What
SHOULD the United States Have Learned?
There
are a few important things that the United States should have learned
politically and militarily from the French loss to the Vietminh in the first
Vietnam War from 1946 to 1954.
Let
us start with what historians call the decisive battle of the war.1 Dien
Bien Phu was said to have been lost by the French within the first two days of
the battle.2 This particular battle was fought in early 1954 when the
Vietminh began receiving military assistance from both China and the Soviet
Union. Going into the battle the Vietminh hopelessly outnumbered the 12,000 French
soldiers with 50,000 main troops, another 50,000 support forces, 200,000
workers, an estimated 25,000 Chinese workers, not to mention the trucks,
artillery, supplies, food, ammunition, etc. that had been supplied by all three
constituents.3 This is clue one
for the United States: Vietnam had powerful allies in which they could obtain
military assistance. Moss mentions something that still resonates with me,
“General Navarre’s two fatal strategic errors were his underestimation of Vietminh
capabilities—and his over estimation of French capabilities during the
impending showdown battle.”4 This is clue
two for the United States: Do NOT underestimate the enemy and do NOT
overestimate yourself. With the Geneva Conference marked for May of 1954, General Giap
wanted to make this battle a statement. He wanted to completely crush the
French at Dien Bien Phu so that when they went to the conference that would
have much better leverage on the table.5 Clue
three for the United States: The Vietminh were skilled at political
maneuvers. They knew how to manipulate certain political situations to achieve
their goals. During this battle it was not only life or death for the Vietminh,
but for their country as well. They fought like champions securing point after
point until the French had nowhere to run. When one door closed, they did not just open another one, they made their own. Clue
four for the United States:
The Vietminh were skilled at military maneuvers and
were able to adapt and change plans at the drop of a hat.
The Vietminh were smart. Lastly,
I would like to talk about casualties for the battle of Dien Bien Phu. French
soldiers went away with 7,500 dead or wounded and the Vietminh sustained an
estimated 23,000 casualties.6 The Vietminh were willing to literally
throw as many men as necessary at the job to get it done with a result in their
favor. THIS is clue five for the United
States: You are fighting a bloodthirsty enemy with nothing to lose and
everything to gain, Beware.
Dien
Bien Phu really offers a small scale insight to the whole of the first Vietnam
War. Above we have five clues that the United States should have picked up on
for the future Vietnam War. There is one other important thing to mention when
it comes to what the US should have learned from the French defeat at Vietnam. Clue six for the United States: There is a reason
public opinion for the war went down in France to an almost nonexistent level.
Common sense would dictate that there might be a reason people have a low
public opinion of those specific War reasons and that opinion might not be
contained solely in France. Another thing that plays into this clue is that
during this time the media was ready and roaring to go. With the readily
available wartime information from journalists, stories, pictures, and more the
people at home got primary and secondary accounts of the brutal battles that
were going on overseas. In early wars like the American Revolution, the War of
1812, and the Civil War you did not get the full story 100% of the time, and you
did not get the full coverage like you do now. This is an important factor for
public opinion of a war.
Now
is a good time to mention some of Americas other faults when it came to
thoughts going into the second Vietnam War. America had this picture of what it
wanted for Vietnam even though we had NO real stakes in the matter. We sided
with France, who lost, so that is the end right? Wrong. We were bigger,
stronger, more technically savvy, and smarter than the French. We had more
drive, determination, and a better military prowess than the French, or so LBJ thought.7 We were going into this war to finish what the French had
started, but instead of expanding our empire, we wanted to stop the spread of
communism (or at least, that is what FDR said). The Vietminh strategy had not
changed one bit from the previous Vietnam War, they planned on using patience,
guerrilla warfare, and political tactics that wore down the enemy and undermined
their will to fight. 8 These points will also play a crucial part in
the second Vietnam War.
There
are a few main things the United States should have learned from the French
loss in the First Vietnam War. Firstly, Vietnam had powerful allies. Secondly,
the French underestimated the Vietminh and overestimated themselves; a problem
the United States also struggled with. Thirdly, The Vietminh were skilled in
political maneuvers. Fourthly, the Vietminh were skilled in military maneuvers
with an out of the box thinking. Fifthly, the Vietminh were willing to
sacrifice whatever it took to win their independence (A feeling the United
States should be familiar with). Lastly, Public opinion plays a crucial part in
modern day wars. In my opinion the United States did not pay close enough head
to the mistakes of the French, so justly, they were doomed to repeat them.
