During the Easter Offensive why did the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) lose Hue?
353145
wikipedia says:\n\nDuring the initial battle, occupation and retaking of Huế, forty percent of the city was destroyed during 26 days of intense combat, and 116,000 of the Huế's 140,000 population were left homeless. The U.S. and South Vietnamese forces claimed over 5000 communist forces were killed within the city, and another 3000 in the immediately surrounding area.\n\nIn other words, they were outgunned.
327116
It wasn't all that different from Iraq.  The US decided that we wanted to prevent communist domination, in this case of S. Vietnam.  We said it was to help freedom and democracy, but it was really about a power struggle.  So like the freedom fighters we are, we stuck or noses in to prevent S. Vietnam from Northern invasion.  However, the North had their own supporters like Russia.  As the war lingered on and the draft was forcing young men to fight a war that wasn't directly threatening our national security, a lot of people disagreed...many innocent victims, us and them.  War heros returned to an unpopular welcoming.  The famous boxer Mohammed Ali refused to go and they took his title away from him.  The whole thing sucked.  Not too many guys really wanted to go and many moved to Canada, if their number was picked.  Hippies protested with peace signs while the smoked grass and dropped acid.  I missed a lot of this...a bit young, but I know other guys that were there.  It was no picnic.  One buddy of mine was so ready to fight.  He was #1 in boot camp, ready to storm the beach.  He got his wish, first off the boat, stepped on a mine, blew his face off, lost an eye, half a nose, half a mouth, a bunch of hair, and a little brains, while Nixon and Kissinger watched this whole thing go down the toilet.  It was a stalemate.  Rambo couldn't do it justice.  We finally bailed out.
100360
I can't believe no one gave you an answer to this question yet, so I've dug up some information for you. \n\nThe end of the war is easy to find. That would be April 30th, 1975 just before noon when South Vietnamese President Minh announced unconditional surrender to NVA forces. \n\nThe beginning is much more difficult to determine. \n\nThe history books would indicate that the start date could be as early as 1961 when a treaty for military and economic assistance was signed between South Vietnam and the U.S. With the first official military action happening in 1964. There is a real possibility that the U.S. Military was fighting in Vietnam much earlier than 1964. \n\nIf you ask the Vietnamese, the war could have started when the Japanese tried to control the region during World War II. War was pretty much a staple of their lives until 1975. Since then, there has been relative peace in Vietnam with exception of short boarder disputes between China and Cambodia.
122404
Official figured from the Army on Vietnam service and ethnicity state the following:\n\n88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% listed as others.\n\nIn the United States, according to the 1970 census, 87 percent of the population was categorized "white", 11.1 percent "black", and 5.9 percent "hispanic."\n\nIt would seem that "white" soldier were overrepresented by about 1 percent, "black soldiers" underrepresented by about .5 percent and hispanic soldiers by about 4 percent.  Of course, one has to assume error in both the census and the Army's tallies, so I would say that the ethnicity of the United States was probably well represented.  The socio-economic status of soliders was not, though.\n\nOther statistics:\n* 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.\n* 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.\n* 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1%\n (5,711)were black; 1.1% belonged to other races\n\n* 14.6% (1.530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.\n* 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.\n* Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.\n* Religion of Dead: Protestant--64.4%; Catholic--28.9%; other/none--6.7%. \n\nDisclaimer:taking advice from a person using Bubba as a screen name could be hazardous for your health. It has previously been known to impair judgement and result in unintended consequences and ugly scenes played out late at night in trailer parks.
1124531
That is an interesting question....\n\nThe obvious civil war between the communist North and the democratic South. The not so obvious civil war was probably between the Catholics and the Buddhist in South Vietnam. Howver, I think that can be described more as bloody protesting rather than a war.
827667
Vietnam won the Vietnam war because of the Communist country support.they will still win because the communist will still support them during the war
118057
Disrespect 'cause Vietnam was a lost for the US, and the most guys that fought it in there ...don't wanted to be there...
954873
OK in order of your examples.\nNapolean lost not because the Russians learned from their mistakes but because Napolean failed to account for the Russian Winter.  The Weather is what defeated Napolean, Not the Russians.\n\nHitler Lost because he failed to study History.  The Russian Winter is what did in the German Military.  The Russians gave up land knowing that the winter was coming up.  This gave them the time to re-group and gather up needed replacements and tanks (T-34).  \n\nViet Nam - The North Vietnamese gave up a high body count in turn for time.  Knowing that the US could not and would not stand for a high body count in return.  Remember that the US Military never lost an actual battle were the NVA soldiers stood and fought.  Guerilla style fighting is designed to cause maximum body counts in a short time.  You do not stand there and go toe to toe with your enemy but rather hit them and then run.  The US lost Viet Nam not becuase they were overly cocky but becuase the US Government lost its will to fight.
562696
The ground war thing in Vietnam was hard, just like it had been for the French in the 1950's. Guerrilla warfare used by the Viet Cong attacked and caused many casualties to larger U.S. forces. The U.S. had no answer to match these hit and run tactics. The other problem was American GI's had no idea who the enemy was because many people in the South supported Ho Chi Minh. The South Vietnamese government was unstable and corrupt, so people in the South liked the idea of a unified Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh knew the American public did not like blood, so as long as Americans were dying he knew the war was going his way. Poor public opinion at home ensured that an escalated ground war was out of the question. For example invading China.
909895
The North considered it a victory because they defeated the confederate army in the field costing irreplaceable men and supplies.\n\nThe Confederate army considered it a victory because they thought they had fought to union army to a stand still since the union army did not follow them in their retreat back to the south.\n\nThe real reason the union army did not follow up, was because they had to split their forces after the battle.\n\nHalf the union army had to force march to New York City to put down pro-confederate riots and to keep New York from succeeding from the union.and pulling out of the war altogether
359523
Cuz they lost....wow man what a question !
786132
The USA is obsessed with the concept of world dominance. It has refused to  learn from history and its experience in Vietnam. It could not prevent Vietnam from being a communist  state. It had fueled Afghanistan crisis and now trying to dose it off. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will not be that easy and the change of guard in White House will have least impact on taking such a decision.
1098602
They are two completely different scenarios.  Vietnam was an action to stop the North from invading the South.  America won every major battle in Vietnam, but arguably lost the war.  Why?  Because we would drive the North only so far and limited our actions against them.  They eventually signed a treaty, only to break it later after we pulled out.  Iraq is different in that we are fighting hostile Iraqi citizens in their own country, and not an opposing country tying to invade.  Vietnam actually had an end strategy, to supress the North into a treaty, which we accomplished momentarily anyway.  In Iraq, the heads of state have no idea what their exit stratigy is.
65298
Hi there.  I'm military, and I don't have any trouble seeing the parallels between the two. First, Viet Nam was a morally ambiguous war.  Lots of people thought we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and lots of people believed that our actions were doing more to prolong the war and harm the population than allowing the Communists to take over would have.  The enemy we fought was basically a guerilla force that used asymmetric warfare.  The management of the war was criticized as being (at times) militarily inept as well as fiscally wasteful.  Then, as now, there were unconvincing official pronouncements of progress from the administration's spin doctors. (How many times have we heard about the insurgency being played out, or that we had turned the corner, or that they were "on their last legs" as Dick Cheney said last summer?)  Then there's the whole sense that the war could drag on year after messy year without any clear hope of victory.      \n\n\nThere are, of course, important differences. In Viet Nam, there were front lines.  The enemy had territory, and they were far more numerous and cohesive than the Iraqi insurgency is.  The Viet Cong were an army, even if their hit hard then melt away tactics seem superficially like the Iraqi insurgents'.  US soldiers were largely draftees that did not want to be in the service at all, unlike our all-volunteer servicemen today.
890322
I heard it too. The Vietnamese must have taken that as an insult. \nBush avoided going to Vietnam when that war was going on, he has no idea of any lessons learned from Vietnam. How could he, he wasn't there. \nBush wanted instant success, that's why he pushed to invade Iraq on false pretenses. He also knows that his days are numbered once the war in Iraq ends, and war crimes investigations begin.
879242
Nixon has been one of the best president the US had together with Reagan in the last 50 years. Honorable peace? You think that by leaving the South Vietnamese helpless, it's a honorable peace that he has achieved? The pressure from the American public was too big and he had to withdraw. But, was the cause just? What did the North achieve? What were they fighting for? Communism? Where is that communism now? The American cause was a cause that was right and in the end it has proved that it were the North Vietnamese who have for something that they now do not believe... So many lives lost.... Is that honorable?
51833
Because they were actually waging war against their favorite enemy. No, not the vietnamese but the soviets. During the war, vietnam was divided into two. the northern part wanted to have a communist government, the bottom half wanted a democratic one. Though, it was the vietnam war, it was actually more of a US - USSR war. it can be remembered that Soviet Union (USSR, now mainly Russia) was a communist government while the US believed democracy. And so ever so often their ideologies would clash in wars like this. But the vietnam war was certainly more than about belief, it was also the newest world event for a military arms fashion show. The north was "backed" by the soviets and the south by the Americans. This was an oppurtunity for them to showcase their advancement in warfare. Each side were eager to show to each other and to the world their "impressive" toys and guns and thus informally crown who among the two was the stronger world power. Of course, neither would easily surrender but in the end the americans retreated and the south was captured by the north. Now, the vietnam war is always glorified by the USA as a symbol of their continued struggle for democracy in the world but in truth in that war as it now with iraq, the US was merely showing off their deadly jewelry even if it means meddling with the internal affairs of other countries leaving them in destruction.