

The U.S. formally withdrew from Vietnam in January 1973, after nearly twenty years of presence in this distant land.  This withdrawal heralded the end of the second Vietnam War. This second war was not lost by the U.S. A review of the statistics of this second war clearly indicates otherwise.

Although Communist forces already in South Vietnam were allowed to remain in place, the 17th Parallel boundary was still recognized as a military and geographical partition.  The Paris Peace Accords called for national elections on both sides of the Parallel within several years, but this potentially unifying event would never take place.

Although there was a period of uneasy peace following the U.S. withdrawal, within a short time the South Vietnamese military would be challenged by an unrelenting and ever-escalating conflict with Communist forces.  Eventually, the Communists launched a conventional warfare invasion of South Vietnam in early 1975.  On the morning of April 30, the Saigon government capitulated as the capitol city was invaded. While the world watched the agonizing chaos of the civilian and military flight from the Communist onslaught, many armchair military strategists labeled the Fall of Saigon as the final chapter in the United State's loss of the Vietnam War.  As previously stated, this third war was lost by the South Vietnamese, not by anyone else.

A review of statistics about the Second Vietnam War, stories from prisoners of war and a review of the men and women casualties tell a heartfelt saga of our involvement in this "noble cause."  While many still maintain that Vietnam was engaged in civil war, the three-war distinction outlines a war of independence from the French and a clear invasion of the South by North Vietnamese forces during wars two and three in a military and political manner.
 
 

I am puzzled that my country ignored the genocide in Cambodia perpetrated by the Communist Pol Pot regime, reducing the country's population by nearly one quarter.  The instability and murder in Cambodia was a threat to the stability to the newly-formed Communist government in South Vietnam, and the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, attacking their ideological and former military allies.

Our recent incursion in the Balkans is even more puzzling to me as the ethnic cleansing we were sent to stop was very minor in comparison to Cambodia's experience.  Further, the events in this European area clearly indicate a civil war.  By the standards touted during the Second Vietnam war era, we should not have interfered in the Balkans at all.

I am proud to have served in Vietnam.  I am proud to have served my country.  Perhaps someday, American textbooks will summarize this conscience-wrenching era of our diplomatic and military past with more favorable commentary and honor the memory of the tens of thousands of men and women who nobly served their country paid the highest price on the altar of freedom as they courageously faced tyranny.  Only then will their memories ascend to a deserved and revered place among those past heroes who sculpted our freedom with their blood.

(Much of this text has been inspired by and quoted from a curriculum unit written by Henry A. Rhodes
and located at: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1983/4/83.04.03.x.html)

If you have any questions, please contact John Hinchliffe.  This page was developed before August 12, 1999.