Vietnam War was unwinnable

[9thIDdoc]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

 

[Dick Foster]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was
I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

What's up Doc? Every time I get a Disagree here no one tells me why. I take it that they really agree but won't say it.

What say U?

When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).

Ok. What do you disagree with?

I did not again state our points of disagreement because I had made them plain in my earlier posts and I tire of repeating myself. But since you asked:

"JFK knew Nam was a loser. He wanted to wait until he was safetly reelected to drop that loser. But people had other ideas and 57k slaughtered.

Kennedy was directly responsible with LBJ finishing it."

I disagree that JFK thought Vietnam was a "loser". Or that he intended to drop it. Or that it actually was a "loser". Or that we lost.
I disagree that we had anybody "slaughtered". We had troops that died accomplishing the mission their Country gave them.
LBJ didn't finish it; Nixon and the US Congress did.

 

[9thIDdoc]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was
I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.

We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
Who were you with? When?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb

 

[harmonica]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was
I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.

We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
Who were you with? When?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb

..let's review:
...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
..why not just LET us win!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!! why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
......

 

[9thIDdoc]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was
I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.

We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
Who were you with? When?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb

..let's review:
...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
..why not just LET us win!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!! why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
......

Just when I thought you would never be right about anything...

 

[harmonica]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was
I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.

So he became an aggressive Communist Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.

We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
Who were you with? When?

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb

..let's review:
...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
..why not just LET us win!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!! why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
......

Just when I thought you would never be right about anything...

just let them win!! WOW
you guys are good

 

[harmonica]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

 

[harmonica]

..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
page 219
''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''

 

[9thIDdoc]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

 

[9thIDdoc]

..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
page 219
''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''

More opinion. The fact is nobody invaded China and China had no good reason to believe anybody intended to. Aggression pure and simple.

 

[harmonica]

..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
page 219
''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''

More opinion. The fact is nobody invaded China and China had no good reason to believe anybody intended to. Aggression pure and simple.

not opinion but fact

 

[gipper]

We fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

Not really if you were a member of the MIC, then you did fantastic.

 

[harmonica]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses

 

[9thIDdoc]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses

You quoted his opinion; not fact.
And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Quit engaging Harmonica he is incapable of rational thought, he does not even read his own links.

 

[harmonica]

Quit engaging Harmonica he is incapable of rational thought, he does not even read his own links.

you can't keep up---hahahahhahahahah

 

[harmonica]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses

You quoted his opinion; not fact.
And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?

how little history you know
..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb

 

[RetiredGySgt]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses

You quoted his opinion; not fact.
And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?

how little history you know
..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb

Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.

 

[harmonica]

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 Anatomy of Victory
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam

Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's opinion is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses

You quoted his opinion; not fact.
And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?

how little history you know
..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb

Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.

both have KOREA in their names