BF2S Forums World vs. NATO

Your point?  The Russia lost *huge* amounts of troops in WWII, but I don't think anyone would argue they lost it.  In fact, they were they ones who came out strongest (that is, who gained the most through the course of the war).

Ah yes, how very logical and enlightening, of course, loosing a conflict by a factor of ten dosen't matter, how foolish of me to think that the fact that Vietnam STILL hasn't recovered from their losses, makes them the clear victors. Yes, loosing 90 percent of you military to an opponent means you win, I belive a quote works here" I'm bleeding, making me the victor!" LOL, how very amusing Bubalo.


I wasn't aware of any treaty.  At any rate, the US must have known the North Vietnamese wouldn't hold to it.  Even if they did, the Nationalists would have done in the ruling regime in the south.


Then I suggest you actually research a topic before you comment on it, information is a good thing you know.  As someone posted previously the Paris accords were signed by both parties, and there is no logical reason to believe a nation will so blatantly and swiftly go back on it's word.  Even if it did, the logical support for their decision is slim at best.  When a nation breaks it treaties, they accomplish nothing but showing their neighbors, and trading partners, that they are untrustworthy and volatile, which is an image no government can expect to carry and still profit with.

Uhg Uhg Uhg Uhg Uhg...

Yes, we lost...
We lost becuz they won...
We just wasted lives and money...

North Vietnamese stratagy was to out will the western powers...
They would keep fighting and dying...
We left - they won...
They got what they wanted - a unified Vietnam under Ho Chi...

We did not loose militarily, this was a political loss...
We won the battles against the NVA-VC, but our people and our government were pussy...
The people were lied to, to make the war seem like nothing...
They should have been told - we are fighting, we are winning, we are weakening the enemy...
We need to bring the fight more conventionally to Laos and Cambodia; where the enemy is exploiting national borders...

When the people did find out little bits of truth it made the government seem corrupt (which it was)...
So eventually the white house caved in...
We signed a treaty of peace and pulled out, leaving Marines to guard embassies...

Yes ofcourse we knew they wouldnt hold to it...
They had already ripped us open during the Tet Sieze Fire...
They pledged a truce during the Tet festivals but violated it and started the Tet Offensive...
Which was the begining of the end for us in Vietnam...

After we pulled out we pledged to redeploy if the North were to attack the South but since Nixon was busy with Watergate, the white house decided to just let them deal with it; reducing military aid...

Bubbalo wrote:

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

We did not loose militarily,

How so?  The Vietnamese had you outnumbered and outmanuevered at every turn.  In 9/10 engagements w/ American troops, the Vietnamese shot first.

Yes, they shot first, and died first, in great numbers, achieveing very little.

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

We won the battles against the NVA-VC, but our people and our government were pussy...

There were not a huge number of large scale battles.  Vietnam was characterised by small unit actions.

Indeed, small unit actions which the North Vietnamese habitually lost.

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

we are winning, we are weakening the enemy...

But you weren't weakening them.  Every day the Americans were there the more Vietnamese turned against them.

Actually, we weren't weakening them, we were crippling them.  By the end of the war there was not a single combat ready group or either Viet Cong or NVA in South Vietnam, they had been eradicated. 

|-LoNgHiLL-| wrote:

We need to bring the fight more conventionally to Laos and Cambodia; where the enemy is exploiting national borders...

Well, you did bomb the Ho Chi Minh trail pretty often.  And commando units were sent in.

And again, the facts might do you some good.  Bombing of any significance was held off until the last year of the conflict for political reasons, and there is 1 (one) documented case of American troops entering Cambodia, and that was in direct pursuit of retreating NVA units, and was STILL not an authorized manuver.
Schools in this country do a pathetic job of teaching the history of this conflict, so if you base your knowledge on the ciriculum taught in a different nation, I suggest you read some literature written by people who were actually there.  Now, I know that Australia deployed a small amount of troops to the area, and they did an excellent job in the battles they fought, but, unfortunatly, school text's are not written by those who participated in the events, and, in my experience, have very little similarity to the facts.

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

And again, the facts might do you some good.  Bombing of any significance was held off until the last year of the conflict for political reasons, and there is 1 (one) documented case of American troops entering Cambodia, and that was in direct pursuit of retreating NVA units, and was STILL not an authorized manuver.

Actually, we didn't used texts.  We used first hand accounts from various websites *and* actualy veterans at a nearby museum.  And the US *did* train and supply South Vietnamese commandos, and made several attempts using airborne units.  Fact is, the trail was well designed, and the Royalist Cambodians gave a han

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

Schools in this country do a pathetic job of teaching the history of this conflict, so if you base your knowledge on the ciriculum taught in a different nation,

Yes, because you know the Aussie curriculum so well?

Capt. Foley wrote:

If Russia and China would want to win they would need to take out the carriers and supply ships FAST with there Surface to Surface Missles.
I recomend you read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. WWIII without WMD's and very possible if this was the 80s.

Tom Clancy is a realtor who never served in the military.  Don't try to visualize theoretical situations based on his books.

Bubbalo wrote:

You know what's so funny about all this "We could have won Vietnam if it weren't for the politicians" crap?  It's exactly what Russia said after the Russo-Japanese War, and Germany said after WWI.  A countries population and soldiers are *supposed* to believe they can win.  It's their job.  That doesn't mean the facts agree.

I have seen some of the things you have been posting about WWII and Vietnam here, and I have serious doubts about your grip on the facts.  I have also noticed that when people post information which either disproves a statement of yours or does not fit your view of the facts, you either argue around the information, ignore it, or cease discussing it altogether.  Why is that?

I find this statement:

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, we didn't used texts.  We used first hand accounts from various websites *and* actualy veterans at a nearby museum.

very telling.  Internet and a few opinions.  Very nice.

The simple fact is that the US had the military force available to invade and destroy North Vietnam.  This is beyond question (although I suspect you will question it anyway).  It did not do so for political reasons.  Even so, Giap has admitted that the VC were annihilated by the US before it pulled out (for political reasons - 1972-3), and that serious damage had been done to the NVA.  It is likely that if the US had stood fast for 5 or so more years, that the North would have found its best interest served by signing and honoring a peace agreement.  This idea is supported by the fact that the NVA didn't dare a full scale invasion until after Congress had cut off funding and support for the ARVN (for political reasons) in 1975 (see Melvin Laird, Foreign Affairs, Nov '05).

As to your statement that US forces were poorly trained (was that in another thread?  Maybe), that is patent nonsense.  The facts and figures of action on the ground do not support that conclusion.  Furthermore, I'd be very amused to hear what you think US infantry training consists of.  I'd be more interested to see you go through it.

More to the point, the idea that you think you are some kind of expert on the subject of Vietnam is ludicrous.  You watch TV, you see some movies, you talk to a couple of troops (whose experience you know nothing about, other than what they tell you), and you (Drumroll please) read some web sites.  Pathetic.  Your ill informed posts betray the quality of your sources, but even so, I'm amazed you have the stones to pipe up on the subject at all.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-24 08:59:15)

Jepeto87 wrote:

China cant really attack anywhere, it would be like the phony war at the start of WW2! I doubt they could even reach Taiwan without the US pacific fleet sinking there invasion fleet, though in sure they could destroy it with there short range missiles etc.

Well see China is being stupid in their redevelopement plan. They are not allowing carriers in thier navy.

they have carriers plus they are developing a new type of fighter plane that look suspiciously like the F-22 raptor.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/aircarrier/default.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp

Oh, yes.  Israels elite defence will crumble.  Arab Militants will dissapear, and oil reserves will magically be transported to US soil.  And China's *massive* agricultural production will turn out to all be in the form of poisonous apples.  Meanwhile, all traces of Russian nationalism will dissappear as invanding armies are welcomed with palm fronds, which shall magically sprout in Moscow.

Re: WW2: The Allies won it as a group, everyone did their bit and no single country can claim credit, we should all stand in a circle and take turns patting each other on the back.

Re: Vietnam: Depends on your definition of a victory, but if you think in terms of the desired result being acheived and maintained a few years down the track then we lost.

Re: NATO vs the rest: I think it would end in a stalemate.  The rest might have the numbers, but NATO has tech on its side.  NATO could bomb the rest of the world into submission, but an outright occupation would be too difficult.  I am, of course, assuming that things such as the Geneva convention and human rights are at least loosely adhered to (ie. no genocide)

You know, Russia's goverment might do this, but no way in hell would their people want this, nor China's.  I mean we saved lots of Chinese asses at WWII, hence a revolt

Bubbalo wrote:

This relates to my comments on the Russo-Japanese war and WWI how?

I wasn't aware that it did.

Bubbalo wrote:

How is a reliable website any worse than a book?  It is *far* easier to get primary evidence off them.  And how is a former soldiers view on the war from the soldier's view opinion?

More to the point, how is a website reliable?  Few are.  Books have known authors, scrupulous Bibliographies, and in the case of serious histories, peer review.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

The simple fact is that the US had the military force available to invade and destroy North Vietnam.

Same as they had the military force available to invade Iraq.  That hasn't worked out too well, now, has it?

Nonsequitur.  One conflict was about protecting a friendly state from a hostile one, the other is about nation-building.  A monkey could see the difference.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Even so, Giap has admitted that the VC were annihilated by the US before it pulled out (for political reasons - 1972-3), and that serious damage had been done to the NVA.

Source?

You are serious aren't you?  This is common knowledge in Historical circles.  A minimal amount of reasearch will show it to be true.  If you don't know this, you have no business discussing the subject.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

It is likely that if the US had stood fast for 5 or so more years, that the North would have found its best interest served by signing and honoring a peace agreement.  This idea is supported by the fact that the NVA didn't dare a full scale invasion until after Congress had cut off funding and support for the ARVN (for political reasons) in 1975 (see Melvin Laird, Foreign Affairs, Nov '05).

The why did they wait six months?

Build-up.  Fighting ARVN.  Invasions don't occur overnight.  This isn't surprising.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

As to your statement that US forces were poorly trained (was that in another thread?  Maybe), that is patent nonsense.  The facts and figures of action on the ground do not support that conclusion.  Furthermore, I'd be very amused to hear what you think US infantry training consists of.  I'd be more interested to see you go through it.

In 9/10 engagements between US and VC, VC shot first.  In 9/10 engagements between Australians and VC, Australians shot first.  Conscripts make bad soldiers.

While all of what you said may, in fact, be true, it is entirely unrelated to the point.

Bubbalo wrote:

whittsend wrote:

More to the point, the idea that you think you are some kind of expert on the subject of Vietnam is ludicrous.  You watch TV, you see some movies, you talk to a couple of troops (whose experience you know nothing about, other than what they tell you), and you (Drumroll please) read some web sites.  Pathetic.  Your ill informed posts betray the quality of your sources, but even so, I'm amazed you have the stones to pipe up on the subject at all.

And you are an expert because?

I didn't claim to be an expert, I claimed to be knowledgable on the subject.  I have studied the conflict as part of my MA in history and have read in the neighborhood of 40 books on the topic.

Bubbalo wrote:

You clearly have little idea of Vietnam's history if you honestly believe the insurgency was likely to end with anything but the near complete destruction of Vietnamese.  They spent 1,000 years fighting the Chinese, why shouldn't they do the same to the US?

Two points:  1) Our ally was South Vietnam, and they were just as much a part of Vietnam's history as the North.  2) Find and read comments by Giap on damage done to NVA and VC by US (no, I won't do the research for you).  If they had continued at the rate they were going, near complete destruction of their army was a distinct possibility.

This Vietnamn discussion is getting out of hand, the USA cannot win. Aslong as there are militant moslems in the world the US cannot win. The same with vietnam, they NVA and Vietcong fought for their country, they lived there so it was no problem for them to attack and destroy US forces. The same would have happended if the Soviet union invaded the US mainland.