Don't Tell Me We Lost
 
 

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was missreported then, and it is misremembered now. Rarely have so many people been so wrong about so much. Never have the consequences of their misunderstanding been so tragic." [ Richard Nixon]
 
 

"The Vietnam War has been the subject of thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, hundreds of books, and scores of movies and television documentaries. The great majority of these efforts have erroneously portrayed many myths about the Vietnam War as being facts." [Richard Nixon]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Don't Tell Me We Lost

In the 25 plus years since the end of the fall of Saigon, none of these myths has caused me more anger than the words " America lost the war in Vietnam".

I remember the day in 1975 that the tanks rolled into Saigon. I remember it like it was yesterday..... I cried.
       I cried..........  for the people of South Vietnam.
       I cried..........  for my brothers in arms who came home wounded and maimed.
       I cried ...........for my brothers who gave their lives for their country.
       I cried .......... for  Robert Michael Smith my high school buddy KIA 3/10/70.
       I cried .......... for Joe Pederson, Jim Rozo and Robert Phillips, men I served  with in the 595th Signal Company MIA 6/22/70.
Yes, I cried.
I cried because I, like everyone else, believed  that the fall of Saigon meant that we had, at that point, lost the war.  I continued to believe that statement for several years.  With time came knowledge.  In talking to other veterans I realized we all had the same belief - we were winning when we each left.  I began to wonder if we were winning when each of us left, when exactly did we lose the war in Vietnam???

That question has a very short and (to me) a very sweet sounding answer.....
 

WE DIDN'T LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM
 
 

How can I say that??? Am I serious??? Everyone says we lost the war are they all lying?
 
 

It is easy to say and I can prove it. I am very serious. some are lying most are misinformed. On the following pages I will explain why I ( and most other Vietnam vets) feel this way. It is not an attempt to rewrite history. It is an attempt to correct the misconceptions that are involved in the history of the Vietnam War. It is my way of telling everyone ...
 
 

The Paris Peace agreement was signed on January 1973. the signatories included representatives of the United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.  The agreement called for the immediate cessation of fighting in Vietnam and a complete American withdrawal of troops within 60 days

Article 2: "A cease-fire shall be observed throughout South Vietnam as of 2400 hours G.M.T. on January 27, 1973. At the same hour, the United States will stop all its military activities against
 the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam [North Vietnam] by ground, air and naval forces, wherever they may be based.... The complete cessation of hostilities mentioned in this Article shall be durable and without limit of time."
Articles 4, "The United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Vietnam,"
Article 5  "within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Vietnam of troops, military advisors, and military personnel."
Article 6  "The dismantlement of all military bases in South Vietnam of the United States... shall be completed within sixty days."

The United States complied with these articles and withdrew its forces within the time frame established by the agreement.

Article 15: "The reunification of Vietnam shall be carried out step by step through peaceful means... without coercion."
 

Notice the last four words

 "PEACEFUL MEANS ..... WITHOUT COERCION" .

North Vietnam broke the treaty when it invaded the south after the United States completed its withdrawal. Violating the words "Peaceful means without coercion."

Saigon fell  on April 30,1975, over two full years after the total withdrawal of American combat troops.
How could we have lost the war we were no longer fighting????
 
 
 
 
 

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST!
Let's put this in a different light.  Let's talk baseball.
 The Yankees are playing the Mets in the world series.
The yanks lead the series 3-0.
So far the Yankees have not allowed a run in the entire Series.
It is the top of the fifth in game four.
The Yankees are at bat.
The score is 12 to nothing with the Yankees ahead.
 All of a sudden the sky opens up and it begins to pour down rain in buckets.
The game is postponed by mutual agreement of the Yankees, the Mets, the umps and the fans.
All four agree that the game will stop there with no winner decided.
 In the mean time, the rain stops and the Mets start batting with the fans helping them the umps have no choice but to let them play.
The Yankees however have gone home and are not playing.
The Mets end up ahead by default.
Now enter the league offices and the commissioner of baseball.  the league offices and the commissioner decide that since the Yankees were not there for the finish, the Yankees lost not only that game but the entire series.
That is how we were proclaimed the loser and it is ridiculous so .........

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST! !
 
 

Early in the war it was determined by the politicians that this would be a war of attrition. meaning the goal was to kill more of the enemy than they killed of us.
while I believe this is an idiotic way to determine a winner, it does demonstrate my point.
 

The Agence France Presse (French Press Agency) news release of 4 April 1995 concerning the Vietnamese Government's release of official figures of dead and wounded during the Vietnam War.

Loose translation.....
 

The Hanoi government revealed on April 3 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded  and an additional estimated 666,000 Viet cong killed in 21 years of war.

The United States casualties were         58.212 killed
The South Vietnamese casualties were 223,748
The South Korean casualties were          4,407
The Australian casualties were                    469
The  Thailand casualties were                    351
The New Zealand casualties were               55

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST!
Mathematically a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. The population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead.

If you think that the United States lost the war you need to reevaluate the numbers. The communist government in the north was willing to send millions to their death just to control the south.

 They did not tell their people the truth about their losses such a revelation would not have just demoralized the Vietnamese people. It would in all likelihood have resulted in the overthrow of the communists in the north. The true figures of Vietnamese casualties were not released by Hanoi until 1995. Contrast this with the fact that the US government published weekly lists of killed and wounded and disseminated this accurate data to the news media. Look at the numbers!!!
 
 

No one will deny that the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a turning point in the war. I will, however, argue with anyone who claims it was a defeat for the U.S. military. To the contrary the Tet offensive was a decisive and crushing military defeat for the Viet cong, who were deliberately and intentionally led to slaughter by their NVA "comrades" in Hanoi.  By the end of the Tet offensive, nearly 40,000 of the estimated 84,000 enemy troops sent to battle during Tet were dead.  Most of these were Viet cong and were irreplaceable. The Hanoi government intended for the VC to be destroyed during Tet believing that this would be the decisive blow and they had no intention of sharing power with the leaders of the Viet cong.

During the Tet offensive, the enemy attacked over 150 targets including:

       36 provincial capitals

        5 of the 6 autonomous cities

       64 of the 242 district capitals

        over 50 hamlets.

Most of these attacks were repelled within the first 48 hours.
 

Long Bihn

A rocket attack followed by a two pronged ground attack  were quickly repulsed by American troops of the 199th light infantry Brigade and the 9th Infantry Division aided by helicopter gun ships.  Heavy casualties were suffered by the enemy. Using artillery and air support, the VC were driven into a neighboring hamlet and by night fall were driven completely out of the area and the battle for Long Bihn was over.

  Bien Hoa

The attack on Bien Hoa followed the same pattern. After a rocket attack, a ground assault was launched. the air field was successfully defended by a group of MPs and ARVN forces. who were reinforced by members of the 2d battalion of the 506th Infantry. By 1 Feb. the 11th Armored cavalry had joined with the 2/506 and the last pocket of enemy resistance was eliminated in the Long Bihn-Bien Hoa area.

  Tay Ninh City

The attack on Tay Ninh City was repelled before it started. ARVN forces ambushed the VC and American gun ships mopped up. Again inflicting heavy casualties.

Quang Tri

In Quang Tri NVA regulars were used along with Viet cong  this attack was repelled by ARVN defenders assisted by American helicopter gun ships. Within 24 hours, the fighting was over and the enemy had lost over 400 men.

   Ba Ria

Australian forces led an ARVN relief force to retake Ba Ria.

Xuan Loc

At Xuan Loc ARVN forces assisted by artillery and air strikes defeated the attackers

AND So it went thought out the entire country attack after attack the enemy was repelled and soundly defeated suffering heavy casualties.
 

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

The Attack on the US Embassy in Saigon was a very insignificant minor event....
EXCEPT .....
 that the target was the US Embassy.

 Fifteen attackers assaulted the complex in the early morning.  Their leaders were killed during the initial fighting and the remainder had lost purpose or motivation. By mid-morning the last of the attackers lie dead. None had entered the chancery building. Mission failed .... the attackers were completely annihilated.
YET...... the fact that the embassy was attacked was viewed as a defeat at home. The outcome of the battle was of no importance. The only thing that mattered on the home front was that the Embassy was attacked.

  Go Figure !!!!   I can't get the logic of that one.  We won the battle but because there was a battle ....we lost?????

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST

Of all the attacks, Hue was the most successful for the enemy; yet it was also the costliest both in terms of casualties and in terms of generating local support. The  NVA actually gained control of Hue. It made the Americans the aggressors and the NVA the defenders. This was a major role reversal.  Another difference was that this was not jungle warfare this was house to house street by street urban warfare..... uncommon in Vietnam. The progress was slow and the fighting was fierce.
Yet when it was all said and done the city was retaken by US Marines on March 2nd.

The battle for Hue was costly US casualties were 216 kia ARVN casualties included 384 KIA.   Enemy losses were even greater over 5000 dead.  The real loses though were the people of Hue. Over 100,000 people were left homeless as half the city lie in ruins.
Almost 6,000 were dead or missing. Among the dead and missing were the civic leaders of the city... teachers, doctors, people with an education or people of influence. In the days following the retaking of Hue, some 3000 bodies were found in mass graves.

Tet 1968 was a major victory for the US military. Yet at home the media portrays it as a defeat. How??? Why??? The how is easy they showed dead Marines inside the Embassy compound They showed how the enemy was able to attack multiple targets at one time. They didn't show dead VC throughout the country. They didn't show the attacks resulted in failure throughout the country. That is how.

Now the why. They media has and always will love the underdog. The Media knows controversy sells. The media chose to back the underdog and create controversy at the same time. Create  an atmosphere in which the enemy is portrayed as unbeatable the war is unwinnable the deaths of American soldiers are needless. By doing so they influenced policy. For the first time in history, the media actually changed the course of history. An unfortunate first.

The politicians are persuaded to seek a way out without victory. Not a way out after defeat because defeat was not something the military was in a position to accept or declare.  Since, as almost every nam vet will tell you...." We were winning when I left!"

The politicians forced the military out of Vietnam not the VC or the NVA.

 It was the President who sent Henry Kessinger to Paris.

 It was Senators like Edward Kennedy and McCarthy that put pressure on the President.

It was congress that would not let the military return to help the Saigon government after the NVA invaded the South following the US withdrawal.

It was Walter Cronkite declaring that "The war is unwinnable."

All of these contributed more to the fall of South Vietnam more than any imagined defeat of the US military.
It was Lyndon Johnson stating "If I've lost Cronkite ..... I've lost the war.
 
 

The Vietnam war was the beginning of the end of the threat of communist expansion throughout the world. Vietnam veterans can remember the soviet Premier speaking to the United Nations saying "We will bury you!"

They remember the Cuban missile crisis.

They remember the construction of the Berlin Wall.

The world at that time was on the brink of nuclear war. Mutual mass destruction. The superpowers were afraid of provoking their counterparts for fear of starting the final conflict.

They remember Air raid sirens and fallout shelters.

Vietnam, however, showed the communists that we ( the United States) were willing to come to the aid of  Allies in spite of the risk of world war three.

We went to Vietnam with the commitment of assisting South Vietnam. by doing so the Soviets and the Chinese saw the effectiveness of our military and the ability of our fighting men. Our willingness to fight communist aggression in an insignificant country as South Vietnam gave the communists cause to think and realize that their dreams of global domination were just that .... dreams that would never be realized.

Now some thirty years later the Soviet Union is gone, replaced by democracy.

The Berlin wall has been torn down.

Germany has been reunited.

China is opening itself to capitalism even hosting the next Olympic Games.

Communism has been defeated throughout most of the world with the exception of Cuba. Cuba is a lone wolf without the aide of Russia it is suffering from poverty of a level unimaginable to those of us in the free world.

Vietnam has also began to embrace capitalism. The prisoner of war camp known as the " Hanoi Hilton" has been torn down and replaced with a modern Hotel. Americans are being begged to return to Vietnam and greeted with open arms.

Here at home, monthly "air raid" drills have been replaced with "tornado" drills.

The current war effort against terrorism has United States Military launching missions from within the former Soviet Union.

The Vietnam War was the beginning of the end of communism expansion. We succeeded in eliminating the communist threat so.......
 
 

Don't tell me we lost

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings, in New York, We'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam. An analyses that must be speculative, personal, subjective.
Who won.. 'n'.. who lost ..... in the great Tet offensive against the cities?  I'm not sure.
The Viet Cong did not win by a knock out but neither did we and the referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khe San could well fall with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and moral.

And this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there. But the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground ...... Another standoff.

On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall. It may hold on. But it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation ......... Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right that Hanoi's winter/spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition. And that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations.  It would improve their position and it would also require our realization.... that we should have had all along..... That any negotiations must be that .... negotiations not the dictation of peace terms.

For it seems now, more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give and take negotiations or terrible escalation. And for every means we have to escalate the enemy can match us. And that applies to invasion of the north, the use of nuclear weapons or the mere commitment of 100 ... or 200.... or 300 thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today, is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past.

To suggest we are on the edge of defeat, is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.

To say that we are mired in stalemate, seems the only realistic if unsatisfactory conclusion.

On the off chance the military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions. In case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out, then, will be to negotiate. Not as victors but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Goodnight.

Let's take a closer look at what Mr. Cronkite had to say.
We'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam. An analyses that must be speculative, personal, subjective.
Speculative and subjective are accurate terms to describe the feelings and the opinions issued here. The problem comes in the other adjective ... PERSONAL.
Mr. Cronkite was not an editorialist. He was a reporter. His job was to report the news as he saw it happen just the facts of the battle not his opinion of what was going to happen. Mr. Cronkite himself has been quoted as saying," The mark of a professional journalist is that we do adhere to an ethic.  A professional journalist recognizes his or her prejudices and biases and
avoids them in writing and reporting. There's no place in journalism for biased reporting on the front page. There is no place for subjective, personal opinions to creep in.
As even he (Walter Cronkite) has admitted, he skewed the news on Vietnam to suit his agenda. Walter you should have taken your own advice!

The Viet Cong did not win by a knock out but neither did we and the referees of history may make it a draw.
As discussed earlier we did win by a knock out. The Viet Cong were devastated.  32,000 communist solders were killed and another 5,800 detained from January 29 and February 11. By the end of February, the number had risen to over 45,000 killed. The total number of enemy committed to the Tet offensive was 84,000. This represents a loss percentage of almost 54% the allied forces by contrast lost 1,001 Americans and 2,082 Vietnamese and other Allied Personnel.

The NVA 1st Division was soundly defeated by the American 4th Infantry Division and the ARVN 42d Regiment around Dac To. Even though the American and ARVN forces were out numbered 2 to 1.
Maybe Mr. Cronkite should have looked at the real scoreboard before he made his editorial. An example of subjective and personal judgment by Mr. Cronkite.
Khe San could well fall with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and moral. And this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there. But the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground ...... Another standoff.

I will admit the base at Khe Sanh was an example of our stubbornness. The base had lost its importance before the siege. That said, the fact remains the Marines proved they could hold Khe Sanh as long as they wanted with a loss ratio of 10 to 1. The closing of the base at Khe Sanh did result in some loss in moral simply because the marines who fought there were proud of their victory and did not want that battle to be turned into an American loss as it rapidly was by both the North Vietnamese and the American press. This standoff was again in the eyes of Mr. Cronkite. Speculative and subjective.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right that Hanoi's winter/spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition. And that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations.

Had Mr. Cronkite and others like him not made their statements about the war in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese would have surrendered shortly after the losses of Tet. Instead, they held on realizing that they could not win on the battle field but the would be able to win the war in Vietnam in the streets of America and in the halls of congress.

On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall. It may hold on. But it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation ......... Another standoff.

The government of  South Vietnam did not collapse under this blow. Instead, it rallied in the face of the threat with a unity and purpose greater than that which had ever been displayed up to that time. The greatest blow to the enemy's hopes and plans was the fact that there was no evidence of significant participation by the population in support of the enemy. In other words, the general uprising simply did not occur.

To the contrary, following the Tet offensive, the Government showed a willingness to place arms for self-defense in the hands of civilian inhabitants of cities, towns and hamlets -- a willingness it had never previously shown. Although the fight was touch-and-go in many places at the outset, no South Vietnamese military units were destroyed and their casualties were relatively low considering the heavy engagements they fought. These dynamic qualities continued until the US abandoned South Vietnam at the negotiation table.

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

It has been said that we, the United States lost the war in Vietnam.  This simply is not true. What was lost by the United States was the will  to continue fighting the war.

The will to fight  was lost not because of defeat on the battlefield but because of photographs that turned America's stomach.

 The following are in my opinion the pictures that had more influence on the outcome of the war than any battle or bombing operation

Some of these photos are graphic
discretion is Strongly advised.

Tet 1968 embassy compound

THE EXECUTION OF A BOUND VIET CONG BY A SAIGON POLICE CHIEF.  AFTER SHOOTING THE PRISONER, THE EXECUTIONER WALKED PAST THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND SAID " HE KILLED MANY OF YOUR SOLDIERS AND MANY OF MY MEN." THE PHOTOGRAPHER STATED IN 1996 THAT "PHOTOGRAPHS ONLY TELL HALF OF THE STORY" HE WAS ASSIGNED TO FOLLOW THE EXECUTIONER AROUND FOR SOME TIME AFTER THE EXECUTION AND FOUND HIM TO BE WELL LIKED BY THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE AND A HERO TO THEM..." NOT THE IDIOT MANY TOOK HIM TO BE FROM THAT PHOTO"
 
 

On March 16, 1968 the angry and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division entered the village of My Lai. "This is what you've been waiting for -- search and destroy -- and you've got it," said their superior officers. A short time later the killing began. When news of the atrocities surfaced, it sent shock waves through the US political establishment, the military's chain of command, and an already divided American public. Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians. While North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy, Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences.  Communists who did so received commendations.
 

 From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. Every war has atrocities. War is brutal and not fair. Innocent people get killed. In no war do I support or condone the actions at My Lai. I only wish to point out that war has an ugly look to it . And although 99.9% of American soldiers never committed atrocities, we were labeled as baby killers by some back home.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

GUARDSMEN FIRE ON STUDENTS AT KENT STATE --VECCHIO KNEELS OVER MILNER'S BODY
 
 

The shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America.

National guardsmen called up to protect Kent State University opened fire on unarmed students. The negative publicity resulting from our military killing our own civilians hurt the image of both guardsmen and active duty military for some time.
 
 

Perhaps no lie hurts quite as badly as the photo of the pretty little girl, running naked and crying toward the camera, after being burned by napalm. That photo is shown almost daily, not just as an example of the horrors of war, but as an example of what America did to the Vietnamese people.  That famous photograph has hurt everyone but Communists since the day it was published. It probably did more than any single photo to turn public opinion ever more firmly from supporting the freedom of South Vietnam,  It has gone so far and been so thoroughly accepted, that Timothy McVeigh recently used that photo to illustrate his writings from prison, complaining that since our country burns little girls like Kim, it is hypocrisy to sentence him to death for the Oklahoma City bombing.
What we see in the photo happened. It is the words explaining the photo which have twisted our history, and no one appears to have ever reported the photographer's words, "None of this would have happened if the Communists had stayed in the north."

THE TRUTH ...... NO AMERICANS WERE INVOLVED IN THIS NAPALM ATTACK !!!!
The photographer, Nick Ut, says there were no Americans, as does his boss, the Associated Press Bureau Chief for Vietnam, Richard Pyle.

Even the Vietnamese pilot who dropped the very bombs that burned Kim and killed several of his fellow soldiers, has said there were no Americans involved.

Kim herself has helped to perpetuate the lie. She recently told an audience that she "forgave the Americans" for her injuries. I am truly sorry that Kim was injured in the war but the fact remains.........

She was burned by her own countrymen, fighting her future countrymen, with no orders from anyone else.
THE PRECEDING PHOTOGRAPHS CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE FALL OF SOUTH VIETNAM THAN DID ALL THE KILLING ON BOTH SIDES IN BATTLE.
THEY SAY A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. THESE PICTURES WERE WORTH MORE AND WERE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ENTIRE WEAPON STOCKPILE OF THE UNITED STATES AND BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH VIETNAM THESE PHOTOS ARE WHAT WON THE WAR!.
 

 WHEN A NATION LOSES ITS WILL TO FIGHT FOR ITS BELIEFS ......
                                 ITS BELIEFS WILL FALL.
 

THIS WAS TRUE FOR FREEDOM IN VIETNAM. .IT HAS BEEN PROVEN AGAIN WITH COMMUNISM IN EASTERN EUROPE
 
 
 

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

The Vietnam War era was full of turbulence. As early as 1962 anti-war demonstrations were being held on college campuses throughout the country. Young men were burning their draft cards in defiance of authority. For the many these protests were more anti-draft than anti-war. It was not the war that bothered these young men it was the fear of having to fight it.

For others the war was a symbol of American oppression. They could not see that we were there to stop the oppression of the North Vietnamese.
As noble as they thought they were, their demonstrations to end the war had the opposite effect.

The following is the copy of an advertisement placed in newspapers throughout the country following antiwar demonstrations in late September 2001.  It was written by David Horowitz. I was recently cautioned by a Journalist  for using Mr.. Horowitz as a source. Apparently she had a problem with his current views.
 

"I AM a former anti-war activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962.

I appeal to all those young people who participated in "anti-war" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "anti-war" effort against America’s coming battle with international terrorism.
The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists.
The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "re-education camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called anti-war movement of the 1960s.

I say "so-called anti-war movement," because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America’s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat. Today the same people and their youthful followers are organizing the campus demonstrations against America’s effort to defend its citizens against the forces of international terrorism and anti-American hatred, responsible for the September attacks.

I know, better than most, the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to dissent. But I also know better than most, that there is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy, and sabotage of the nation’s defenses. In the 1960s and 1970s, the tolerance of anti-American hatreds was so high, that the line between dissent and treason was eventually erased. Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason. . I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons: to advance the cause of "social justice" and "peace." I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did –
especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of Indo-China who suffered grievously from our support for the Communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by America to the poorest and most humble of its citizens, and how rare its virtues are in the world at large.

If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant towards the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were well-meaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks.
This appeal is for those of you who are out there today attacking your country, full of your own self-righteousness, but who one day might also live to regret what you have done.
David Horowitz is editor-in-chief of Front Page Magazine.com  and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Mr... Horowitz speaks from the heart. He speaks from experience. He speaks of treason. He speaks the TRUTH. If America lost the will to win, it did so here in the States while we (the soldiers) were winning on the battle field.
DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

If Mr. Horowitz was correct in his assertion that war protesters sometimes crossed the line between true dissent and treason the one American went far beyond crossing the line. what follows is her story.

 Hanoi Jane in all her Glory, sits at an Anti Aircraft Gun in Hanoi and pretends she's shooting down America aircraft. How many American kids grew up without a father because of this "Wonderful??" woman.

 Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms.  Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam.

The following was  written by Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. "I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years.  I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi.  My North Vietnamese  captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs.  (My normal weight is 170  lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda.  I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different
from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel
placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released.  I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me."
This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never
include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.  There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.
 

Not only did Hanoi Jane go to Hanoi and betray her countrymen, she also broadcast radio messages from Hanoi.

The following public domain information is a transcript from the US Congress House Committee on Internal Security, Travel to Hostile Areas, HR 16742, 19-25 September, 1972, page 7671. (From the CompuServe Military Veteran's Forum.)

[Radio Hanoi attributes talk on DRV visit to Jane Fonda; from Hanoi in English to American servicemen involved in the Indo-china War, 1 PM GMT, 22 August 1972. Text: Here's Jane Fonda telling her impressions at the end of her visit to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam; (follows recorded female voice with American accent);]
This is Jane Fonda. During my two week visit in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, I've had the opportunity to visit a great many places and speak to a large number of people from all walks of life -- workers, peasants, students, artists and dancers, historians, journalists, film actresses, soldiers, militia girls, members of the women's union, writers.
 

I visited the (Dam Xuac) agricultural coop, where the silk worms are also raised and thread is made. I visited a textile factory, a kindergarten in Hanoi. The beautiful Temple of Literature was where I saw traditional dances and heard songs of resistance. I also saw unforgettable ballet about the guerrillas training bees in the south to attack enemy soldiers. The bees were danced by women, and they did their job well.

In the shadow of the Temple of Literature I saw Vietnamese actors and actresses perform the second act of Arthur Miller's play All My Sons, and this was very moving to me -- the fact that artists here are translating and performing American plays while US imperialists are bombing their country.

I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam -- these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.
I cherish the way a farmer evacuated from Hanoi, without hesitation, offered me, an American, their best individual bomb shelter while US bombs fell near by.
The daughter and I, in fact, shared the shelter wrapped in each others arms, cheek against cheek. It was on the road back from Nam Din, where I had witnessed the systematic destruction of civilian targets - schools, hospitals, pagodas, the facttories, houses, and the dike system.

As I left the United States two weeks ago, Nixon was again telling the American people that he was winding down the war, but in the rubble- strewn streets of Nam Din, his words echoed with sinister (words indistinct) of a true killer. And like the young Vietnamese woman I held in my arms clinging tome tightly -- and I pressed my cheek against hers -- I thought, this is a war against Vieetnam perhaps, but the tragedy is America's.

One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I've been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he'll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo-colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist.

I've spoken to many peasants who talked about the days when their parents had to sell themselves to land lords as virtual slaves, when there were very few schools and much illiteracy, inadequate medical care, when they were not masters of their own lives.

But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created -- being committed against them by Richhard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools -- the children learning, literacy -- illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives.
And after 4,000 years of struggling against nature and foreign invaders -- and the last 25 years, prior to the revolution, of struggling against French colonialism -- I don't think that the people of Vietnam are about to compromise in any way, shape or form about the freedom and independence of their country, and I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh.
[recording ends]

While I have spent way too much time on this traitor, I do so with intent. My intent is to demonstrate the effectiveness of her and her kind. She exemplifies the power the war protesters had.  She spoke and North Vietnam listened. They responded with determination and momentum. They had allies across America. Allies who were more powerful than all the ak-47s in Vietnam. Allies with the power of the ballotbox. Politicians were always conscious of the votes won or lost by their stance on the war. Thus traitors like Hanoi Jane caused the war to end the way it did.

 We won the war but came in second by act of Congress.
 

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

First in regards to Walter Cronkite:
In 1996 Kira Alabin conducted an interview for the Grand Times. here is a small excerpt from that interview.

    GT...Don't you think a journalist's personal opinions come into play?

    WC... The mark of a professional journalist is the we do adhere to an ethic. A professional journalist recognizes his or her prejudices and biases and avoids them in writing and reporting.  There is no place in journalism for biased reporting on the front page. There is no place for subjective personal opinions to creep in.

Second in regards to how the Hanoi Government was influenced:

All one need do is read the book written by General Giap, Commander of NVA Forces.  Giap  clearly indicated that the NVA troops in the south were desperately short of supplies. He also explained that the NVA had been defeated on the battlefield time after time. As a result moral amongst the NVA troops was at its lowest point ever in 1968. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale.
When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender. At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA.
They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy -- there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win
Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968. Today, there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was  built with the donations made by the American public. Although Giap did not mention each and every protester's name in his book, many of us will never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget the names Jane, Tom and Walter
 
 

While I firmly believe we did not lose the war in Vietnam, I am convinced that no one won. It is a simple fact that we did lose 58,212 of America's bravest young men and women. The potential of these people is immeasurable.
Their possible contributions to our society will never be know. Add to that the thousands of young men who came back with scars both physical and psychological that will never be the same as when they left for Vietnam and you will begin to see the great loss suffered by this country.
Every man and woman who served in Vietnam was changed by the experience. some for the better and some for the worse. How each individual adapted to that change was different. Each of us that was there lost something in Vietnam. Something we will never be able to get back. We lost our youth.... our age of innocence. Most of us gave it in service to our country and would do so again this is the price of war for all warriors. The price for the country they serve is measured in how that nation treats its former warriors. It was not the warrior who lost the war in Vietnam... It was the nation back home.
 So DON'T TELL ME WE LOST
 
 

Now Available at cafepres.com http://www.cafepress.com/namvet

HOME PHOTOS THAT CHANGED THE WAR   Embassy Attack       Saigon Execution       Kent State       My Lai       Napalm Attack     MOVIE REVIEW

VIETNAM VETERAN LIST LARRY DAN BOB BURT BILL DAVE GARY SAM RICHARD JEANETTE KURT LYLE ROB KAREN RON TOM DON TONY PETER JOE FROM THE WALL THROUGH THE EYES THE SHADOW OF THE BLADE DENNIS HARTER MEMORIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM LT BOBBY ROSS MUSIC

DON'T TELL ME WE LOST OTHER VIETNAM WAR INFORMATION POW/MIA INFORMATION WALTER CRONKITE AND CBS NEWS PROTESTORS HANOI JANE HANOI JOHN MYTHS AND FACTS SPECIAL TRIBUTES American Legion Post # 318 Morton, Illinois

FOR VETERANS ONLY WHAT IS PTSD? PTSD info for spouses How to find a buddy WHAT IS AGENT ORANGE? VA CLAIM ASSISTANCE   NAM VET WEB DESIGN STUDENT COMMENTS