The deadliest American war was NOT civil war '61-65. It was King Phillip's war 1665-66.

[oletex]

Which pitted New Englanders against native Americans. At least as a % of the population is concerned. That is just one of a ton of little known wars that shaped history. In fact in the 5500 years of so called recorded history only 292 years had no on going war(s). Such as the African Slave wars. Right here in the new world if you ask the common citizen how many wars we have fought they will likely say about 6. Civil war 1 or the American Revolution, The war of 1812, The American Civil War, The Spanish-American war (maybe), WW1, WW2, Korea (maybe), Vietnam, Iraq. Some combination of those. Actually that answer would be about 5% of the wars Americans have waged. The correct count being over a 100 that Americans actively participated in. Backed to some degree by our government.

The longest on-going and active war lasted an incredible 1,049 years. And was fought between China and Vietnam which was fighting for their freedom from China. We should have used that lesson before we waded into our foul adventure in Vietnam. BTW, almost as soon as the south ultimately fell China actually invaded the just united north and south and was quickly ejected from that country. Not 10% of Americans know that since not many were paying attention.

 

[whitepug6]

Which pitted New Englanders against native Americans. At least as a % of the population is concerned. That is just one of a ton of little known wars that shaped history. In fact in the 5500 years of so called recorded history only 292 years had no on going war(s). Such as the African Slave wars. Right here in the new world if you ask the common citizen how many wars we have fought they will likely say about 6. Civil war 1 or the American Revolution, The war of 1812, The American Civil War, The Spanish-American war (maybe), WW1, WW2, Korea (maybe), Vietnam, Iraq. Some combination of those. Actually that answer would be about 5% of the wars Americans have waged. The correct count being over a 100 that Americans actively participated in. Backed to some degree by our government.

The longest on-going and active war lasted an incredible 1,049 years. And was fought between China and Vietnam which was fighting for their freedom from China. We should have used that lesson before we waded into our foul adventure in Vietnam. BTW, almost as soon as the south ultimately fell China actually invaded the just united north and south and was quickly ejected from that country. Not 10% of Americans know that since not many were paying attention.

Keep reading and keep learning! Don't give up! Drive that ignorance out of you!

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Um, there was no America then....so , ya know..... And I doubt it. Tell me how many died?

 

[oletex]

Um, there was no America then....so , ya know..... And I doubt it. Tell me how many died?

America was first tagged by that name by the international map maker in about 1557 when the new global map was illustrated and was commonly called that from even before that date. And in answer to your question and doubt; Notice the post says it was the deadliest as a % of the population. And it was by far. Over 300K native Americans died alone. Not to mention ever how many whites died.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Um, there was no America then....so , ya know..... And I doubt it. Tell me how many died?

There were actually 3 Americas then, North, Central and South.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

America was first tagged by that name by the international map maker in about 1557 when the new global map was illustrated and was commonly called that from even before that date. And in answer to your question and doubt; Notice the post says it was the deadliest as a % of the population. And it was by far. Over 300K native Americans died alone. Not to mention ever how many whites died.

Not OUR America....and I doubt that number very much. Just like the internet folklore going around that says's 100m indians were killed during the Indian wars.....never that many

 

[HeulenHund2]

Um, there was no America then....so , ya know..... And I doubt it. Tell me how many died?

There were actually 3 Americas then, North, Central and South.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

Which pitted New Englanders against native Americans. At least as a % of the population is concerned. That is just one of a ton of little known wars that shaped history. In fact in the 5500 years of so called recorded history only 292 years had no on going war(s). Such as the African Slave wars. Right here in the new world if you ask the common citizen how many wars we have fought they will likely say about 6. Civil war 1 or the American Revolution, The war of 1812, The American Civil War, The Spanish-American war (maybe), WW1, WW2, Korea (maybe), Vietnam, Iraq. Some combination of those. Actually that answer would be about 5% of the wars Americans have waged. The correct count being over a 100 that Americans actively participated in. Backed to some degree by our government.

The longest on-going and active war lasted an incredible 1,049 years. And was fought between China and Vietnam which was fighting for their freedom from China. We should have used that lesson before we waded into our foul adventure in Vietnam. BTW, almost as soon as the south ultimately fell China actually invaded the just united north and south and was quickly ejected from that country. Not 10% of Americans know that since not many were paying attention.

If we'd gone about Vietnam the right way, it would've been over in 3-4 years. The fence sitting, inclusion of civilian media, and captiulation to public opinion sealed our fate. If you go to war, you do so to win decisively. Kennedy & Johnson wanted no part of doing it the right way. Outside of a few minor conflicts, the last time we went to war the right way was WWII.

 

[oletex]

Not OUR America....and I doubt that number very much. Just like the internet folklore going around that says's 100m indians were killed during the Indian wars.....never that many

(1) It was very much America.

(2) You can have your doubts but at some point since you were not there to document each and every death or incident, you have to rely on recorded history. Just finished a book on little known wars and if the numbers are wrong the guy quoting them has some pretty impressive documentation backing him up. Most of the native American deaths were caused by displacement and resulting disease. Most all 100% a result of the war/wars.

Granted that's not a lot (300K) as a raw number when you compare to some of the modern day socialists/leftists government actions. For instance the Russians killed as many as 30 million of their citizens during Stalin's rampages in the 20th century. Hitler National Socialists killed about 6 million Jews and various other "undesirables" and WW11 losses were horrendous. Pol Pot and his exterminations killed 5 million Cambodians. But even they paled in comparison to the Red Chinese Great Leap Forward (1958-61 I believe) which caused an incredible 45 Million deaths in the creating of agricultural collectives. Add that to the 5 million more who died in the '1966-76 Cultural Revolution and 50 millon is getting on up there. Makes the Castro Bros whom our president is busy rehabbing the reputations of, look like saints. About 12 million Africans died in the trans Atlantic slave wars. Most at the hands of African tribes and Chiefs trying to enslave and sell off other Africans. But some were actually whites whose lives were taken in North African slave raids as far north as Iceland but primarily the British Isles. Man has been inherently evil to his fellow man.

Taken as % in total drop in population it is remarkable to understand that the population loss of Ireland from over 1.6 million to just over 600K during the drive to colonize America by the Brits. Now some of these deaths/deportations as slaves were caused by the ongoing Irish rebellions. But most were just a rush to colonize and the using of the poor to do so. But that is another only related story.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

(1) It was very much America.

(2) You can have your doubts but at some point since you were not there to document each and every death or incident, you have to rely on recorded history. Just finished a book on little known wars and if the numbers are wrong the guy quoting them has some pretty impressive documentation backing him up. Most of the native American deaths were caused by displacement and resulting disease. Most all 100% a result of the war/wars.

Granted that's not a lot (300K) as a raw number when you compare to some of the modern day socialists/leftists government actions. For instance the Russians killed as many as 30 million of their citizens during Stalin's rampages in the 20th century. Hitler National Socialists killed about 6 million Jews and various other "undesirables" and WW11 losses were horrendous. Pol Pot and his exterminations killed 5 million Cambodians. But even they paled in comparison to the Red Chinese Great Leap Forward (1958-61 I believe) which caused an incredible 45 Million deaths in the creating of agricultural collectives. Add that to the 5 million more who died in the '1966-76 Cultural Revolution and 50 millon is getting on up there. Makes the Castro Bros whom our president is busy rehabbing the reputations of, look like saints. About 12 million Africans died in the trans Atlantic slave wars. Most at the hands of African tribes and Chiefs trying to enslave and sell off other Africans. But some were actually whites whose lives were taken in North African slave raids as far north as Iceland but primarily the British Isles. Man has been inherently evil to his fellow man.

Taken as % in total drop in population it is remarkable to understand that the population loss of Ireland from over 1.6 million to just over 600K during the drive to colonize America by the Brits. Now some of these deaths/deportations as slaves were caused by the ongoing Irish rebellions. But most were just a rush to colonize and the using of the poor to do so. But that is another only related story.

Impossible. The United States of American didn't exist until 1776. So there's that. And there weren't that many ppl here and not that many if any major battles. Now if this author is attributing deaths from getting sick to the white man...well my guess is this is a left wing kook manipulating the numbers....

 

[oletex]

You stand alone in speaking of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA and claiming that the area between Mexico and Canada was not called America before 1776.. But what the heck I think you just want to argue. LOL! It really is no big deal, it is what you say it was. So there. As for the other I'm taking the credits and research references at face value. Maybe you should grab a copy of the book and challenge the author. As far as counting disease in war situations then I don't know who you would complain too in order to set that record straight. More than half what the US government says were civil war deaths were attributed to disease. Our government has counted deaths due to disease in the field as war deaths as well in all the other wars since we evolved from AMERICA to The United States of America .

Have a nice day and good luck on your efforts. Your posts are entertaining, btw.

 

[whitepug6]

If we'd gone about Vietnam the right way, it would've been over in 3-4 years. The fence sitting, inclusion of civilian media, and captiulation to public opinion sealed our fate. If you go to war, you do so to win decisively. Kennedy & Johnson wanted no part of doing it the right way. Outside of a few minor conflicts, the last time we went to war the right way was WWII.

OK, let's play this counterfactual game. I'm curious to see if you understand the big picture better than JFK and LBJ did. What date do you want to declare war on North Vietnam and begin fighting "the right way"? February 8, 1962, with the establishment of MACV? August 2-4, 1964, shortly after the Tonkin Gulf incident? February 7, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on Camp Holloway at Pleiku and the withdrawal of all American dependents from South Vietnam? June 10, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on the Special Forces base at Dong Xoai? We'll move on to the next steps once you decide what date to begin.

 

[shonuff253]

OK, let's play this counterfactual game. I'm curious to see if you understand the big picture better than JFK and LBJ did. What date do you want to declare war on North Vietnam and begin fighting "the right way"? February 8, 1962, with the establishment of MACV? August 2-4, 1964, shortly after the Tonkin Gulf incident? February 7, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on Camp Holloway at Pleiku and the withdrawal of all American dependents from South Vietnam? June 10, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on the Special Forces base at Dong Xoai? We'll move on to the next steps once you decide what date to begin.

Pug I've often heard people say this about the Vietnam War but in your opinion is there anyway that the U.S. could have won that war? Looking through history, being an invading force and having to fight a determined insurgency is one of the most difficult engagements to fight and win. I really don't know how we could have won that war without totally and completely decimating the North and and Viet Cong sympathizers in the south, killing millions in the process.

 

[whitepug6]

Pug I've often heard people say this about the Vietnam War but in your opinion is there anyway that the U.S. could have won that war? Looking through history, being an invading force and having to fight a determined insurgency is one of the most difficult engagements to fight and win. I really don't know how we could have won that war without totally and completely decimating the North and and Viet Cong sympathizers in the south, killing millions in the process.

I agree. Consider this: By 1968, the US had more than 550,000 troops on the ground in South Vietnam and could not even secure the capital city of Saigon, much less occupy the provinces of the country. The US Air Force and Navy dropped more than 7 million tons of ordnance on Vietnam, 3 times the total amount the US dropped in Europe and Asia during World War II, and accomplished very little in demoralizing the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese government.

Right now I am working on a project: I am editing an Army officer's diary. He served in the MACV headquarters from 1965 to 1966 and this is what he wrote on July 1, 1965 that might answer your question better than I can...

These are his handwritten words, I will transcribe below.

It might be worthwhile to jot down some topics and ideas right now to explain the reasons why we won’t be able to win over here.


NEVER REVEAL THESE TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN OUR CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS:

The US fighting man has lost the ability to take care of himself. In our headquarters, we employ Vietnamese typists, janitors, barbers, electricians, plumbers, PX clerks, interpreters, clerks, and assistants galore. Classified papers are strewn all over the place like confetti. And no one really knows whether our help are good guys or bad guys. For example, the chief VC leader in Saigon was employed by the Navy as a supply expert for many months until suspicion was raised due to unexplained loss of explosives under his control. He has been the man who has been setting the very effective bombs in the Saigon area.

The GI no longer is willing to cook his food, wash his dishes, or shine his shoes. He hires a Vietnamese to do this for him.

The GI wants to fight from a hotel. Today I didn’t make very many points with some Very VIPs when I said: “It’s about time we started thinking about one-story tents instead of 4-story hotels for GIs.” This thing just can’t be won by the guy who wants to play the slot machines at the Rex BOQ.

We don’t have a spirit of closing with the enemy and destroying him by fire and maneuver. You can only win a war by taking aggressive offensive action, NOT by hiding in a foxhole or inside a walled compound.

Too many “advisors” like to advise by telephone. They find all sorts of excuses to avoid doing their duty. The place to advise is at the Vietnamese commander’s elbow when he’s in trouble, not when he’s in Saigon sitting in an office.

In my opinion, the South Vietnamese High Command does not want to win and prefers the dollar value of the status quo. Every American headquarters, BOQ, and important official has to be guarded by barbed wire and many MPs. But the Joint General Staff High Command of the Vietnamese Armed Forces HAS NO GUARDS AROUND IT WHATSOEVER. The VC have bombed the US Embassy, Tan Son Nhut Air Force Base, BOQs, and restaurants patronized by the US. But they have not bombed the Vietnamese High Command (unguarded), the Vietnamese Air Force units on Tan Son Nhut or Vietnamese restaurants.

The American public does not want to win this war because the cost will come high and hard. Higher taxes will be required to finance a win. More civilians will have to be drafted and the National Guard and Reserves will have to be called up.

All the Regular Army can say is “I’ll Try, Sir,” and we are slowly eroding the valuable young assets that we have. Older men like me are not very important, but I worry about losing the upcoming leaders through unconstructive loss or disillusionment.

And there are 10 or 15 other opinions I have now, but am too tired to put them to paper.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

OK, let's play this counterfactual game. I'm curious to see if you understand the big picture better than JFK and LBJ did. What date do you want to declare war on North Vietnam and begin fighting "the right way"? February 8, 1962, with the establishment of MACV? August 2-4, 1964, shortly after the Tonkin Gulf incident? February 7, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on Camp Holloway at Pleiku and the withdrawal of all American dependents from South Vietnam? June 10, 1965, after the Viet Cong attack on the Special Forces base at Dong Xoai? We'll move on to the next steps once you decide what date to begin.

Actually let's start it pre-1960s when we first sent "advisors" to South Vietnam....and you've already lost any argument you can possibly conjure, so you're response will be purely comic relief...

 

[whitepug6]

Actually let's start it pre-1960s when we first sent "advisors" to South Vietnam....and you've already lost any argument you can possibly conjure, so you're response will be purely comic relief...

From 1955-1960, there were never more than 350 US military advisers in South Vietnam.

 

[oletex]

From 1955-1960, there were never more than 350 US military advisers in South Vietnam.

How can you know that little tidbit yet be totally ignorant of a communist who favors dropping put of NATO and joining up with Putin's Russia being nominated by GB's Labour party? I don't expect an answer since that would expose you so carry on with your litany of your laughable and predictable personal insults. Which insult no one other than the person using them.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

From 1955-1960, there were never more than 350 US military advisers in South Vietnam.

Correct, which was exactly the problem. The correct action would have been to drop the entire force in-country and systematically push northward with no regard for political or public opinion. You're either all in or all out - there's no room for pussy footin somewhere in the middle, which is exactly what we did for 20 years.

 

[whitepug6]

Correct, which was exactly the problem. The correct action would have been to drop the entire force in-country and systematically push northward with no regard for political or public opinion. You're either all in or all out - there's no room for pussy footin somewhere in the middle, which is exactly what we did for 20 years.

OK, here's your first problem: Even with 537,800 total military personnel in South Vietnam by 30 SEP 1968, the US military could not even secure and occupy the host country of South Vietnam.

How can you "systematically push northward" when you do not have secure lines of communication for logistic support? Keep in mind you are doing this prior to 1960 when you don't have helicopters as tactical transport assets. How are you going to supply a force of 550,000 troops with beans and bullets without secure roads or rail lines? Most of South Vietnam's land lines of communication were interdicted by Viet Cong insurgents. Again, even with almost 550,000 troops in South Vietnam, the US could not secure the roads and rail lines of the host country. Airlift? There are not enough C-123's or C-130s in the PACOM theater to support that force. The best you will be able to do is use shallow-draft shipping from Saigon or Cam Ranh Bay to up-country coastal ports like Qui Nhon and Da Nang, but then you face the problem of getting the supplies from the coastal ports to inland destinations along interdicted roads.

Now, here's your second problem: If you "systematically push northward", the North Vietnamese Army will send several divisions unimpeded through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam to cut your supply lines, capture Saigon, and force the surrender of the South Vietnamese government. The remainder of the NVA will be waiting for you in North Vietnam while the force in South Vietnam encircles you. You'll face your own Dien Bien Phu.

 

[oletex]

OK, here's your first problem: Even with 537,800 total military personnel in South Vietnam by 30 SEP 1968, the US military could not even secure and occupy the host country of South Vietnam.

How can you "systematically push northward" when you do not have secure lines of communication for logistic support? Keep in mind you are doing this prior to 1960 when you don't have helicopters as tactical transport assets. How are you going to supply a force of 550,000 troops with beans and bullets without secure roads or rail lines? Most of South Vietnam's land lines of communication were interdicted by Viet Cong insurgents. Again, even with almost 550,000 troops in South Vietnam, the US could not secure the roads and rail lines of the host country. Airlift? There are not enough C-123's or C-130s in the PACOM theater to support that force. The best you will be able to do is use shallow-draft shipping from Saigon or Cam Ranh Bay to up-country coastal ports like Qui Nhon and Da Nang, but then you face the problem of getting the supplies from the coastal ports to inland destinations along interdicted roads.

Now, here's your second problem: If you "systematically push northward", the North Vietnamese Army will send several divisions unimpeded through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam to cut your supply lines, capture Saigon, and force the surrender of the South Vietnamese government. The remainder of the NVA will be waiting for you in North Vietnam while the force in South Vietnam encircles you. You'll face your own Dien Bien Phu.

 

[oletex]

Not to totally disagree with you but when we fully committed to the defense of south Viet Nam we had plenty of choppers and such (about 1967 or so) and even though no invasion is without peril and side bars it could have and would have been successfully accomplished. It would have taken a force of more than 550K however as the theatre would have been necessarily wider than S Viet Nam in order to keep from being flanked. And given our vast advantage of mobility and firepower it would have been far easier than rooting out the Japs in WW11. We would have simultaneously used the Navy to make pincer landings in the north and air drops to secure vital positions like air fields and bridges and so forth. And there was discussion of just that. The ultimate fear being from retaliation from 2 million Chinese troops coming across the border fearful of the very thing that caused such havoc in Korea. USA soldiers not stopping at the Vietnamese borders, carrying the attacks into China. The PAVN was a good, professional force but they were duck soup when we got them into the open or in a fixed, defensive position. If they had 2 million troops who would stand and fight, 2 million would have died and been captured. I know. We would have lost troops as well but they were dead meat in that scenario.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

OK, here's your first problem: Even with 537,800 total military personnel in South Vietnam by 30 SEP 1968, the US military could not even secure and occupy the host country of South Vietnam.

How can you "systematically push northward" when you do not have secure lines of communication for logistic support? Keep in mind you are doing this prior to 1960 when you don't have helicopters as tactical transport assets. How are you going to supply a force of 550,000 troops with beans and bullets without secure roads or rail lines? Most of South Vietnam's land lines of communication were interdicted by Viet Cong insurgents. Again, even with almost 550,000 troops in South Vietnam, the US could not secure the roads and rail lines of the host country. Airlift? There are not enough C-123's or C-130s in the PACOM theater to support that force. The best you will be able to do is use shallow-draft shipping from Saigon or Cam Ranh Bay to up-country coastal ports like Qui Nhon and Da Nang, but then you face the problem of getting the supplies from the coastal ports to inland destinations along interdicted roads.

Now, here's your second problem: If you "systematically push northward", the North Vietnamese Army will send several divisions unimpeded through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam to cut your supply lines, capture Saigon, and force the surrender of the South Vietnamese government. The remainder of the NVA will be waiting for you in North Vietnam while the force in South Vietnam encircles you. You'll face your own Dien Bien Phu.

You've conpletely missed the point, yet again. How do you make it through life when you're always getting in your own way?

 

[shonuff253]

Correct, which was exactly the problem. The correct action would have been to drop the entire force in-country and systematically push northward with no regard for political or public opinion. You're either all in or all out - there's no room for pussy footin somewhere in the middle, which is exactly what we did for 20 years.

If a country can't when public opinion amongst it's populist for the need to go to war then the question should be asked should that war be fought in the first place. You won't find a world/military leader any where or at any time in history that will say public opinion doesn't matter during a time of war. To suggest that's the case is crazy. Winning public support for a war effort is crucial because who the hell do you think will be fighting the war...........that countries populist that's who. So if citizens of a nation don't support a war that their leaders have pushed upon them, how successful do you think that country would be in winning that war. Public opinion and support was just as crucial to winning WWII as the men fighting it.

Also as far as "drop the entire force in-country and systematically push northward", between 67' - 69' the US averaged their highest troop concentration of the entire conflict at 527K and also accounted for almost half of the total number of American KIA for the entire war in just those 3 years. Lambs to the slaughter is the only thing that comes to mind when thinking of such a strategy. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of our nation throwing away her greatest resources for nothing.

 

[whitepug6]

You've conpletely missed the point, yet again. How do you make it through life when you're always getting in your own way?

LOL Oh, OK. I made the mistake of taking you seriously. You're like one of those old coots in the barbershop who just talk out of your ass without any knowledge of what you're talking about.

 

[oletex]

LOL Oh, OK. I made the mistake of taking you seriously. You're like one of those old coots in the barbershop who just talk out of your ass without any knowledge of what you're talking about.

What..... more coots! I tell you something has got to be done with these old coots and the damn barber shops that harbor and hide them out. LOL!

 

[whitepug6]

Not to totally disagree with you but when we fully committed to the defense of south Viet Nam we had plenty of choppers and such (about 1967 or so) and even though no invasion is without peril and side bars it could have and would have been successfully accomplished. It would have taken a force of more than 550K however as the theatre would have been necessarily wider than S Viet Nam in order to keep from being flanked. And given our vast advantage of mobility and firepower it would have been far easier than rooting out the Japs in WW11. We would have simultaneously used the Navy to make pincer landings in the north and air drops to secure vital positions like air fields and bridges and so forth. And there was discussion of just that. The ultimate fear being from retaliation from 2 million Chinese troops coming across the border fearful of the very thing that caused such havoc in Korea. USA soldiers not stopping at the Vietnamese borders, carrying the attacks into China. The PAVN was a good, professional force but they were duck soup when we got them into the open or in a fixed, defensive position. If they had 2 million troops who would stand and fight, 2 million would have died and been captured. I know. We would have lost troops as well but they were dead meat in that scenario.

You are right with your facts but the original poster said he wanted to carry out the buildup and invasion of North Vietnam in 1960, which was prior to the Army's development and use of helicopters as tactical airlift and offensive weapons. For example, the 1st Cav Div (Airmobile) was still in the theoretical stage in 1960.

 

[whitepug6]

If a country can't when public opinion amongst it's populist for the need to go to war then the question should be asked should that war be fought in the first place. You won't find a world/military leader any where or at any time in history that will say public opinion doesn't matter during a time of war. To suggest that's the case is crazy. Winning public support for a war effort is crucial because who the hell do you think will be fighting the war...........that countries populist that's who. So if citizens of a nation don't support a war that their leaders have pushed upon them, how successful do you think that country would be in winning that war. Public opinion and support was just as crucial to winning WWII as the men fighting it.

Also as far as "drop the entire force in-country and systematically push northward", between 67' - 69' the US averaged their highest troop concentration of the entire conflict at 527K and also accounted for almost half of the total number of American KIA for the entire war in just those 3 years. Lambs to the slaughter is the only thing that comes to mind when thinking of such a strategy. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of our nation throwing away her greatest resources for nothing.

You are very right.

 

[whitepug6]

What..... more coots! I tell you something has got to be done with these old coots and the damn barber shops that harbor and hide them out. LOL!

I'd prefer they stay in the barbershop.