From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:49:05 CDT

In article <1992Oct3.041929.11894@den.mmc.com> whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct1.234404.7583@ntmtv>, harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep30.210635.7530@news2.cis.umn.edu>, charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
>|> |> In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu
>|> |> (Mark McCullough) writes:
>|> |> 
>|> |> > The press was praised by the enemy for helping cause the US to fail to win
>|> |> > the Vietnam war.  How can you justify this biased and non-factualreporting
>|> |> > of the press?
>|> |> 
>|> |> Baloney.  The press had very little to do with the American people turning
>|> |> against the war.  No more than the Soviet press had to do with the Russian
>|> |> people turning against the war in Afganistan.  I think all those casualties
>|> |> and nothing accomplished was the cause.
>|> |> 
>|> 
>|> Salami. The press had everything to do with the American people... 
>|> In the case of the Soviets, they were beaten by technology, (in the form
>|> of Stinger missiles), and glasnost. 
>|> In the case of the US, we lost because we weren't willing to bleed 
>|> forever, and the press shoved the point home nightly in graphic detail.
>|>  
>|> If you still think they were similiar, ask yourself, how long did it
>|> take North Vietnam to overun the South after the US left compared
>|> to the same situation when the Soviets left Afghanistan. 
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Howard Hart
>|> 
>
>Tofu cakes! I do agree with Howard. But I'd like add some of my thoughts.
>The Peoples anti-aircraft batteries (or whatever they were called) shot
>down a lot of B-52's. Bamboo and mud can't do that. The NV had their own
>technology and used it. The U.S. press provided the same function as glasnost.
>It just wasn't a new idea to the U.S.. _Information to form opinions with._
>Since the treaty ending our envolvement was 1973 and Siagon was taken in
>late 1975, lets say 18 months to overun. How long has the Red Army been back
>home? Two years? I'd say some of the similarities have yet to develope.
>
I don't have a fascinating deli meat to express, so insert your own here.
FYI, it is AAA (anti-aircraft artillery, a battery is an indication as to
how many platforms).  Where did Vietnam get these AA wpns? From USSR.  Set
up by USSR people.  How many B-52's were shot down?  _Very_ few if any.
The B-52's tended to fly high enough that only SAMs were effective, and
they were not wasted in areas where active SAMs were.  Try looking at the
air war stats sometime.  We lost several tactical aircraft, but much fewer
strategic aircraft.  Besides, do you know how hard it is to take down a plane
as big as a B-52?  It is a _real_ big aircraft.  If you don't realize how
big, then try standing in a street where a B-52 is lined up, and under 1K
and appears to be flying right towards you.  Incredible experience.  Yes
the Press gave information to form opinions with.  But how was this information
presented?  In a manner that predisposed the viewer towards a certain viewpoint,
that which the reporter had selected.  I find it interesting, and somewhat
baffling, how reporters said that such and such battle, which today is 
considered a _military_ victory, was a _military_ defeat.  That was done,
(see the posts on the reporting of Tet), and that is what I mean by the
problems with the press.  I haven't even begun to look at the presses
behavior back in the states, but that is a much muddier area.

:)M^2


Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam