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.
I do think that Vietnam is remembered more so than the Korean War.
This is the first (and probably) the last time that Cape Cod Todd and I agree on something.
My stepgrandfather served in the Korean war . He passed away about 20 years ago. I regret not asking him more about his time over there.
Fewer American casualties in Korea than in Vietnam. Also, the war was over in three years. Vietnam dragged on for years. So there was no huge public protest over the war like there was over Vietnam. So for these reasons the Korean War seems to fly under the radar a bit.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
History is written by the victors. We won WWII and so get to write the script to fit.
Be careful with that line, craigiri. I've seen it used by neonazis and "southern heritage" types - even if I see your larger point. The victors aren't always right. Were that so, if Hitler stopped with the Balkans and not invaded the USSR, then we'd hear stuff about Germany being the noble great nation while we'd hear portrails of France and Britain as "degenerate aggressors" against Germany.
In the end, it has to do with who initiated the most hurtful, harmful, or degrading acts against another territory, or (if bad enough) the "bad guy's" own interior territory to an unusually bad extent, especially if singling out on particular territory for excessively harsh treatment.
Saddam Hussein unquestionably was an evil man. Same for his sons. Yet there's still a lot of question whether the US and other nations were right to invade Iraq. I can see a case in favor of arming the Kurds or Shiites (had we done it in massive amounts), but outright invasion is hard to justify to say the least.
The Second World War was a War to end fascism. We won.
The Vietnam War was an attempt at establishing American hegemony over a region that we had no business being in. It was an imposition of a superpower on a people that had had enough of superpowers imposing their will on them. It was a case of the United States inserting itself into a civil war between the only two factions that would determine the outcome of their nation...the North and South Vietnamese people. We never had any say so in the ultimate outcome.
Moreover, the United States as a superpower failed miserably by losing the war and getting ran out of the country by a comparatively ragtag army that didn’t have a 100th of our resources. The only resources they needed were National will, grit, determination, courage and the knowledge that if they hung in there, the Americans would have to eventually go home anyway. It was a stunning defeat for the United States.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo
That's right. So the answer to the OP's question: WWII had a unified society putting 110% into winning, vs. the Vietnam War which was made unwinnable by a divided society.
It was made unwinnable by there being nothing to win.
WWII had more casualties, and it had a higher draft enlistment rate. In fact, Vietnam had a higher share of voluntary enlistment.
Because it was a reaction to an attack on the US, unlike Vietnam which had some far-fetched, wayward reasoning but fact is Vietnam never attacked the US.
People tend to think a bit more positive when reacting to an indisputable event, than to a theory.
Look at Afghanistan versus Iraq, everyone all for Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, many were "wtf?" when Iraq came into the picture.
You can take that same line and apply it to the USA at the start of WWII.
Unified will, grit, determination, and courage wins wars. We had that in WWII, but not in Vietnam.
We had it in WW2 because we were fighting for our national survival.
The Vietnam War had absolutely NOTHING to do with our survival as a nation. The United States will always win wars that are justified based on our national survival. We’ll always lose wars that are attempts to impose unwanted hegemony and imperialism on another nation or region. It’s why we can’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan and won’t win in Iran if we try the same crap there.
It’s why the United States needed a draft for Vietnam, but had lines around the block trying to sign up for WW2.
We will never win a bad war. We aren’t cut out for it.
Woyld War II was the last major war where there were easily defined aggressors. We were also attacked and under a real threat as a nation. We weren’t threatened by Korea or Vietnam.
Vietnam was a Civil War that we involved ourselves in due to the false narrative over Soviet controlled world communism. The old Domino Theory. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, but he was a nationalist and an anti-colonialist who fought the French and Japanese. As a result of the political settlement after the French loss at Dien Bien Phu, there was supposed to be a reunification election between North and South Vietnam. We never allowed that election to take place because we knew that Ho would win. South Vietnam was viewed as a Weatern puppet by too many Vietnamese to ever win enough support to prevail.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 12-02-2018 at 02:07 PM..
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.
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.
