By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Vietnam won or lost?

 

Vietnam won or lost?

America lost 65 81.25%
 
American won 9 11.25%
 
Its a draw 6 7.50%
 
Total:80
Final-Fan on 27 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Inversely, Russia and the UK would not of won WW2 without the US. You know, it was a 2-front war, and Britian was getting its collective rear-end handed to it by the Japanese in the Pacific. The Russians did virtually nothing until 1945.

Ultimately, WW2 was won by the allies because of all 3. Had one not participated, they would have had a much more difficult time at it - although I could imagine it being won if it was the US + USSR with Britian being neutral.

Well, that's not really true.  They didn't really gain much ground back until 1944 IIRC, but the whole time they were doing massive counterattacks.  It's actually really depressing because Stalin kept ordering offensives constantly even when it was a terrible idea. 

I read a novel that put it this way:  "in both world wars the Russian way of putting out a fire was to pile bodies on it till it smothered." 

Still, it did bleed the Germans -- although the only reason the USSR finally made progress was no doubt due to Normandy distracting Germany. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 27 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Samus Aran said:
mrstickball said:
Honestly...

I'd take the USSR over America as to the leading reason the allies won WW2, at least in Europe, anyways. Although the USSR had some major, tragic mis-steps during the first year of the war, the fact is that the Soviets had the best weaponry (ground based, anyways) of the allies, and had the best type of economy to ensure that the Germans could be destroyed. They had the advantage of crippling winters, forced labor, and good propaganda to ensure that they could send enough people to die for the homeland.

Had it not been for Stalin's incompotence during the first year or two, the USSR would of made even more mincemeat of the Germans. Fortunately for the USSR, Stalin was not as incompotent as Hitler was, which worked in the Soviet favor later on, as he delegated more authority to his commanders.

To further this notion, just look at Operation Unthinkable. It was the post-WW2 plan of continuing the war against the Soviets until we took Moscow. Guess what? We didn't do it because we would have lost against the reds. Scary stuff, but true. That is why I'd take the Soviets over the US in the war.

You make a good point, but my post was more directed towards world war I then world war II.

Yeah, a direct war against the USSR would have been dangerous at that time although the USSR lost MASSIVE lives during WW II and USA/UK did not. But then again, Russians have the big advantage of their massive cold land and lack of empathy towards their people. 

Hitler should have never broken his non-aggression pact with Stalin in 1942. He should have kept the focus on Britain and bomb the British radar systems. In 1941 the only nation still at war with Germany was Britain. If he didn't start a second front(Didn't he learn anything from WWI lol?) he would have defeated GB eventually. USA intervention would have been totally useless if Great Britain was defeated thus Hitler would have won the war. 

I seriously don't get why Hitler even tried(more space for his Aryan race is bullshit reason), if even Napoleon couldn't bring the Russians on their knees then how will an incompetent fool like Hitler do it? He should have just stayed out of war and let his Generals do the strategic warfare.

No one could stand up against Germany without allies during both world wars. I think that's pretty impressive for one country(with no real allies). Italy sucked as an ally and Japan and Germany never had a common strategy which was a BIG factor on why they lost WWII. 

But do you think D day would have succeeded without the USA? I think not and that was an important factor in deciding the war. As the second front was finally opened which Stalin asked so long for. British land-army was/is not really impressive then.

edit: lol my post sounds as if I wanted a German victory. Rather not Oo

Oh, I understand. I've looked and looked and looked into various WW2 theories.

The fact is, Hitler could of won WW2 in 1,000 different ways. The problem was that Hitler was simply insane. He demanded tactical control of German forces, yet had no real tactical insight to ensure that what the army did was the right thing to do.

The march on Stalingrad is probably the prime example of both Hitler and Stalin's idiocy - Stalin ordered his troops never to retreat, and many died. When they finally fell away into Stalingrad proper, Hitler ordered his forces to take the city of his namesake simply to be a moral victory...

In the end, the USSR won, and began the chain of events to drive the Germans out of the USSR.

I think that was the major advantage with the US and British tactics - the leaders of both nations actually gave their tacticians the lattitude to win.

I disagree about the USSR being more important than the USA.  A big reason for this is the massive support the USSR got from the USA, which obviously should be counted on the USA side.  The only thing the Russians really brought to the party was lots of bodies and their awesome tanks, both of which they used badly. 

I question the accuracy of your Hitler-Stalin comparison.  For starters, Stalin had a habit of executing/exiling dissenters which I believe Hiter did not share.  Who was really more controlling?  Keep in mind the difference between Hitler's behavior through most of the war vs. the end of it. 

He invaded Russia because both sides were planning to betray the other.  Hitler got to it first, that's all. 

More specifically on Hitler, I recently read a book that argues that he deserves more credit than he's usually given as a strategic commander.  For instance, he wanted to attack France almost immediately after taking Poland, which didn't happen because his commanders resisted it because they felt they were unprepared (needing to recover from Poland), but France was even more unprepared.  France would have been a lot tougher than it was except that France panicked, which made Britain panic and bail out, which screwed the French defenses, so it probably came out even with Hitler's original plan. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

numonex on 27 May 2010

China lost 700,000 troops assisting North Vietnam in the Vietnam War. Russia also lended support to North Vitenam to fight its bitter cold war enemy. US lost only 50,000 troops. US got its ass handed to it by the Chinese and the North Vietnamese. The Vietnam War coul of gone on forever and the US were fighting in gureilla war against enemies who hid in under ground cave networks and having to trek through jungles. The US had to cut its losses due widespread

Today China is still a Communist nation and they are rightfully the richest country in the world and they own one third of US debt and they have most of the production industries. China used Capitalism against US and defeated it comprehensively. US has sold out and sent most off its production and factories to China.



mrstickball on 27 May 2010
Garnett said:
mrstickball said:

Inversely, Russia and the UK would not of won WW2 without the US. You know, it was a 2-front war, and Britian was getting its collective rear-end handed to it by the Japanese in the Pacific. The Russians did virtually nothing until 1945.

Ultimately, WW2 was won by the allies because of all 3. Had one not participated, they would have had a much more difficult time at it - although I could imagine it being won if it was the US + USSR with Britian being neutral.

The Russians were on the offensive since 1943, against Germany. USSR never attacked Japan, though they said they would they never did.

 

@themanwithnoname

Hitler invaded Russia because they were enemies, Hitler and Stalin never liked eachother but both agreed to be at peace. Funny thing is German troops were doing good until Stalingrad and Winter, their tanks never started in the cold harsh Russian winter, while the Russian tanks could start in -30 weather.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

USSR attacked manchuria in August 1945, and killed an estimated 80,000 Japanese troops. I'd consider that an attack.

@FinalFan - I was talking about the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater, not Europe. The Soviets did nothing until 1945.

About the Stalin-Hitler comparisons - yes, Stalin was awful, but again, I believe that Hitler's guidance led to more tactical mistakes than Stalin. I'm not saying Stalin was great because, as you said, he jailed and killed a lot of dissenting soldiers and leaders. However, when it comes down to it, Hitler still made the major blunders that led to Germany's defeat.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

BBH on 27 May 2010

- USA lost thousands of men
- Short term Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam either stayed or became communist
- Cost a fortune, harmed life back in the states
- Got the innocent local vietnamese to hate them
- Massacred innocent civilians and babies
- Was the aggressor in many cases

Takes some spin to turn that into a victory.



Around the Network
Garnett on 27 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Garnett said:
mrstickball said:

Inversely, Russia and the UK would not of won WW2 without the US. You know, it was a 2-front war, and Britian was getting its collective rear-end handed to it by the Japanese in the Pacific. The Russians did virtually nothing until 1945.

Ultimately, WW2 was won by the allies because of all 3. Had one not participated, they would have had a much more difficult time at it - although I could imagine it being won if it was the US + USSR with Britian being neutral.

The Russians were on the offensive since 1943, against Germany. USSR never attacked Japan, though they said they would they never did.

 

@themanwithnoname

Hitler invaded Russia because they were enemies, Hitler and Stalin never liked eachother but both agreed to be at peace. Funny thing is German troops were doing good until Stalingrad and Winter, their tanks never started in the cold harsh Russian winter, while the Russian tanks could start in -30 weather.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

USSR attacked manchuria in August 1945, and killed an estimated 80,000 Japanese troops. I'd consider that an attack.

@FinalFan - I was talking about the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater, not Europe. The Soviets did nothing until 1945.

About the Stalin-Hitler comparisons - yes, Stalin was awful, but again, I believe that Hitler's guidance led to more tactical mistakes than Stalin. I'm not saying Stalin was great because, as you said, he jailed and killed a lot of dissenting soldiers and leaders. However, when it comes down to it, Hitler still made the major blunders that led to Germany's defeat.

Oh, i never knew that. Well i take back my statement then.

Maybe Stalin had his hands full until 1945?



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

mrstickball on 27 May 2010
Garnett said:
mrstickball said:
Garnett said:

The Russians were on the offensive since 1943, against Germany. USSR never attacked Japan, though they said they would they never did.

 

@themanwithnoname

Hitler invaded Russia because they were enemies, Hitler and Stalin never liked eachother but both agreed to be at peace. Funny thing is German troops were doing good until Stalingrad and Winter, their tanks never started in the cold harsh Russian winter, while the Russian tanks could start in -30 weather.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

USSR attacked manchuria in August 1945, and killed an estimated 80,000 Japanese troops. I'd consider that an attack.

@FinalFan - I was talking about the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater, not Europe. The Soviets did nothing until 1945.

About the Stalin-Hitler comparisons - yes, Stalin was awful, but again, I believe that Hitler's guidance led to more tactical mistakes than Stalin. I'm not saying Stalin was great because, as you said, he jailed and killed a lot of dissenting soldiers and leaders. However, when it comes down to it, Hitler still made the major blunders that led to Germany's defeat.

Oh, i never knew that. Well i take back my statement then.

Maybe Stalin had his hands full until 1945?

No. Stalin agreed to hold of on striking out eastward until Hitler was finished. The Soviet Union and Japan had a neutrality pact until the USSR broke it in August 1945. These terms were established at the Tehran and Yalta conferences in 1943 and early 1945 between the 3 allied states (USSR, USA and GB). Stalin also wanted to make sure he didn't have to deal with a 2-front war until the real threat - the Germans - were dealt with.

Once Hitler was of no more concern, Stalin invaded Manchuria with ungodly force - 1.5 million men in a brilliant pincer attack. From my understanding, this major attack (which started shortly after us nuking the Japanese) helped coerce the Japanese into surrender along with the bombings, because the Japanese lost so severely to the Russians.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Garnett on 27 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Garnett said:
mrstickball said:
Garnett said:

The Russians were on the offensive since 1943, against Germany. USSR never attacked Japan, though they said they would they never did.

 

@themanwithnoname

Hitler invaded Russia because they were enemies, Hitler and Stalin never liked eachother but both agreed to be at peace. Funny thing is German troops were doing good until Stalingrad and Winter, their tanks never started in the cold harsh Russian winter, while the Russian tanks could start in -30 weather.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

USSR attacked manchuria in August 1945, and killed an estimated 80,000 Japanese troops. I'd consider that an attack.

@FinalFan - I was talking about the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater, not Europe. The Soviets did nothing until 1945.

About the Stalin-Hitler comparisons - yes, Stalin was awful, but again, I believe that Hitler's guidance led to more tactical mistakes than Stalin. I'm not saying Stalin was great because, as you said, he jailed and killed a lot of dissenting soldiers and leaders. However, when it comes down to it, Hitler still made the major blunders that led to Germany's defeat.

Oh, i never knew that. Well i take back my statement then.

Maybe Stalin had his hands full until 1945?

No. Stalin agreed to hold of on striking out eastward until Hitler was finished. The Soviet Union and Japan had a neutrality pact until the USSR broke it in August 1945. These terms were established at the Tehran and Yalta conferences in 1943 and early 1945 between the 3 allied states (USSR, USA and GB). Stalin also wanted to make sure he didn't have to deal with a 2-front war until the real threat - the Germans - were dealt with.

Once Hitler was of no more concern, Stalin invaded Manchuria with ungodly force - 1.5 million men in a brilliant pincer attack. From my understanding, this major attack (which started shortly after us nuking the Japanese) helped coerce the Japanese into surrender along with the bombings, because the Japanese lost so severely to the Russians.

Ahhh...

 

Stalin knew not to make the mistake that Hitler made, 2 front war....



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

gurglesletch on 27 May 2010

We won, it is just a manuver called a tactical retreat.




Get your Portable ID!

Final-Fan on 28 May 2010
mrstickball said:
@FinalFan - I was talking about the USSR's involvement in the Pacific theater, not Europe. The Soviets did nothing until 1945.

About the Stalin-Hitler comparisons - yes, Stalin was awful, but again, I believe that Hitler's guidance led to more tactical mistakes than Stalin. I'm not saying Stalin was great because, as you said, he jailed and killed a lot of dissenting soldiers and leaders. However, when it comes down to it, Hitler still made the major blunders that led to Germany's defeat.

1.  OK. 
2.  Such as?  I can think of a couple major mistakes he's responsible for, but I bet they aren't what you're thinking of. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!