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.
