Ad_Forums-Top

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fall of Saigon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fall of Saigon

    On 30 April 1975, Saigon fell to North Vietnamese forces. I remember watching the news and seeing NVA tanks crashing through the gates of the presidential palace, and helicopters landing on the roof of the US embassy to take off the last American and South Vietnamese evacuees.

  • #2
    Re: Fall of Saigon

    I vaguely recall that. I was 12 so the significance didn't hit me until much later.
    Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas - go figure!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Fall of Saigon

      I read later that the tank smashing through the gates was missed by the photographers and cameramen, so they lifted the gates up and the tank smashed them down again, but this time the cameras captured it.

      The fall happened rather suddenly. I remember at the time the intense speculation and, indeed, expectation that the US would intervene with airstrikes to halt the Communist invasion, which happened only two years after the Paris peace agreement.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Fall of Saigon

        Originally posted by staffslad View Post
        I read later that the tank smashing through the gates was missed by the photographers and cameramen, so they lifted the gates up and the tank smashed them down again, but this time the cameras captured it.

        The fall happened rather suddenly. I remember at the time the intense speculation and, indeed, expectation that the US would intervene with airstrikes to halt the Communist invasion, which happened only two years after the Paris peace agreement.
        I never heard that staffslad. I recall thinking at the time of the fall of Saigon that how could a massive power such as the US be defeated by nothing more than a well organized Communist insurgency. To be fair they had Russian and Chinese mainly logistical and consultive assistance.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Fall of Saigon

          Not helped by the Americans not taking things seriously & being reliant on draftees rather than professional soldiers.

          I once saw a list of ways the Americans went wrong in Vietnam, which could easily be titled "how not to fight a war".
          The Trickster On The Roof

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Fall of Saigon

            By the middle of 1973, most American and allied military personnel had been withdrawn from South Vietnam in accordance with the Paris peace accords. When the Communist North launched its invasion in 1975, all that could have been employed by the US to support South Vietnam was airpower via its bases in Thailand and via USN carriers. It is believed that President Nixon promised South Vietnam's President Thieu that the US would intervene if the NVA launched a major attack. However, by 1975, Nixon had resigned and Gerald Ford was president, and no support was forthcoming in the wake of the invasion. There is a perception that the US was up against a rag-tag bunch of poorly equipped and trained insurgents. However, CIA estimates were that the VietCong was numerically not far off the manpower strength of the US at its zenith. Add to that the large North Vietnamese Army, which supported, supplied and trained the VC. The VC was basically the NVA operating in South Vietnam.

            Comment


            • #7
              Over overlooked by self-righteous "I am against war as a matter of morality!"arses in the West is not only the tragic fate of the people of Indo-China since 1975 such as "re-education" camps, secret police, repression and torture, the fact that the war is still killing people - 100 people on average die each year in Lao from unexploded ordinance - but the fact they sided with POS like Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan indicates quite a bit - and none of it good.
              http://www.youtube.com/v/wW6mqRyWNak

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Victoria O'Keefe View Post
                Over overlooked by self-righteous "I am against war as a matter of morality!"arses in the West is not only the tragic fate of the people of Indo-China since 1975 such as "re-education" camps, secret police, repression and torture, the fact that the war is still killing people - 100 people on average die each year in Lao from unexploded ordinance - but the fact they sided with POS like Ho Chi Minh and Le Duan indicates quite a bit - and none of it good.
                And plenty in the East fixed to the "Pro-West = bad" mentality.
                The Trickster On The Roof

                Comment


                • #9
                  The pacifism/anti-war movement in response to Saddan's invasion of Kuwait and the war to liberate that country was indisputably pure cowardice in the face of fascist aggression.
                  http://www.youtube.com/v/wW6mqRyWNak

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Victoria O'Keefe View Post
                    The pacifism/anti-war movement in response to Saddan's invasion of Kuwait and the war to liberate that country was indisputably pure cowardice in the face of fascist aggression.
                    At least the major powers played a softly softly response rather than rushing in.

                    It's a bit ironic that both the far Left & Right had a similar response to Russian invasion of Ukraine.
                    The Trickster On The Roof

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Richard1978 View Post

                      At least the major powers played a softly softly response rather than rushing in.

                      It's a bit ironic that both the far Left & Right had a similar response to Russian invasion of Ukraine.
                      Leaving Saddam in place in 2003 means one of his two sons would be in power now. As bad as the current Iraqi government is, it's at least semi-democratic, even if it can be cowed sometimes by clerics. Qusay or Uday Hussein's rule would make Saddam seem like a kindly grandfather.
                      http://www.youtube.com/v/wW6mqRyWNak

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Victoria O'Keefe View Post

                        Leaving Saddam in place in 2003 means one of his two sons would be in power now. As bad as the current Iraqi government is, it's at least semi-democratic, even if it can be cowed sometimes by clerics. Qusay or Uday Hussein's rule would make Saddam seem like a kindly grandfather.
                        It's possible they would have been kicked out of power in the Arab Spring of 2011.
                        The Trickster On The Roof

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As i mentioned, a lot of people are still being killed because of the Indochina Wars every year by unexploded bombs and mines in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
                          http://www.youtube.com/v/wW6mqRyWNak

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X