quote:
Originally posted by Tomus:
"Eh"?? Nice and patronising.
Well that was not the intent but given your bold and unambiguous original statement then it is perhaps fitting.
quote:
To qualify,
Fine I have no problem with you doing so but please don't also at the same time complain about any critisism I have made of your previous comment. If you have to qualify your statement then it was obviously incorrect.
quote:
propaganda was less overt
Rubbish, US propaganda in the Vietnam war was hardly hidden. I don't think you understand how propaganda works in your use of overt. Like all propaganda they sought (as you state and I agree) to vilify the enemy and justify their any and every action in fighting him. Most US propaganda was of course of the Anti-Commie variety and this merely played to the US psyche. Propaganda only works if your audience can find some merit in it - Essentially it must have believability. Any propaganda which is overtly pure propaganda is of no use since it will not be believed. The truth must be kept covert but the believable lie (or misinformation) is disseminated overtly.
quote:
than in say WWII but unfettered press access to the fronline effectively neutralised the press releases made by the US military and leadership. So it failed.
Far from it, US propaganda on its own population worked very well for a long time. It was only much later that US public opinion shifted and they no longer were willing to tolerate their country's involvement in SE Asia. It really wasn't so much a failure of the propaganda per se but the length of the war which brought this about. War weariness had set in and the longer the conflict continued the more and more people knew and saw those who were dying and coming home wounded with pretty grim stories to tell. Even at the end many in the US still truly believed that they had been fighting against a Commie plot to take over the world bit by bit but they just didn't want to pay the price of stopping this with their own people. So the basic propaganda lie was still believed just not accepted as sufficient justification to continue.
Was it truly a Communist plot to takeover the region - No. Yes, the Russians did support the NVA with material and supplies (SA-6 Grail SAMs to begin with IIRC) but that was just part of the Cold War game of "war by proxy" which both the US and USSR played for years. However, the Vietnamese no more wanted rule by the USSR than they had previously done by the French, British and Dutch.
Unfortunately for the US they decided to flex their military might without (as usual) giving much thought to the real political situation in the region and the true cause of the strife therein. What did they learn from this? Probably nothing given their equally misguided decision to invade Iraq. US foreign policy has always been pretty gunboat mentality and short-sighted.
The point you make about "unfettered press access" is a pretty dodgy one - Arguably it isn't really true though I'd agree it was less restricted than it had been in WW2. I don't think you can really justify that as being a leading cause for the change.
Funny thing about Vietnam of course is that the NVA didn't even give support to the VC until the US attacked N Vietnam and forced them into the conflict. (The US even arranged some totally cocked-up attacks on N Vietnam prior to their official involvement by the deployment of mercenary troops from Indonesia.) Today Vietnam is one of the USA's best buddies in the region. They do not want their country to be again ruled by foreigners of any persuasion, be they communist or colonial, as had been the case in the past.
