The following is a compendium of the most virulent myths to come out of the
Vietnam War. Some of these myths, because they have been repeated so many
times, and have been showcased in some deplorable books and movies about
the war, have taken on the status of "fact" in the minds of an alarming number
of people. While some of these myths can be exposed as apocryphal tales by
examining the statistics compiled during and after the war by independent
sources, others are impossible to disprove (You can not "prove" a negative
hypothesis. All that one can do is examine the evidence and determine if
there is any susbstance to the allegations.
Statistical data was obtained from analysis of the Combat Area Casualty File
of 11/93 (CACF1193), and The Adjutant General's Center (TAGCEN) file of 1981.
Additional sources for factual data are listed below in the
bibliography.
The Tet Offensive Was a Communist
Victory Only In The Minds Of The Media
Blacks Served In Disproportionate
Numbers They Did Not
Most Men Who Served Were
Drafted Most Men Who Served (75%) Were Volunteers
Draft Dodgers Protested Against The
War They Protested Over The Fact They Had To Serve
Drug Use Was Rampant In
Vietnam Drug Use is Rampant In Berkeley, and
Hollywood
Fraggings Were Common In
Vietnam In fact they were rare
Prisoners Were Hurled From
Helicopters From the archives of the Beverly Hills National
Guard
American Atrocities Were
Widespread In fact, only two can be documented
Body Counts Were
Falsified If anything, we wildly underestimated
NVA dead
The 1968 Tet offensive was a total and complete miltary
disaster for the North Vietnamese Communists no matter how you look
at it. If you measure victory by territory gained or enemy killed, the North
Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong failed dismally in their attacks.
The NVA and VC had counted on a "People's Uprising" to carry them to victory,
however there was no such uprising. They did exactly what the American military
wanted them to do. They massed in large formations that were incredibly
vulnerable to the awesome fire support the U.S. Military was able to bring
to bear on them in a coordinated and devastating manner.
The NVA and VC attacked only ARVN installations with the exception of the
US Embassy in Saigon. Despite reports to the contrary by all major television
news networks and the print media, the VC sapper team of 15 men never entered
the chancery building and all 15 VC were dead within 6 hours of the attack.
They caused no damage to any property and managed to kill 4 US Army MPs,
and one Marine guard. The South Vietnamese Police tasked with guarding the
Embassy fled at the first sound of gunfire.
The NVA/VC launched major attacks on Saigon, Hue, Quang Tri City, Da Nang,
Nha Trang, Qui Nhon, Kontum City, Ban Me Thout, My Tho, Can Tho, and Ben
Tre. With the exception of the old imperial city of Hue, the NVA/VC were
forced to retreat within 24 hours of the beginning of the offensive. In the
process they suffered devastating losses among the southern VC cadres. Using
the southern VC as the spearhead of these attacks was an intentional device
on the part of the North Vietnamese politcal leadership. They did not want
to share power with the southerners after the war, so they sent them out
to what was inevitable slaughter. The NVA mainforce battalions were held
in "reserve" according to Vo Nguyen Giap, in order to "exploit any
breakthroughs".
In the first week of the attack the NVA/VC lost 32,204 confirmed killed,
and 5,803 captured. US losses were 1,015 KHA, while ARVN losses were 2,819
killed. ARVN losses were higher because the NVA/VC, reluctant to enter into
a set-piece battle with US forces, attacked targets defended almost exclusively
by South Vietnamese troops.
Casualties among the people whom the NVA/VC claimed to be "liberating" were
in excess of 7,000, with an additional 5,000 tortured and murdered by the
NVA/VC in Hue and elsewhere. In Hue alone, allied forces discovered over
2,800 burial sites containing the mutilated bodies of local Vietnamese teachers,
doctors, and political leaders.
Only the news media seemed to believe that in some way the Communists had
achieved a "victory". To put this in perspective, the news media would have
reported the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler's last ditch attempt to stop the
allied forces in Europe, as a "disaster" for the Allies. They would have
said that "despite Allied efforts, the enemy still has the means to mount
a major offensive, and therefore the war in Europe is unwinable". Sound goofy?
Well, that is exactly what Walter Cronkite said on national TV after the
1968 Tet offensive. He did not say this in WWII, mostly because the news
media operated under strict war time secrecy laws that discouraged any negative
reporting. For example, in WWII it was expressly forbidden to show the bodies
of dead American soldiers in any newsreel footage or photograph. Any photos
or film that did so were simply confiscated by military censors. When was
the last time you saw a history book that had photos of dead GIs? Find a
newspaper photo in the New York Times morgue that depicts a dead American
soldier in WWII. Would there have been pressure on the home front to end
our involvement in WWII had the media been permitted to show live pictures
of GIs who had lost both legs to a German mine? Or photos of the thousands
of Marines who were dying to capture islands no one could even find on a
map? Islands which we gave back after the war.
In Vietnam however the media operated under no such restrictions and were
free to go wherever they wanted and film and photograph whatever they wanted.
Despite this the overwhelming majority of the media never left the comfort
of Saigon. The film clips of Morley Safer, Charles Kuralt, and others which
seem to depict raging firefights in the background are very likely staged
events. If you look closely at these film clips you will notice that the
people in the background are acting rather nonchalant for people in a firefight.
Only the reporter seems to be crouching low to avoid being "hit". Keep in
mind that by carefully composing a scene, a camerman can make a small crowd
of people look like a mob of thousands. So too can a couple of people firing
M-16s be made to appear as if a firefight is in progress.
Of all the men and women who served in Vietnam, 275,000, or 10.6%, were black.
The remaining 88.4% were Caucasian. At the time of the Vietnam War, Blacks
represented approximately 12.5% of the total U.S. population.
There is a persistent myth that Blacks were used as "cannon fodder", being
assigned to infantry units where they were forced to "walk point". This is
not supported by the casualty data which indicates that 86.8% of those killed
in action were Caucasian, while 12.1%, or 5,711, were Black. Again, this
number is approximately the same as the percentage of Blacks in the general
population during the war.
It appears as if this myth was generated by the anti-war movement in an effort
to bolster their ranks by convincing Blacks (who could hardly be losing sleep
over the fact that some white college students might have their education
interrupted by military service) that they were being used as pawns to be
sacrificed.
Only 25% of those who actually served on the ground in Vietnam were drafted.
The remaining 75% volunteered for the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and
Coast Guard. Less than 38% of those killed in action were draftees. So contrary
to the myth popular at the time, being drafted during the Vietnam War Era
was not a "death sentence".
The fact is they protested because they did not want to be inducted into
the military. It is worth noting that when the draft was ended by Congress
in 1972, anti-war protests almost ceased entirely. Protests after this period
were conducted mostly by the hard-core anti-war movement that had close ties
to the North Vietnamese Communist Party. For these people, protesting was
a job. They derived their income from donations to the movement so despite
the fact that the average American male no longer cared about the war (because
he was no longer in danger of having to serve), the anti-war cadre continued
to protest.
While protesting against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam made some sense
for those who were desperately trying to avoid military service, it is not
clear why they displayed Viet Cong flags at their rallies and protest marches.
People who today claim they were only expressing their conscience cannot
explain why they needed to display the flag of the enemy, and burn the American
Flag.
The anti-war movement has been often and erroneously referred to as the "Peace"
movement. This is a non-sequitar since despite their rhetoric to the contrary,
they never actually called for "peace" per se, only an end to American
involvement in the war. They actually did not seem to care very much about
the poor Vietnamese peasant that they accused American soldiers of killing.
Especially if the North Vietnamese and the VC did the killing. And when Pol
Pot went on a killing spree, they uttered not a sound. When the North Vietnamese
invaded Cambodia, they said not a word. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan
the did not protest. Why? Ask them.
The Vietnam War lasted for over 10 years. During that period 58,202 Americans
lost their lives in an attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Republic
of Vietnam. To put this number in perspective, approximately 56,000 Americans
are killed every year by drunk drivers. Yet Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda do
not lead violent demonstrations outside the Seagrams building.
Much has been made of drug use among personnel in Vietnam. What is ironic
is that the overwhelming percentage of American drug users were civilians,
and a very high percentage of anti-war activists were drug users. The number
of drug-related arrests by Military Police officers and CID agents during
the war actually represents a much smaller percentage of drug use among the
military than in the overall civilian population during the Vietnam War.
Further, drug use in Vietnam was confined almost exclusively to personnel
stationed at base camps and other relatively secure installations. Drug use
in the field was rare and was discouraged even by personnel who used drugs
in the rear. The reasoning was fairly straightforward: drug use in the field
endangered lives. It was not a "victimless crime" in the field. Peer pressure
was usually enough to discourage drug use when in the field. Those who were
stupid enough to use drugs in the field were often beaten senseless by their
non-drug-using comrades. Those that persisted were usually killed in action,
sometimes by hostile fire, and occasionally, tragically, by friendly fire.
The term "fragging" was coined for the intentional murder of a superior officer
or non-commissioned officer since a fragmentation hand grenade, or "frag",
was the weapon used in some of these incidents. Given the total number of
these incidents (230) over the 10-plus years of American involement, from
a percentage standpoint you were far less likely to be a homicide victim
in Vietnam than on the streets of Berkeley, California.
Given that everyone who was in-country from the spring of 1969 to 1972 was
keenly aware that U.S. troops were being withdrawn from Vietnam, it is nothing
short of a miracle that morale remained as good as it did (which wasn't very)
during this period. It was precisely during this period that the overwhelming
majority of homicides occurred. But it must be taken into account that the
soldiers who were sent to Vietnam during this period, especially the draftees,
had been bombarded for years by the anti-war movement and were more inclined
to question authority, especially military authority.
It was also no help to good order and discipline when judges started giving
convicted criminals the choice of jail or the Army. You can be assured that
even an understrength rifle platoon would have preferred to remain understrength
than to be given sociopaths as replacements. This misguided policy on the
part of state judiciary systems was part of the reason that discipline began
to erode from about 1970 onwards. A good number of the intentional homicides
committed during this period were perpetrated by these sociopaths.
Finally, it must be understood that intentional homicides, especially of
superior officers and non-commissioned officers, have occurred in every war
in history. This includes Americans in WWII and Korea.
Everyone who served in Vietnam at some point heard the story of a VC captive
being hurled from the open door of a Huey in flight. According to the story,
the hapless VC was tossed out to scare the other VC in the Huey into "talking".
Variants of this story have the hapless VC thrown out with a rope around
his neck, the other end of the rope tied to one of the Huey's skids. One
hears this story so much that you have to wonder if any helicopters were
used for anything other than dropping live VC captives from great heights.
And it is a mystery as to what, exactly, anyone would have done with a captive
who wanted to "talk" because almost no one spoke Vietnamese, an extremely
difficult language to learn and pronounce. Because Vietnamese relies a great
deal on tonal inflection, it is entirely possible to inadvertently insult
someone while trying to ask a straightforward question. So given this, what
was anyone going to do, exactly, with a VC captive who was blabbing his head
off?
This story seems to have grown a big tail from what was probably its actual
roots. I for one witnessed a NVA or VC body dropped from a Huey. It occurred
on September 25th, 1968 at BR829594 in the Suoi Ca Valley. A Dustoff chopper
radioed us that they were dropping off a dead PW who they had been transporting
to a hospital and who had died enroute of a massive abdominal wound. They
requested we bury the body. When they arrived at our position, the chopper
hovered about ten feet off the ground and the medic and crew chief began
lowering the body from the door. In the process, the body slipped from their
grasp and fell the ten feet to the ground. It was clearly a dead body. There
is no mistaking a dead body. This one had a battle dressing covering a huge
wound to the abdomen. We buried the man right where they dropped him. Others,
who were further away from the spot where the chopper hovered, thought he
had been tossed--alive--from the Huey. Sure enough, a month later I overheard
one of these guys regaling a Base-Camp-Commando with the story of a "live"
VC being "tossed" from the Huey. And the Base Camp Commando was told that
the VC had been tossed out from "about 500 feet". As this guy repeated this
story, the Huey became progressively higher and higher, until it was almost
in Earth orbit.
The majority of these stories seem to originate with men who had rear-echelon
jobs. Upon returning to the United States, they felt compelled to embellish
their war time service. After all, when someone asks "What did you do in
the war, Daddy?" it's not very attention grabbing to respond "I was a cargo
handler at the aerial port of Cam Ranh Bay". I have met more men who claim
to have been Green Berets in Vietnam, than there were Green Berets in the
entire Army. The same goes for people claiming to have been Navy Seals, or
Marine Recon. Some just don't want to admit that they were in a non-combat
job. So they "embellish". And part of the embellishment involves repeating
the myths that they have heard, and embellishing them as well. Then there
are those pathetic souls who never served in Vietnam, but claim that they
did. They tell the wildest, most unbelievable stories imaginable, which usually
make it into the next "Rambo" movie plot. Which of course, makes it a "fact".
On a final note, I can just imagine assigning this duty to someone.
ME: "Jones, it's your turn to throw hapless VC prisoners from a Huey".
JONES: "Awww, sarge, I threw hapless VC prisoners from Hueys all day yesterday.
It's somebody else's turn!"
If they were they were covered up with extraordinary skill and precision.
Only two documented cases of War Crimes can be attributed to American Military
personnel. One was the senseless slaughter of civilians in March 1968 at
the village of My Lai by the 1st platoon of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion
20th Infantry, 11th Light Infantry Brigade, 23rd Infantry Division (Americal).
The other was the murder of 16 noncombatant women and children by five U.S.
Marines of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division,
at a village named Son Thang-4, southwest of Danang, on 19 February 1970.
In both cases there was a court martial, and in both cases the accused were
found guilty.
In the case of Lt. William Calley, President Nixon stepped in and pardoned
him after he had spent three years under house arrest. Why Nixon did this
is unknown, but it is beyond belief that he would do such a thing. For the
end result is a slap in the face to every Vietnam Veteran who did their job
and served with honor by adhering to the Rules of Land Warfare of the 1949
Geneva Convention which set the rules of engagement and expressly forbid
the type of behavior exhibited by Calley and the thugs he commanded. They
were not soldiers. They were thugs.
But while these egregious crimes have been trotted out at every opportunity
by the anti-war movement, very little attention was paid to the horrendous
atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong on their
own people. One of the end results of the 1968 Tet offensive was the deliberate
roundup and murder of as many as 5,000 South Vietnamese civilians--doctors,
teachers, lawyers, businessmen--by the NVA/VC during the periods that they
held territory. The most widespread atrocities occurred in the Imperial city
of Hue. There alone the Communists killed over 3,000 South Vietnamese. This
behavior was not widely reported by the press, and either ignored by the
anti-war movement at best, or justified by them as necessary in a socialist
revolution.
Additionally, not much of a fuss has been made over the intentional murder
of American civilians (including missionaries and USAID workers) captured
and murdered by the North Vietnamese. U.S. POWs did not fair any better.
Those that were not murdered were systematically tortured by the North
Vietnamese. Although these atrocities qualify as war crimes under the Geneva
Convention, the lunatic fringe of the radical left condones those acts as
"justifiable".
This is another one of those enduring myths that actually had its roots with
the South Vietnamese Army. During the period when Americans were strictly
advisors to the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) the South Vietnamese
were courting favor with the Kennedy Administration. In order to make it
appear that they were doing more to fight the insurgents then they were actually
doing, and therefore be eligible for more military assistance, they faked
the number of VC they claimed to have killed in most operations.
Reporters covering the war from Saigon assumed that the Americans would do
the same thing and that is basically what they reported. They took the position
that any casualty estimate, or as they put it, body count, must be inflated.
Personally, I never heard the term "body count" until I returned to the United
States after my tour. They were called "enemy casualtiy reports" in Vietnam
just as they were in Germany. In actuality, every enemy casualtiy report
made by every unit I was attached to had to be verified by a senior officer
before it was accepted. More than once we had to haul dead NVA/VC out from
remote battlesites on the back decks of our tanks to a place where a battalion
or brigade officer could see them in person before they were counted. On
several occasions my crew and I, along with an infantry rifle squad, sat
in the sun babysitting bloated corpses until they could be officially counted.
Only then did we get the unpleasant job of burying the bodies.
The NVA and VC took great pains to remove their dead from the battalefield
in order to conceal their true losses. More than once we found wooden "body
hooks" the NVA used to haul their dead from the field of battle. This led
to a practice of adding estimates of the number of "probables" (i.e., "probably
killed, no body recovered") to the count of "confirmed" killed. While it
is certainly possible that some commanders choose to report the sum of these
two numbers rather than separate figures, I doubt whether this was a systemic
practice based on personal experience. There was a standard formula for
estimating enemy wounded, based on statistics gathered from World Wars One
and Two that basically said that two men were wounded for every one killed.
The irony of this whole affair is that on April 3rd, 1995, on the 20th
anniversary of the end of the Second Indochina War, the North Vietnamese
Communists finally admited their true casualties. While the U.S. Command
had officially stated that we killed about 750,000 NVA and VC, the Communists
declared, in an official press release to Agence France, that we had actually
killed 1.1 million NVA soldiers.
A Bright Shining Lie, Sheehan, Neil, New York: Random House, 1988
After Tet, Ronald H. Spector, New York: Random House, 1993
A Soldier Reports, Westmorland, William C., New York: Doubleday, 1976
Code Name Bright Light, Veith, George J., New York: The Free Press, 1998
Inside The VC And The NVA, Lanning, Michael, New York: Random House, 1992
Son Thang: An American War Crime, Solis, Gary D., Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute
Press, 1997
Stolen Valor, Burkett, B.G. & Whitley, Glenna, Dallas: Verity Press,
1998
The Rise And Fall Of An American Army, Stanton, Shelby L., Novato, CA: Presidio
Press, 1985
The Vietnam War, Nalty, Bernard C., New York: Smithmark Publishers, 1996
Vietnam: A History, Karnow, Stanley, New York: Viking, 1983
Vietnam At War: The History 1946-1975, Davidson, Phillip, New York: Oxford
Univ Press, 1988
Copyright © Ray Smith, 1996
|