He Was 19 (Vietnam War Discussion Thread)

[Novus America]

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

Well I think we've got another history discussion thread

Any ways I'll just leave it at america had no reason to involve itself in Europe war. Plus the aftermath would have been far worse if the U.S. went to the Germans lossing side. Sure the Imperial Getman army was possible the best army of the 20th century but the descent in the ranks, food shortages, and increased influence of anti-war Leftist were all contributubg to Getmans downfall far more harshly then it was in France and England. Seriously though I'm actually glade Wilson negotiated it the way he did i have little reason to believe the Entante would have been nicer to Germany. Let's also not forget the colapse of the Ottamans and Austro-Hungarians was executable even if the Central Powers won and England and France would have carved in all the same. Plus you have the Zimmermen Telegraph basically asking Mexico to Invade the U.S. so the Germans didn't have to deal with America and the unrestricted submarine warfare waged by the Germans kinda pushed our alleginces as well.

Had the U.S. sided with Germany at the beginning... And Germany in WWI is a perfect case of how NOT to do diplomacy. The Zimmerman telegraph episode was definitely one of the dumbest diplomatic blunders in history. Well we will have to make this another thread. Like I said in retrospect. We could not have known at the time. But this relates back to the Vietnam War, in that in retrospect the Vietnam War was all for nothing.

The irony is what seemed to be the best way to accomplish an objective at the time was actually working against it. Same as in WWI.

In Vietnam we won (edit: almost, well depends on how you define winning) every battle, but lost the war, but Communism was still defeated in Vietnam.
Nobody could have predicted that.

[Souseiseki]

And whys that?

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

you realize that france would have probably started WWII right (and how no holodomor exactly)

[Novus America]

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

you realize that france would have probably started WWII right (and how no holodomor exactly)

Again we will have to make it a different thread. France starting WWII, maybe under a Fascist regime allied with Italy, maybe perpetrating the Holocaust, interesting alt history...

But on the Holodomor Ukraine would have been a nominally independent German satellite state not part of Stalin's Soviet Union (which might have never happened in the first place...).

Of course it is all speculation, but interesting to think of.

[Hollorous]

Well I think we've got another history discussion thread

Any ways I'll just leave it at america had no reason to involve itself in Europe war. Plus the aftermath would have been far worse if the U.S. went to the Germans lossing side. Sure the Imperial Getman army was possible the best army of the 20th century but the descent in the ranks, food shortages, and increased influence of anti-war Leftist were all contributubg to Getmans downfall far more harshly then it was in France and England. Seriously though I'm actually glade Wilson negotiated it the way he did i have little reason to believe the Entante would have been nicer to Germany. Let's also not forget the colapse of the Ottamans and Austro-Hungarians was executable even if the Central Powers won and England and France would have carved in all the same. Plus you have the Zimmermen Telegraph basically asking Mexico to Invade the U.S. so the Germans didn't have to deal with America and the unrestricted submarine warfare waged by the Germans kinda pushed our alleginces as well.

Had the U.S. sided with Germany at the beginning... And Germany in WWI is a perfect case of how NOT to do diplomacy. The Zimmerman telegraph episode was definitely one of the dumbest diplomatic blunders in history. Well we will have to make this another thread. Like I said in retrospect. We could not have known at the time. But this relates back to the Vietnam War, in that in retrospect the Vietnam War was all for nothing.

The irony is what seemed to be the best way to accomplish an objective at the time was actually working against it. Same as in WWI.

In Vietnam we won every battle, but lost the war, but Communism was still defeated in Vietnam.
Nobody could have predicted that.

Actually, the North Vietnamese/VC did win some battles. The "never lost a battle" thing is a myth. Observe a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kham_Duc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xa_Cam_My
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... se_Ripcord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lam_Son_719

But, of course, a straight-up military victory wasn't always part of the North Vietnamese strategy. Very often it was just "fight, bleed the enemy, withdraw before they could be destroyed". Actual ground gained and lost was often meaningless.

[Novus America]

Had the U.S. sided with Germany at the beginning... And Germany in WWI is a perfect case of how NOT to do diplomacy. The Zimmerman telegraph episode was definitely one of the dumbest diplomatic blunders in history. Well we will have to make this another thread. Like I said in retrospect. We could not have known at the time. But this relates back to the Vietnam War, in that in retrospect the Vietnam War was all for nothing.

The irony is what seemed to be the best way to accomplish an objective at the time was actually working against it. Same as in WWI.

In Vietnam we won every battle, but lost the war, but Communism was still defeated in Vietnam.
Nobody could have predicted that.

Actually, the North Vietnamese/VC did win some battles. The "never lost a battle" thing is a myth. Observe a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kham_Duc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xa_Cam_My
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... se_Ripcord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lam_Son_719

But, of course, a straight-up military victory wasn't always part of the North Vietnamese strategy. Very often it was just "fight, bleed the enemy, withdraw before they could be destroyed". Actual ground gained and lost was often meaningless.

Fair enough, won every battle is an oversimplification although even in those few battles we we greatly outnumbered, inflicted far more casualties than we lost. Again how do you define victory? Of course the North had the political will for a war of attrition and we did not (despite the fact they were losing the war of attrition in that the were suffering far worse, and had smaller population and much fewer resources). Had we the political will to keep fighting the North of would have wiped out all their able bodied men and resources long before the U.S. had a problem with either. The North bled themselves far more than the ever did us.

Hence the bizarreness, winning battles brought us no closer to victory, sometimes like Tet actually winning was a political defeat at home. And we would have won had we just stayed the course, although we could not as it was politically unacceptable. Although the North would have destroyed themselves fighting us had we stayed, or been forced to surrender do to killing off too many of their own people. Again they were going to run out of men and material first. But we were not willing to make the sacrifice. That is what it really came down to, we went into war without the will to win it, despite having the capability to win.

But in the end, did the North really win the long term political objective? Modern Vietnam is Diem's dream and Ho Chi Min's nightmare. They became what they sought to destroy.

So even had we "won" what would it have accomplished anyway?

[Glorious KASSRD]

And whys that?

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

I respect that opinion, but honestly I doubt it. For one, the Central Powers were mainly absolute monarchies, while most of the Entente was some type of democracy or republic. And it's by no means garenteed that WW2 wouldn't break out. Sure, it probably wouldn't be Hitler, but a genocidal maniac is entirely possible. In that case, we might see a WW2 break out that "good" nations couldn't win. And with Communism on the rise in Russia, and other radical ideologies bound to take over in the other Entente....War could be just as bad, if not worse than OTL.
But like you said, another thread.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Actually, the North Vietnamese/VC did win some battles. The "never lost a battle" thing is a myth. Observe a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kham_Duc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xa_Cam_My
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... se_Ripcord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lam_Son_719

But, of course, a straight-up military victory wasn't always part of the North Vietnamese strategy. Very often it was just "fight, bleed the enemy, withdraw before they could be destroyed". Actual ground gained and lost was often meaningless.

Fair enough, won every battle is an oversimplification although even in those few battles we we greatly outnumbered, inflicted far more casualties than we lost. Again how do you define victory? Of course the North had the political will for a war of attrition and we did not (despite the fact they were losing the war of attrition in that the were suffering far worse, and had smaller population and much fewer resources). Had we the political will to keep fighting the North of would have wiped out all their able bodied men and resources long before the U.S. had a problem with either. The North bled themselves far more than the ever did us.

Hence the bizarreness, winning battles brought us no closer to victory, sometimes like Tet actually winning was a political defeat at home. And we would have won had we just stayed the course, although we could not as it was politically unacceptable. Although the North would have destroyed themselves fighting us had we stayed, or been forced to surrender do to killing off too many of their own people. Again they were going to run out of men and material first. But we were not willing to make the sacrifice. That is what it really came down to, we went into war without the will to win it, despite having the capability to win.

But in the end, did the North really win the long term political objective? Modern Vietnam is Diem's dream and Ho Chi Min's nightmare. They became what they sought to destroy.

So even had we "won" what would it have accomplished anyway?

I would define winning as achieving your goals and the enemy failing to do so. South Vietnam was tooken over and North Vietnam conquered the whole of Vietnam, it's goals. Therefore, North Vietnam won.

Another topic: How did South Vietnam fall so fast in 1975? It seems like they should have been able to survive for a few years at least.

[Novus America]

Fair enough, won every battle is an oversimplification although even in those few battles we we greatly outnumbered, inflicted far more casualties than we lost. Again how do you define victory? Of course the North had the political will for a war of attrition and we did not (despite the fact they were losing the war of attrition in that the were suffering far worse, and had smaller population and much fewer resources). Had we the political will to keep fighting the North of would have wiped out all their able bodied men and resources long before the U.S. had a problem with either. The North bled themselves far more than the ever did us.

Hence the bizarreness, winning battles brought us no closer to victory, sometimes like Tet actually winning was a political defeat at home. And we would have won had we just stayed the course, although we could not as it was politically unacceptable. Although the North would have destroyed themselves fighting us had we stayed, or been forced to surrender do to killing off too many of their own people. Again they were going to run out of men and material first. But we were not willing to make the sacrifice. That is what it really came down to, we went into war without the will to win it, despite having the capability to win.

But in the end, did the North really win the long term political objective? Modern Vietnam is Diem's dream and Ho Chi Min's nightmare. They became what they sought to destroy.

So even had we "won" what would it have accomplished anyway?

I would define winning as achieving your goals and the enemy failing to do so. South Vietnam was tooken over and North Vietnam conquered the whole of Vietnam, it's goals. Therefore, North Vietnam won.

Another topic: How did South Vietnam fall so fast in 1975? It seems like they should have been able to survive for a few years at least.

I agree the North won the war, but perhaps not the long term political situation after as their goals of (claimed) socialism and equality were all for naught. Maybe they were a sham in the first place though, but it seems Ho Chi Min was a true believer, imagine what he would think of hyper consumerist and very un-equal Vietnam of today.

The North became the South in the long run.

In the long term the U.S. got a friendly non communist Vietnam. (Although it has kept the absurd "communist" charade up). So long term we actually achieved our broader goals. So what more would "winning" have accomplished? It would have gotten the same result at a much higher cost.

As to why they collapsed so quickly it was psychological. With Nixon out and a new U.S. Congress openly refusing to provide any aid, which they knew they needed they completely lost hope. It was the shock of the perceived betrayal by the U.S. that made the collapse so quick, as without our aid they knew it was inevitable.

Imagine having to fight a much stronger opponent as your best friend publicly abandons you.

[Hollorous]

I would define winning as achieving your goals and the enemy failing to do so. South Vietnam was tooken over and North Vietnam conquered the whole of Vietnam, it's goals. Therefore, North Vietnam won.

Another topic: How did South Vietnam fall so fast in 1975? It seems like they should have been able to survive for a few years at least.

I agree the North won the war, but perhaps not the long term political situation after as their goals of (claimed) socialism and equality were all for naught. Maybe they were a sham in the first place though, but it seems Ho Chi Min was a true believer, imagine what he would think of hyper consumerist and very un-equal Vietnam of today.

The North became the South in the long run.

As to why they collapsed so quickly it was psychological. With Nixon out and a new U.S. Congress openly refusing to provide any aid, which they knew they needed they completely lost hope. It was the shock of the perceived betrayal by the U.S. that made the collapse so quick, as without our aid they knew it was inevitable.

Imagine having to fight a much stronger opponent as your best friend publicly abandons you.

I'd recommend checking out "Hanoi's War" written by Vietnamese-American author Lien-Hang Nguyen. It's a diplomatic history of the war that pays more attention to the Hanoi and Saigon regimes than the usual book on the topic. One argument is that the two regimes differed greatly from the beginning in how to prosecute the war. The communists could've taken more help from China and the Soviet Union, but refused to do so because a) ironically like the United States, they didn't want their war to become a Korea situation with China becoming a primary belligerent and b) they didn't want the PRC/USSR to have enough influence to sell them out when convenient (something the Nixon administration was always poking at). Meanwhile, the Saigon regime relied fully on the Americans to the point where they didn't even try to woo any non-American allies until 1970 or so. And, by then, the North was getting their side of the story told through diplomacy in many, many countries, even the non-communist ones. Basically, the North led their side of the war, while the South was regulated to a junior partner in their own conflict from the get-go.

IMO, the US needed a quick victory in Vietnam within the first two years before the rot began to set in. When that wasn't achieved, it was just a downslide towards the inevitable. Sure, one argues that the US could've nuked North Vietnam whenever it wanted, but what does genocide prove? And what would the consequences of that nuking be? If it didn't led to WWIII and became a normalized behavior, would the Soviets have been justified in nuking Afghanistan when things got rowdy? Should the French have nuked Algeria?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Unlike WWII, Germany was no worse than the Entente. Sure they did some bad things, but so did the Entente. Had Germany won in WWI, there would have been no WWII, no Holocaust, no Holodomor. Literally nearly 100 million lives saved. Also the Middle East probably would not be so screwed up. Sure you would have a German dominated Europe, but that happened anyway.

I respect that opinion, but honestly I doubt it. For one, the Central Powers were mainly absolute monarchies, while most of the Entente was some type of democracy or republic. And it's by no means garenteed that WW2 wouldn't break out. Sure, it probably wouldn't be Hitler, but a genocidal maniac is entirely possible. In that case, we might see a WW2 break out that "good" nations couldn't win. And with Communism on the rise in Russia, and other radical ideologies bound to take over in the other Entente....War could be just as bad, if not worse than OTL.
But like you said, another thread.

Pretty much the entire reason for WWII was the rest of the world unjustly and totally fucking over Germany - France's role especially. Hitler made them surrender in the same train car Germany surrendered in the last war.

Once their nation and society was essentially cast into ruin, they were looking for a strong charismatic leader and a scapegoat. Hitler provided both.

[Oil exporting People]

Linebacker destroyed a lot of things (to clarify, Linebacker I rolled back the PAVN advance in 1972 and Linebacker II was the infamous Christmas Bombings. These get conflated sometimes), but there's no indication that it destroyed the North's ability to fight.

It shut off outside resupply, destroyed power stations & infrastructure, finally went after their airpower, etc. The fact that after years of stalling at the peace talks, the Paris Peace Accords were signed in the aftermath of the bombings is very telling.

Supplies still flowed freely through the Ho Chi Minh Trail and, at the time of signing of the Paris Agreement, the Northern army still occupied territory it had won in the Easter Offensive.

First and foremost, the Trail moved supplies it didn't make them. After we mined their harbors and destroyed their infrastructure, their resupply efforts basically shut down. As to the trail itself, the the destruction of the VC combined with some new strategies basically rendered it strategically unimportant.

Also, the North Vietnamese, at least officially, took great pains to impress that the bombing wasn't what returned them to the Paris Peace talks.

And that right there should tell you how effective the bombings were, to the extent they were attempting to downplay it.

The USA didn't almost win the Vietnam War. Ever.

Uh, no. Multiple times we came close, and it's very telling the NVA waited until the US was in political turmoil to make their big push without fear of US airpower.

[Oil exporting People]

The VC being broken and a counter-offensive against the NVA, again, does not equal "winning".

Actually, it does. With the VC effectively dead and the NVA unable to counter the airpower of the US, South Vietnam was effectively secure against attack and thus the US objective in the war was achieved.

[Souseiseki]

I would define winning as achieving your goals and the enemy failing to do so. South Vietnam was tooken over and North Vietnam conquered the whole of Vietnam, it's goals. Therefore, North Vietnam won.

Another topic: How did South Vietnam fall so fast in 1975? It seems like they should have been able to survive for a few years at least.

I agree the North won the war, but perhaps not the long term political situation after as their goals of (claimed) socialism and equality were all for naught. Maybe they were a sham in the first place though, but it seems Ho Chi Min was a true believer, imagine what he would think of hyper consumerist and very un-equal Vietnam of today.

The North became the South in the long run.

In the long term the U.S. got a friendly non communist Vietnam. (Although it has kept the absurd "communist" charade up). So long term we actually achieved our broader goals. So what more would "winning" have accomplished? It would have gotten the same result at a much higher cost.

As to why they collapsed so quickly it was psychological. With Nixon out and a new U.S. Congress openly refusing to provide any aid, which they knew they needed they completely lost hope. It was the shock of the perceived betrayal by the U.S. that made the collapse so quick, as without our aid they knew it was inevitable.

Imagine having to fight a much stronger opponent as your best friend publicly abandons you.

how was he a true believer? communism was the last resort, not the first. you literally could have had a friendly non-communist vietnam under ho chi min in the first place.

e: north vietnam's real goal was to get china/cambodia/japan/america/france to collectively fuck off and stop trying to conquer them. which they did.

[Oil exporting People]

how was he a true believer? communism was the last resort, not the first. you literally could have had a friendly non-communist vietnam under ho chi min in the first place.

No, he was already consorting with Moscow even as he was making Pro-American rhetoric in the aftermath of World War II.

[Anshaskia]

The VC being broken and a counter-offensive against the NVA, again, does not equal "winning".

Actually, it does. With the VC effectively dead and the NVA unable to counter the airpower of the US, South Vietnam was effectively secure against attack and thus the US objective in the war was achieved.

The United States failed to achieve its objectives. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me, but I have a feeling it's because us Americans don't like to admit we really fucked up.

[Souseiseki]

how was he a true believer? communism was the last resort, not the first. you literally could have had a friendly non-communist vietnam under ho chi min in the first place.

No, he was already consorting with Moscow even as he was making Pro-American rhetoric in the aftermath of World War II.

and? he was consorting with american as he was making pro-russian rhetoric as well. does that prove he was a true believer in capitalism? he was working in france before working in the soviet union. does this prove he was a true believer in france?

maybe he was consorting with moscow because he was worried based on your legacy in the phillipines you would choose their colonial masters over them. which is exactly what happened.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Maintaining the democratic system of the Republic of (south) Vietnam during their time there, outfitting and training ARVN forces, maintaining borders (Cambodia sought several islands for opium-farming).

If victory was maintaining the South's independence, then sure, that would have been possible.

However...the Republic of Vietnam, during the American involvement in the Vietnamese conflict, was not, under any sense of the word, democratic.

To an extent, the US-involvement pulled a 'homer' since the resulting mess in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge resulted in China (briefly) invading Vietnam before deciding to leave it (and its sovereignty) alone like it did Hong Kong.

Long term aftermath, when compared to the mess of North Korea, Vietnam turned out pretty good with a fairly balanced economy and stable yet competent political+military leadership in the region. So they all sort of got what they wanted, albeit after a ridiculously bloody and senseless struggle.

So in the long run, fairly proud that Vietnam is finding its own way with success, rather than being given a Chinese-roadmap with demands to follow the GPS into a lake.

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Worth it.

[Oil exporting People]

and?

It suggests he was less than genuine in what he was speaking, and given the regime he later set up....

he was consorting with american as he was making pro-russian rhetoric as well.

Really? Would you mind to source that?

maybe he was consorting with moscow because he was worried based on your legacy in the phillipines you would choose their colonial masters over them. which is exactly what happened.

First, your logical fallacy concerning that bit about the Philippines. He was consorting with Moscow because his Communists ties were already established, and it's pretty clear his rhetoric regarding the US following WWII was mainly a ploy to get support.

[Oil exporting People]

The United States failed to achieve its objectives. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me, but I have a feeling it's because us Americans don't like to admit we really fucked up.

You clearly missed the context of that post, which was that I made the point we could've won the war and achieved our objective if we had done another Linebacker on the NVA in '75.

[Souseiseki]

and?

It suggests he was less than genuine in what he was speaking, and given the regime he later set up....

he was consorting with american as he was making pro-russian rhetoric as well.

Really? Would you mind to source that?

maybe he was consorting with moscow because he was worried based on your legacy in the phillipines you would choose their colonial masters over them. which is exactly what happened.

First, your logical fallacy concerning that bit about the Philippines. He was consorting with Moscow because his Communists ties were already established, and it's pretty clear his rhetoric regarding the US following WWII was mainly a ploy to get support.

it literally explains on the page what the fallacy is and you still misused it

He joined a group of Vietnamese nationalists in Paris whose leaders were Phan Chu Trinh and Phan Văn Trường, bearing a new name Nguyễn Ái Quốc ("Nguyễn the Patriot"). Following World War I, the group petitioned for recognition of the civil rights of the Vietnamese people in French Indochina to the Western powers at the Versailles peace talks, but was ignored. Citing the language and the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they expected U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French colonial rule from Vietnam and ensure the formation of a new, nationalist government. Although they were unable to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized Nguyễn, while also making him a symbol of the anti-colonial movement at home in Vietnam.

all happened in 1919, before he went to russia. further radicalized in this case should really obviously be taken as "well america talks a lot about anti-colonialism but won't do shit. maybe the other guys will?"

[Oil exporting People]

it literally explains on the page what the fallacy is and you still misused it

No, you failed to understand it.

Citing the language and the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they expected U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French colonial rule from Vietnam and ensure the formation of a new, nationalist government. Although they were unable to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized Nguyễn, while also making him a symbol of the anti-colonial movement at home in Vietnam.

And, what exactly?

all happened in 1919, before he went to russia. further radicalized in this case should really obviously be taken as "well america talks a lot about anti-colonialism but won't do shit. maybe the other guys will?"

And this has nothing at all do with the conversation at hand.

[Anshaskia]

The United States failed to achieve its objectives. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me, but I have a feeling it's because us Americans don't like to admit we really fucked up.

You clearly missed the context of that post, which was that I made the point we could've won the war and achieved our objective if we had done another Linebacker on the NVA in '75.

Not in 1975. The South Vietnamese didn't have the oil to support their war machine and the North Vietnamese were well-funded and ready to take Saigon, which they did in April. The Viet Cong established their Provisional Revolutionary Government and American personnel and some South Vietnamese were evacuated. By the beginning of 1975, the result of the war was apparent.

[Souseiseki]

it literally explains on the page what the fallacy is and you still misused it

No, you failed to understand it.

Citing the language and the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, they expected U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to help remove the French colonial rule from Vietnam and ensure the formation of a new, nationalist government. Although they were unable to obtain consideration at Versailles, the failure further radicalized Nguyễn, while also making him a symbol of the anti-colonial movement at home in Vietnam.

And, what exactly?

all happened in 1919, before he went to russia. further radicalized in this case should really obviously be taken as "well america talks a lot about anti-colonialism but won't do shit. maybe the other guys will?"

And this has nothing at all do with the conversation at hand.

then what was i tu quoqueing at? notice how you will completely fail to actually find a relevant statement.

actually, it does. "but he was doing it before he went to moscow" is a perfectly valid response to "but he was doing it after he went to moscow". i'm sorry if you don't understand that the struggle of vietnam and ho chi ming was a very very long one?

[Oil exporting People]

Not in 1975.

No, '75 is correct.

The South Vietnamese didn't have the oil to support their war machine

You're going to need to cite that claim, as I've never read anything supporting it.

and the North Vietnamese were well-funded and ready to take Saigon, which they did in April.

I could have you well funded as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you can go conquer some random nation. And yes, as history turned out, they took Saigon. However, the details of how that was achieved is important to note. The US was in political turmoil after Watergate, and thus lacked the political will to launch another Linebacker offensive. If, say, Watergate had been avoided, Nixon would've been able to launch another aerial offensive against the NVA.

The Viet Cong established their Provisional Revolutionary Government and American personnel and some South Vietnamese were evacuated. By the beginning of 1975, the result of the war was apparent.

VC were a dead letter by then, and the rest has no bearing at all in what I've outlined. Most US personnel were out in '73, and they still forced the North to the accords.

[Souseiseki]

tbh "we could have won the war if we didn't lose" is pretty meaningless and the political will to fight a war is like one of the most important parts of it

france could have totally won in algeria if it wasn't for the complete collapse in public support! (e: the FLN honestly were a dead letter by then as well but lol it doesn't actually matter)