My co-workers and I were discussing on whether or not the Vietnam was was a victory for the US. One of them said since we had a 4-1 kill ratio in our favor, the war was won by the US. Any opinions?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Vietnam War Question...
- Thread starter Zim Hosein
- Start date
SherEPunjab
Diamond Member
From Jonathan Schell's post:
"For wars, let us recall, are not fought for their own sake but to achieve aims. Victory cannot be judged only by the outcome of battles. In the American Revolutionary War, for example, Edmund Burke, a leader of England's antiwar movement, said, "Our victories can only complete our ruin." Almost two centuries later, in Vietnam, the United States triumphed in almost every military engagement, yet lost the war. If the aim is lost, the war is lost, whatever happens on the battlefield. The novelty this time is that the defeat has preceded the inauguration of hostilities."
Full article. Excellent, but long read.
"For wars, let us recall, are not fought for their own sake but to achieve aims. Victory cannot be judged only by the outcome of battles. In the American Revolutionary War, for example, Edmund Burke, a leader of England's antiwar movement, said, "Our victories can only complete our ruin." Almost two centuries later, in Vietnam, the United States triumphed in almost every military engagement, yet lost the war. If the aim is lost, the war is lost, whatever happens on the battlefield. The novelty this time is that the defeat has preceded the inauguration of hostilities."
Full article. Excellent, but long read.
wnied
Diamond Member
We did NOT win the Vietnam war. Regardless of kill ratios, better technology and the like, we pulled out and left before anymore Americans were killed fighting a war our congress wouldnt let them win.
Its a shame it takes foolishness like this to get our governments heads out of their collective asses, but it woke them up to the fact that being the one with the numbers, technology and expertise, doesnt guarantee a win.
~wnied~
Its a shame it takes foolishness like this to get our governments heads out of their collective asses, but it woke them up to the fact that being the one with the numbers, technology and expertise, doesnt guarantee a win.
~wnied~
I know you're sometimes sarcastic Moonbeam, but could you clarify your post please?
Keep the opinions coming, I appreciate it a lot.
C'DaleRider
Guest
Sure we won, which is why we ran out of the country as quickly as we did and the North Vietnamese took over Saigon after we hastily departed. You ought to look up some history books and old news footage of the evacuation of Saigon. Helicopters getting loaded on the rooftop of the embassy....not enough room for everyone, so Americans first, S. Vietnamese who supported the U.S. were left behind.
Helicopters were being pushed off the sides of ships out at sea after they unloaded their passengers to make room for more "winners" leaving the country. It was a massive evacuation that left tons of material in Vietnam, not to mention POWs.
Despite what your friend states, Vietnam was a big ole LOSS for the U.S., the first.
Helicopters were being pushed off the sides of ships out at sea after they unloaded their passengers to make room for more "winners" leaving the country. It was a massive evacuation that left tons of material in Vietnam, not to mention POWs.
Despite what your friend states, Vietnam was a big ole LOSS for the U.S., the first.
Supermercado
Diamond Member
IIRC, my military history teacher last semester told us that the kill ratio was more like 10:1. I can't remember for sure, but I think I remember it being more than 4:1.
As for Russian losses in WWII, I believe he said the number was close to 20 million total. That's staggering.
As for Russian losses in WWII, I believe he said the number was close to 20 million total. That's staggering.
20 Million! :Q
Sh*t, I need to go pick up a history book tomorrow, that's just insane and sad 🙁
Supermercado
Diamond Member
Agreed. Like I said, I can't remember if that's the right number or not, but I think it's right. That's counting military and civilians. Either way, though, that's a LOT of people.
🙁
Any idea on what history book would be a good reference, or any book that just lays down the fact and forgoes the politics? Thanks in advance 🙂
While we did not achieve our objectives in the conflict that was the Vietnam war, we did achieve our objectives in a much larger sense, to which the Vietnam war was undeniably a contributor. The Vietnam war was one of many battles against the scurge of Soviet Communism, of which leftists love to paint their rosey little utopian picture, but history tells a different story; one of brutality and repression which were hallmarks of Central European communism. Vietnam helped break the back of communism and contributed to its downfall world-wide, even as many acadmemics on western university campuses still cling desperately to their 'collectivist' dream.
In the case of Vietnam, Communism won. We deserted our allies in Vietnam and they faced the slaughter and repression Communism is know for.
The US could have won this 'war,' but thanks to the idiots in charge, it became a political tool rather than us against them.
Go view 'the wall' and all this matters not a lot...
🙁
Kadarin
Lifer
The Vietnam War no doubt could "easily" have been won, had the US government not hamstrung its military by micromanaging the war. However, it could be argued that had the US bodyslammed North Vietnam, the Soviet Union may well have escalated the Cold War into something a lot more unpleasant. The prevailing doctrine during the Cold War was "containment"; try to prevent communism from spreading while avoiding the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario of all out nuclear war.
Yeah, WWII had alot of deaths, but i thought the TOTAL killed in WWII was around 16 million.
Also, didnt Stalin kill more of his own people then died in all of WWII? I thought Stalin put down like 39 million or something.
Course, my numbers could be way way off too.....But something to look into, cause Stalin was responsible for more death then Hitler if I remember right....
Also, didnt Stalin kill more of his own people then died in all of WWII? I thought Stalin put down like 39 million or something.
Course, my numbers could be way way off too.....But something to look into, cause Stalin was responsible for more death then Hitler if I remember right....
Yes, TOTAL military combat deaths in WWII were around 16 million. About 11 Million of those were Soviet Union. If we add in Civilian deaths, and those killed in Soviet "purges' as well and German and Soviet concentration camps, the total loss to the Soviet Union was around 27 million lives.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
Sure we won... That whole "Fall of Saigon" thing was a party to celebrate our victory.
HBO did a pretty good movie about LBJ & showed how he personally selected targets during his administration & the horrible trade-offs he had to make.
HBO did a pretty good movie about LBJ & showed how he personally selected targets during his administration & the horrible trade-offs he had to make.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
