Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-31-2014, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,746,072 times
Reputation: 40160

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
They ran from battles and won cheap, easy victories. They never defeated the US military in any fight, anywhere. We lost the political will to continue the fight.

If the US had actually fought to win, like detonating a nuclear weapon underground in the middle of the Ho Chi Minh trail it would have been a different story, but politics prevented that.

The Viet Cong fought a smart war, but they did not defeat the US. Get that straight in your little revisionist history mind.

And as far as your hints at racism in many American's minds, the Germans fought a much more honorable war than the Japanese. Sure there was the holocaust that was carried out by the SS, but 90% of the German military had nothing to do with that. They fought with honor and distinction and they won the respect of their enemies. The Japanese raped and murdered uncounted Chinese (in the millions) and committed far worse crimes against humanity. The Japanese blew themselves up when US Medics tried to help them when they were wounded.
Actually, they did.

This is how most wars end. Nations do not fight to the last man - nation's fight until one or the other decides that the cost of continuing the fight is greater than the cost of quitting outright, or accepting terms they would otherwise (but for the aforementioned cost) prefer not to accept. Now, 'costs' are many things: monetary, blood and treasure, political consequences both domestic and international, and so forth.

Even the individual conflicts of World War II ended this way. France threw in the towel with only a small portion of their nation occupied. Germany capitulated many months before the last Nazi holdouts might have been rooted out of the Alps. Japan gave up before so much as an Allied boot had touched a shore of one of the four main islands.

As Clausewitz said, "War is an extension of politics by other means". Wars are simply as much a matter of politics, if not more so, than they are match-ups of soldiers and machines. They are fought in order to coerce a power into doing this or that. The United States fought the Vietnam War in order to dissuade the North Vietnamese from conquering the South. North Vietnam fought the United States in order to hurt them badly enough that the U.S. leadership would decide that the cost of prosecuting the war was greater than risking that the South might fall to the North.

North Vietnam achieved its war aims. The United States failed to achieve its war aims. North Vietnam won. That's not taking sides, and it's not being anti-American or pro-communism, it's just a cold hard look at what transpired and an understanding of the dynamics of war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2014, 09:20 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,759,516 times
Reputation: 1825
It is true that there is more interest in the German war machine than any of the other combatants. Going along with this there is and has been a huge interest in Nazi regalia with original iron crosses going for a lot of money. No such interest in medals from any other of the combatants. Remember back in the 1980s there were Nazi Regalia shops all over the U.S. Anyway, the German SS was probably the most elite fighting unit in history with the possible exception of the ancient Spartans. And the German army was the greatest in history. They fought the whole world and almost won and could have won if certain things would have happened differently. But not to get into that because it is a whole subject in itself that gets very involved. All this is part of the reason at least for the fascination of the German war machine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 11:54 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,593,520 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
They fought the whole world and almost won and could have won if certain things
would have happened differently
You know it will be interesting to see how if the so-called 'German war machine' gets perhaps more of an increased look say next year when copyright expires shortly on Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf'. With that, German editions will then be able to be published without breaking copyright law. In any case, certainly more publicity there for that arguably explosive book which purportedly contained Hitlerian 'nonsense' according to some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 12:27 PM
 
59 posts, read 72,457 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cubssoxfan View Post
John-UK, it's time for a visit! There are so many quality micro-breweries, that large breweries like Budweiser have started their own craft beer product lines. Is this where I say something stereotypical about British food, or do I stay intelligent and withhold comments until I actually visit and explore for myself? I know this is off-topic, but needed correction since it is vastly inaccurate!

I do appreciate the British perspective on the WWII history.
Which one ? The Irish ,the Welsh ,the Scots ,or the English ? Yes the BBC claims to promote the truth ,but is given to prejudice for their own side, like most countries are ,and there are so many lies there too.
Many nazi links within the Establishment .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 02:20 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,433,707 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Actually, they did.

This is how most wars end. Nations do not fight to the last man - nation's fight until one or the other decides that the cost of continuing the fight is greater than the cost of quitting outright, or accepting terms they would otherwise (but for the aforementioned cost) prefer not to accept. Now, 'costs' are many things: monetary, blood and treasure, political consequences both domestic and international, and so forth.

Even the individual conflicts of World War II ended this way. France threw in the towel with only a small portion of their nation occupied. Germany capitulated many months before the last Nazi holdouts might have been rooted out of the Alps. Japan gave up before so much as an Allied boot had touched a shore of one of the four main islands.

As Clausewitz said, "War is an extension of politics by other means". Wars are simply as much a matter of politics, if not more so, than they are match-ups of soldiers and machines. They are fought in order to coerce a power into doing this or that. The United States fought the Vietnam War in order to dissuade the North Vietnamese from conquering the South. North Vietnam fought the United States in order to hurt them badly enough that the U.S. leadership would decide that the cost of prosecuting the war was greater than risking that the South might fall to the North.

North Vietnam achieved its war aims. The United States failed to achieve its war aims. North Vietnam won. That's not taking sides, and it's not being anti-American or pro-communism, it's just a cold hard look at what transpired and an understanding of the dynamics of war.
I disagree on Vietnam. Vietnam was different because the Vietnamese didn't defeat the U.S. militarily. The U.S. forces defeated the Vietcong in virtually every battle, but we weren't allowed to chase them into North Vietnam. Our troops were bound by diplomatic and political limitations. The war is generally perceived as a U.S. loss because we failed to achieve our objectives and were ultimately forced to withdraw. But the U.S. did not lose the war militarily. American citizens got tired of a hopeless war, so we withdrew our forces. That's a far cry from being defeated.

In the other wars you mentioned, while it didn't come down to the last man, those countries were defeated on the battlefield. Germany defeated France on the battlefield by encircling half of their army in the first week of battle, and then wearing down the remaining French forces over the next 4-5 weeks. The French decision to surrender was out of desperation. It was a very logical choice. Had they kept fighting, they would have suffered vastly more casualties for the same outcome.

Japan was facing a massive Soviet invasion heading their way and having their cities nuked by U.S. bombs. People died by the millions and the U.S. threatened more bombings if no surrender. Also, there was the threat of a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland. Japan made a very logical choice to surrender unconditionally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,746,072 times
Reputation: 40160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
I disagree on Vietnam. Vietnam was different because the Vietnamese didn't defeat the U.S. militarily. The U.S. forces defeated the Vietcong in virtually every battle, but we weren't allowed to chase them into North Vietnam. Our troops were bound by diplomatic and political limitations. The war is generally perceived as a U.S. loss because we failed to achieve our objectives and were ultimately forced to withdraw. But the U.S. did not lose the war militarily. American citizens got tired of a hopeless war, so we withdrew our forces. That's a far cry from being defeated.

In the other wars you mentioned, while it didn't come down to the last man, those countries were defeated on the battlefield. Germany defeated France on the battlefield by encircling half of their army in the first week of battle, and then wearing down the remaining French forces over the next 4-5 weeks. The French decision to surrender was out of desperation. It was a very logical choice. Had they kept fighting, they would have suffered vastly more casualties for the same outcome.

Japan was facing a massive Soviet invasion heading their way and having their cities nuked by U.S. bombs. People died by the millions and the U.S. threatened more bombings if no surrender. Also, there was the threat of a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland. Japan made a very logical choice to surrender unconditionally.
Again, a war is won by convincing the other side to capitulate. That is what happened in Vietnam. The fact that some powers take less convincing to fold is immaterial to that fact.

The American Revolution:
The British Empire was far more powerful than the 13 American colonies, even with what help France gave in the end. The British could have crushed the American forces, and they won the majority of the battles. They had 25,000 troops in New York city alone when the war ended, and occupied Savannah and Charleston.

Britain decided that the cost of putting down the rebellion was greater than the benefits of doing so. They were not vanquished - they were just convinced to quit. That was the American victory, and it was primarily a political victory.

The war was not defined by which armies and navies won the most battles. It was decided by whether or not the British overcame the rebellion and kept the colonies (British victory) or whether or not the Americans established sovereignty (American victory). The Americans, not the British, achieved their goal. They won. And they won not by defeated the might of the British Army but by convincing the British that it was better to take their troops and their cannons and their ships and go home.

The Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, the Yugoslavs in the Ten Day War, the list of mighty powers who were not defeated on the battlefield, overall, yet lost their respective wars goes on and on.

That said, I understand that many (most, maybe) people simply can't wrap their minds around the notion that a military victory doesn't necessarily mean Military A vanquishing Military B on the field of battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 05:39 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,433,707 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Again, a war is won by convincing the other side to capitulate. That is what happened in Vietnam. The fact that some powers take less convincing to fold is immaterial to that fact.

The American Revolution:
The British Empire was far more powerful than the 13 American colonies, even with what help France gave in the end. The British could have crushed the American forces, and they won the majority of the battles. They had 25,000 troops in New York city alone when the war ended, and occupied Savannah and Charleston.

Britain decided that the cost of putting down the rebellion was greater than the benefits of doing so. They were not vanquished - they were just convinced to quit. That was the American victory, and it was primarily a political victory.

The war was not defined by which armies and navies won the most battles. It was decided by whether or not the British overcame the rebellion and kept the colonies (British victory) or whether or not the Americans established sovereignty (American victory). The Americans, not the British, achieved their goal. They won. And they won not by defeated the might of the British Army but by convincing the British that it was better to take their troops and their cannons and their ships and go home.

The Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, the Yugoslavs in the Ten Day War, the list of mighty powers who were not defeated on the battlefield, overall, yet lost their respective wars goes on and on.

That said, I understand that many (most, maybe) people simply can't wrap their minds around the notion that a military victory doesn't necessarily mean Military A vanquishing Military B on the field of battle.
The U.S. did not "capitulate" in Vietnam. Are you smoking? We withdrew because we were there forever and did not achieve our objectives. The public got tired of it dragging on and we pulled out. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The U.S. was not defeated militarily and certainly did not capitulate. We could have waged war far longer if we wanted, but we chose to pull out. Nobody forced us out. In the other wars you mentioned, the losing parties were forced to capitulate or face certain annihilation. That wasn't the case in Vietnam. If you cannot see the differences, I don't know how to help you.

I generally agree with your comments about the American Revolutionary War and that it closely parallels Vietnam for the British. But at least the Continental Army had their moments and won some critical battles on the battlefield. They encircled an entire British army at Yorktown and forced a surrender. The Vietcong won no major battles and stood no chance against the U.S. forces head to head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,148,352 times
Reputation: 14589
And I have a few Made in Vietnam flannel shirts in my closet. Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about? If what they wanted was to sell us shirts, may be we should have gone along.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 09:43 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, California
1,949 posts, read 6,440,640 times
Reputation: 2294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
The U.S. did not "capitulate" in Vietnam. Are you smoking? We withdrew because we were there forever and did not achieve our objectives. The public got tired of it dragging on and we pulled out. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The U.S. was not defeated militarily and certainly did not capitulate. We could have waged war far longer if we wanted, but we chose to pull out. Nobody forced us out. In the other wars you mentioned, the losing parties were forced to capitulate or face certain annihilation. That wasn't the case in Vietnam. If you cannot see the differences, I don't know how to help you.

I generally agree with your comments about the American Revolutionary War and that it closely parallels Vietnam for the British. But at least the Continental Army had their moments and won some critical battles on the battlefield. They encircled an entire British army at Yorktown and forced a surrender. The Vietcong won no major battles and stood no chance against the U.S. forces head to head.
thats why the Viet Cong fought a guerilla war, they didnt have the air support, no medi vac choppers to come help them and bring them to a hospital, they had to use tactics to fight a much bigger enemy

they were too small of a force to fight the US head on so they had to choose the battles and strike when the time was right and to do the most damage , they used a lot of hit & run tactics and had to keep their mobility so you couldnt find them

Ive heard stories from many US vets that they never or rarely ever saw the enemy in Vietnam

like Walter Chronkite once said fighting the enemy in Vietnam was like trying to kill a gnat with a sledge hammer

the VC were very elusive

they may not have fought a head on battle with the US because then they would be fighting on the US forces terms, they fought a guerilla war on their terms "Victor Charles" terms and outlasted US forces
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 03:29 AM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,030,388 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
The Vietcong won no major battles and stood no chance against the U.S. forces head to head.
The Tet Offensive pushed the US forces right back and they were even in the embassy grounds in Saigon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Again, a war is won by convincing the other side to capitulate. That is what happened in Vietnam. The fact that some powers take less convincing to fold is immaterial to that fact.

The American Revolution:
The British Empire was far more powerful than the 13 American colonies, even with what help France gave in the end. The British could have crushed the American forces, and they won the majority of the battles. They had 25,000 troops in New York city alone when the war ended, and occupied Savannah and Charleston.

Britain decided that the cost of putting down the rebellion was greater than the benefits of doing so. They were not vanquished - they were just convinced to quit. That was the American victory, and it was primarily a political victory.
There are parallels to Viet Nam, but not exactly the same. The USA pulled out of Viet Nam as they could not defeat them. That is clear. The British could have defeated the colonists in British America for sure and proved that in 1812 when the Shropshire Light Infantry went right into the White House and burnt it down (after eating the presidents dinner ). And once beaten the colonies would be back 100% in British rule, the perpetrators tried for treason and hung. There would have been no further fighting. But it was the cost of it that was of concern - cost was not an issue with Viet Nam as the USA poured billions into it. Britain made more money from Jamaica than the 13 colonies. Was it worth it economically? They thought not. Some traders in Britain were losing out because of the war and wanted American, French and Spanish trade to resume. France and Spain sided with the rebels closing their markets. These countries were more interested in getting one over Britain than any notions of righteousness for the British colonists. Whatever the reason the British Crown decided to lose giving victory to the colonists.

BTW, and descendent of mine, a John Beck, once commanded Fort Pitt and fought for the colonists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cubssoxfan View Post
John-UK, it's time for a visit! There are so many quality micro-breweries, that large breweries like Budweiser have started their own craft beer product lines. Is this where I say something stereotypical about British food, or do I stay intelligent and withhold comments until I actually visit and explore for myself? I know this is off-topic, but needed correction since it is vastly inaccurate!

I do appreciate the British perspective on the WWII history.
I went to the USA before and after the micro breweries emerges. Before it was dire. About 4 poor quality "lagers" in the whole continent. I was like being in a Communist country, except the corporation dictated what you drank rather than the state.

I was amazed when I revisited. Pale Ale was big seller. I was shocked!! I was impressed big time. The 1960/70s American backpackers who went to Europe changed all that. That said we want some of that.

I do not try to give the British perspective on the WWII history - I try to give the right one.

Last edited by Yac; 06-03-2014 at 07:49 AM.. Reason: 3 posts in a row merged, please learn to multi quote
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top