deepundergroundpoetry.com
If We Fought the American Civil War Like We Fought the Vietnam War, We Might Have Lost It
We won the Civil War partly because we blockaded the Southern ports.
The South started running out of things almost as soon as the war began.
But when America fought the North Vietnamese we didn't blockade their ports,
We didn't bomb those ports, except maybe during the "Christmas Bombing" of 1972.
(I could be wrong about that.) Why is that omission so important??
Because Russian ships unloaded hundreds and
hundreds of battle tanks at the port of Haiphong !!
Until the Communist north had a stockpile of thousands of tanks.
The funny thing is that they were NEVER used - until nearly the end of the war.
Yeah, the Communists waged a guerrilla war until 1972 or 1973,
At which point the Northern army invaded South Vietnam with tanks.
Completely switching the style of warfare !!
The South repulsed the first invasion, to their credit.
But two years later, the north tried again, and this time
EVERY single soldier in the North came down,
Leaving North Vietnam totally undefended.
(I'm exaggerating, of course.But only a little.)
This time (1975) the Northern army was so massive,
the Southern defenses were overwhelmed.
South Vietnam collapsed like house of cards.
The North didn't have to fight a single battle,
They just rolled thru city after city, it was stunning!!
By April 1975 it was all over. - how I hated seeing Vietnam fall!!
It was supposed to be another South Korea !!
(I flunked college that year - and never did graduate.)
That whole scenario could have been completely avoided,
If only the USA had prevented Russia from shipping all those tanks
to North Vietnam !!! Duh, why didn't we think of that??
Bombing Haiphong harbor wouldn't have led to war with Russia.
America's nuclear arsenal was superior to the Soviet Union's.
For I'm talking about the 1960s and up til the mid 1970s.
(From the late 70s thru the 1980s and 1990s,
And continuing even into the present day,
The Russian arsenal is actually larger than ours.)
The South started running out of things almost as soon as the war began.
But when America fought the North Vietnamese we didn't blockade their ports,
We didn't bomb those ports, except maybe during the "Christmas Bombing" of 1972.
(I could be wrong about that.) Why is that omission so important??
Because Russian ships unloaded hundreds and
hundreds of battle tanks at the port of Haiphong !!
Until the Communist north had a stockpile of thousands of tanks.
The funny thing is that they were NEVER used - until nearly the end of the war.
Yeah, the Communists waged a guerrilla war until 1972 or 1973,
At which point the Northern army invaded South Vietnam with tanks.
Completely switching the style of warfare !!
The South repulsed the first invasion, to their credit.
But two years later, the north tried again, and this time
EVERY single soldier in the North came down,
Leaving North Vietnam totally undefended.
(I'm exaggerating, of course.But only a little.)
This time (1975) the Northern army was so massive,
the Southern defenses were overwhelmed.
South Vietnam collapsed like house of cards.
The North didn't have to fight a single battle,
They just rolled thru city after city, it was stunning!!
By April 1975 it was all over. - how I hated seeing Vietnam fall!!
It was supposed to be another South Korea !!
(I flunked college that year - and never did graduate.)
That whole scenario could have been completely avoided,
If only the USA had prevented Russia from shipping all those tanks
to North Vietnam !!! Duh, why didn't we think of that??
Bombing Haiphong harbor wouldn't have led to war with Russia.
America's nuclear arsenal was superior to the Soviet Union's.
For I'm talking about the 1960s and up til the mid 1970s.
(From the late 70s thru the 1980s and 1990s,
And continuing even into the present day,
The Russian arsenal is actually larger than ours.)
Published 25th Feb 2016
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 3
reading list entries 0
comments 4
reads 597
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
26th Feb 2016 8:56pm
Recall hearing the news of the fall of Saigon as a 16yr old. My father noted how the US trained ARVN gave way - not a ringing endorsement of America's involvement in the first place.
As one who has studied the Civil War, I wonder what it might have done for the North's reputation if they used Native Americans to fight the South in the way that some South Vietnamese tribes were used to covertly work against the Vietcong. (Ironically Confederate officers who were captured were offered the chance to serve with the US Army against hostile Native Americans in the West.)
As one who has studied the Civil War, I wonder what it might have done for the North's reputation if they used Native Americans to fight the South in the way that some South Vietnamese tribes were used to covertly work against the Vietcong. (Ironically Confederate officers who were captured were offered the chance to serve with the US Army against hostile Native Americans in the West.)
29th Feb 2016 7:09am
Thanks for being my first comment maker. Our gov't betrayed the South Vietnamese. Now it is even betraying us, the American people !!! By disarming so much. The Democrats cut the military aid to vietnam. Just like now they are gutting our nuclear arsenal. it's unbelievable....About the offer to Confederate prisoners to help fight the Indians, I believe it. it makes sense. It's news to me. I hadn't heard that one before. Thanks for the info.
2nd Mar 2016 9:58am
I learn something new every day.
Thank you for contributing to my (somewhat limited) history knowledge base
Thank you for contributing to my (somewhat limited) history knowledge base
11th Mar 2016 9:39pm
Thanx so much for sharing that you learned something from my piece. You didn't specify but I assume it was (a)the switch from guerrilla war to conventional. Or (b)the part about us letting the Russians unload thousands of tanks at Haiphong.
Yes, civilian control over the military protects us against a too-powerful military. But it comes at a price. Civilians tend to mishandle things. They tend to kick the generals to the curb, as is evident by our letting So. Vietnam go down the drain.
Yes, civilian control over the military protects us against a too-powerful military. But it comes at a price. Civilians tend to mishandle things. They tend to kick the generals to the curb, as is evident by our letting So. Vietnam go down the drain.
