Question by Diplomacy & Tact Matters: Did the USSR really support Vietnam and Korea while we were fighting them?
I’m sure many of you already know that we funded and supported Afghanistan to cause the defeat of the USSR during the 10-year war with them.
My question: Did the Soviets actually provide funding and support for Korea and Vietnam to cause us to lose Vietnam and struggle in Korea?
And is this one main reason why we executed a plan to support the Afghans?
How was it the Soviets were unsuccessful in bankrupting the United States as we did to them during the Afghan war in 1979-1989?
Thanks for your answers!
Answers and Views:
Answer by Kekionga
Yes, the USSR was supporting North Vietnam and North Korea.
The pockets were deeper in the USA and we simply outspent Russia in the arms race.
~
Read all the answers in the comments.
What do you think?
Mad Scientist says
Yes, that's why they were known as proxy wars. They were wars we fought against each other because we didn't want to fight each other directly.
One says
Not just the USSR. China provided the most help for Vietnam and North Korea.
itsjustme says
Vietnam and Korea (both north) were not only supported by the USSR financially but were given "military advisers" and weapons. They both were supported by Communist China, too. In fact a huge percentage of the NK regular military were in actuality regular Chinese military. Soviet and Chinese pilots flew migs against the US in Korea and vietnam. Didn't loose the wars? You've got to be sh!tting me! The "police action" in Korea was grossly underfunded and under manned, as was the action in vietnam. The US went into both conflicts with no intention by the US Congress to win. No other explanation can be made. Harry Truman recalled McArthur and fired him, because he fully intended to obliterate North Korea and end the conflict permanently with the use of nuclear weapons, which should have been done. We wouldn't be experiencing the wrath and ire and arrogance of this crazed sh!t-hole country today, had this taken place. The exact same thing is now taking place in Afghanistan. Under the pretense of eradicating Bin Laden and al Quida we entered into the conflict in Afghanistan, only to wind up fighting against the Taliban, while Bin Laden continues to 'elude' our forces by holeing up in Pakistan. If the powers that be really wanted to avenge the attack on the twin towers, there would have been a massive invasion of the country and Bin Laden would be dead by now. This country has gone so soft on protecting itself that I wonder just how much longer we can last. With leaders like the ones currently in power, it's not going to be too long!
Lou says
yes kid….
and because of that, because we were NOT allowed to bomb sites that could have soviet advisers in Nam we lost the war… politics plain and simple!
kozzm0 says
The whole premise of your question is flawed. Afghanistan wasn't at war with the USSR, its government asked for help against US-supported rebels – terrorists, really. The Soviets didn't lose, either; they stabilized the Afghan government after a few years and then left. Think like Iraq, except no invasion. The only thing resembling coercion on their part is their participation in the coup by the Bagram faction against the Khalq faction in the PDPA. People think "invasion" because at the height of the cold war, Jimmy Carter said "invasion" and all the US media followed suit. There was no invasion, any more than the US "invaded" Saudi Arabia in 1990. And the USSR did achieve its goals of stabilizing the PDPA. They left President Najibullah with a capable, powerful and well-trained army. It was Najibullah's own blunders that led to his resignation 3 years later.
Neither the United States nor the USSR was bankrupted by either war. The Soviets wasted a lot of money on Afghanistan, but it didn't bankrupt them, any more than the US is bankrupt now. Much more money was wasted was from the overall arms race. Only a small fraction of the Soviet military served in Afghanistan. While it troubled the Soviet economy, it was hardly in ruins. If Gorbachev hadn't given up too much political power, his economic перестройка would probably have worked. The Russian economy never collapsed until Yeltsin was at the helm. People seem to forget that.
The United States wasn't executing a plan to support "the Afghans" either. The PDPA was swept into power with wide popular support including mass street demonstrations, replacing a very unpopular dictator. The PDPA, as most Americans should be ashamed to not know, are still the only government of Afghanistan ever to separate church and state, give equal rights to women and actively build schools and promote education. Jimmy Carter couldn't countenance their rampant good deeds because they were a leftist party; and in terms of Cold War strategy, Carter was nervous about a potential Soviet military presence near Mideast oil producers. Not that Afghanistan was a new place for the Soviets to be. The USSR was Afghanistan's traditional ally, ever since it signed a friendship pact with the country in 1919. Carter wanted to protect US oil futures in Iraq and Iran, and to try to pry Afghanistan out of the Soviet sphere where it had been for decades.
In the name of Cold War politics, then, Carter and his Sec. of State Bryzsinski quickly armed and organized the terrorist "Mujahedin" to fight for the freedom to kill their wives for suspected adultery, and to keep their daughters out of school and sell them into marriage, and the resulting cycle of violence spiraled into a civil war.
After the PDPA left, the next government was a straw man which pretended to rule. The real power was held by the terrorists we created, the ex-Mujahedin, who ruled most of the country in a violent feudal system. Even today they are still called "warlords." It was much like Somalia is at this moment. Many ex-Mujahedin roamed the country raping and pillaging. Where was US support during those years? With our weapons, the country was turned into complete chaos, until finally the Pashtun Taliban actually seemed like the better choice to a lot of people. The law and order choice.
So what did we do after invading and defeating the Taliban government, well, besides giving our Mujahedin client Osama Bin Laden a free pass to Waziristan, we immediately install the Northern Alliance warlords into de facto power, with a puppet named Hamid Karzai as figurehead president. The warlords were happy to do exactly the same thing they did in the early 90's: oppress the people, sell their daughters, close schools and turn the country into the world's biggest heroin factory. Only this time, under our watch, the heroin production reached record levels. We could have tried to give them a progressive government; instead we gave them the same terrorists they had before the Taliban. The terrorists who had made them welcome the Taliban with open arms. So what are they doing now? Welcoming the Taliban with open arms again.
Richard Holbrooke is caught in a serious bind but only because he's repeated the stupidest blunder of the Vietnam occupation: trying to "win hearts and minds" with a demonstration election. Karzai is the US's man, and he just committed one of the most brazen election frauds in recent history. Just a few months ago, Robert Mugabe tried to be discreet about his fraud. Not Karzai: Official results are not only full of the names of bogus polling sites, the sites even give him 100 percent of exactly 750, or 600, or 425, or some other divisible-by-25 number of votes. Interviewed by the BBC, Holbrooke dismissed the idea of holding another election. Meaning, unless Obama overrules him, the United States is now openly perpetrating a massive fraud against the Afghan people by supporting Karzai. Nothing could do more to turn the Afghans against us. That's what happened in Vietnam too.
kejjer says
Yes– the soviets supported NK and North Vietnam.
I have heard over the years that not only did they have pilots in vietnam they also had snipers and special forces types in Vietnam –largely as trainers.
NK was supported by arms and equipment by the USSR.
and they also had pilots in NK for the MIG 15s.
By the way–the USA did not lose Vietnam–we signed a truce with the NORTH. The north pledged that it would pull all Regular forces out of the SOUTH and the US would pull out of the South. Nixon promised the South that should the North ever invade the South the US would attack the North with Air power and supply the South with more military aid to prevent it from falling. This left the South to deal only with the VietCong.. The South survived for 18 months by itself until the NORTH broke the TRUCE. It launched an invasion of the South with Regulary military troops and when the South Asked the USA to uphold it's commitment–The democrats in the Congress denied NIXON the funding to support bombing the North again and sending in more military aid to the South. The South realized we betrayed them and they quickly collapsed.
Coincidentally–this is what the Democraps wanted to do in IRAQ. But Bush did not fall for it.
WAY TO GO DEMOCRATS!
Otto von Bismarck says
Yes.
booboo says
Yes, absolutely, ex Russian military had confirmed; before Putin got in, and that we had already known that there were even Russian pilots flying missions for Korea and Vietnam.
Djdragunov360 says
first off, there was a ceasefire between the Afghanistanians and us Russians. now we help them again.. at least discretely.
second, yes. WE did fund Vietnam AND Korea. My grandfather was spetsnaz and he was assigned to these regions during that time
ted w says
get your head out your azz, we (meaning you, i didn't serve nor will i) lost the war in vietnam, you might have won the battle but the war was lost way before 1975. get over it, and grow up.
Jose says
Yes, and we did not lose, the liberals did, and we WON the cold War Thanks Solely to Reagan!
rightwing radical 1 says
yes they provided arms and in korea they even had pilot flying and fighting our air force.
Austin J says
There were a few aerial skirmishes between the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Korean War. Other than that, i'm not enitrely sure. The Soviets did supply the North, same with China.
As for Vietnam, it was later discovered about 3,000 Soviet military personnel were stationed in Northern Veitnam an shot down a few of our planes.
And we did LOOSE the Vietnam War. THe whole purpose of the occupation was to prevent the communist North from taking over the "democratic" South, which ended up happening. I would call that a defeat.. It was that exact attitude that USNS has that costed us the war: Arrogance.
USNS says
First off, we didn't LOSE the Vietnam War…
Second off, yes, the USSR supplied them with weapons and training. They wanted to ensure the spread of communism would go down without a hitch, and the best way to do it without getting involved themselves was through economic and military support.