Historical debate of whatever

Use only if your topic doesn't fit into one of the categories above.
fronex
Posts: 15
Joined: 25 May 2017, 21:16

Historical debate of whatever

Postby fronex » 21 Aug 2018, 09:09

drivebyhobo wrote:Americans on the other hand won Khe Sanh and every major battle in Vietnam. Now those are facts you can't change, no matter how thick your anti-American bias.


I am not so firm with american history. But didnt North Vietnam won the war and America had to retreat from Vietnam?
Or did I miss something?
So, was american strategy better or worse than france strategy, because americans won all battles, but still lost the war.

EDIT by MarKr:
I said in the original topic to drivebyhobo to stop the discussion on that point and stop draging the the thread OT. If you absolutely have to continue do it here.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 101
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: Historical debate of whatever

Postby drivebyhobo » 28 Sep 2018, 18:01

fronex wrote: I am not so firm with american history. But didnt North Vietnam won the war and America had to retreat from Vietnam?

It's not that clear cut. America ended its direct military involvement when America signed the Paris Accords in 1973, but the US was not obligated to cease its involvement completely. North Vietnam did not defeat South Vietnam until 1975 which is when Congressional politics forced the end of American material support for South Vietnam



fronex wrote:So, was american strategy better or worse than france strategy, because americans won all battles, but still lost the war.

Americans would have never employed the strategy used at Dien Bien Phu and other places. The French strategy was to force a defensive battle with the Vietnamese by building a fortress in an enemy area that could not be ignored. In doing so however, the French ignored that they had a massive garrison that could only be resupplied by aerial means. The site they also chose was a lowland surrounded by hills. This became an extreme hazard as the Vietnamese occupied these hills with anti aircraft and artillery batteries. As a result, the French could not leverage their attack aircraft and supply aircraft without significant disruption. The Vietnamese were free to bombard the fort because the hills were so high above, the French artillery could not target the Vietnamese artillery. Once the French realized their mistake, they doubled down and deployed a colossal paratrooper operation to rescue the beleaguered forces. This only exacerbated the problem as the demands on supplies were made even more stringent.

In short, the French gave the Vietnamese the means to destroy them. In contrast American defensive operations were much smaller, sustainable and better distributed reducing risk.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 464
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical debate of whatever

Postby Jalis » 29 Sep 2018, 06:30

drivebyhobo wrote:It's not that clear cut. America ended its direct military involvement when America signed the Paris Accords in 1973.


Why play with words ? USA was simply defeated. They withdraw from a war they started under a false pretext. They started this war with an objective they never reached, and they came back home letting all the territory to the enemy because USA was simply unable to win the war.
the name for that is : A DEFEAT.

drivebyhobo wrote:In short, the French gave the Vietnamese the means to destroy them. In contrast American defensive operations were much smaller, sustainable and better distributed reducing risk.


Defensive operations is not enough to win a war especially when you are the invader.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest