The more I think about this, the more interested I get!  Source plz? 

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp

Lots of good stuff on why we lost, straight from the friggin' source - an NVA colonel. This interview has been sourced many, many times. I need to find the other interviews of other NVA leaders, but the major citation about the resolve of the Vietnamese centers around Kerry and Fonda protesting the war - the NVA knew that since that was going on, that the US lacked the resolve to actually win.

lets just wait for the new call of duty game and let history come alive.

I know Hitler would have attacked the Soviet Union eventually(or the other way around) as communists and fascists are arch rivals. But it still doesn't make much sense from a strategic point of view, at least not so soon. It would have been better for Hitler to wait after the western front was over. If Germany defeated Great Britain before the USA had finished mobilising their troops(which was certainly possible) then US intervention would have been totally useless since troops would not be able to enter "Festung Europa". And lets be honest here, Germany could totally handle the USA on its own(and Hitler would probably have never attacked the USA directly as it would be too far away to control). 

Even if Germany would have been weakened by the war they could still defend pretty easily from Russia. I've never seen Russia as a strong power till after world war II I guess. Sure they can defend, but when they attack its everything except impressive(Russian-Japanese wars, Caucasus wars, Napoleonic wars outside Russia(Austerlitz for example), Crimean war, etc.)

edit: I quoted the wrong post, sorry.

Highwaystar, I actually agree

That's pretty devastating.  But I think your nested post should say "had the anti-war movement not existed".  What I got from that was that negative American PR was literally a key part of their strategy.  Fonda's visit was a coup but not a turning point. 

Additionally, he makes no mention of being seriously set back by bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail.  But he does suggest that we could have crushed them after the spectacular military failure of the Tet offensives if we hadn't started to withdraw just when they were at their weakest.  (1969-70). 

Well, let me start by saying it wasn't just communism vs. fascism per se.  Communists IIRC consider it almost a holy duty to expand the franchise globally by hook or by crook; and Germans -- especially the military -- hated communism because of their failed revolution in Germany in 1919. 

I'm not sure what kind of timetable you're looking at for Germany defeating Great Britain, but I don't think it would have happened before Stalin invaded.  And despite the eventual failure, Germany's initial results were so devastating that I find it hard to believe that simply defending would have been more beneficial. 

Also, you didn't mention Finland.  Sure, they won, but it took so long it was embarrassing. 

P.S.  I'm pretty skeptical of the stuff you said re: USA, but it's going a bit astray to debate that IMO. 

Let's see. America and some arm twisted allies invade Vietnam because the Frogs lost control of one of their colonies and it was falling to the communists. They fight a war for control of Vietnam with the purpose of installing a non-communist govt.

America and her allies don't succeed in defeating the communist forces, and have to beat a hasty retreat after 15 years of direct military involvement. The war was over when Saigon fell to the Communist North Vietnam Army with the Western allies running away with their tails between their legs.

America then proceeds to try punish Vietnam economically and are constantly trying to kill off the communist regime using Cold War tactics. But The communist regime survives to today and Vietnam is actually a growing economy (a la China) rather than a pariah state (a la North Korea).

Strange how a drawn conflict (Korea) has had a worse outcome (a nuclear armed rogue state) than a clear loss on the part of America. I guess the lesson is that wars should be won or lost. Draws (prolonged ceasefires) seem to be the worst of all possible outcomes.

I was told that Stalin's strategy was that he'd attack Germany after they have been weakened by the war. I guess we'll never know for sure what Stalin would have done if Hitler respected the non-aggression pact longer. And I'm aware of the communist revolution in 1919 and the weakness of the government to act against all these coup d'etats or repressing the ones that caused them, but I can't possibly list every reason, or I could write whole pages of it(I have actually written 140 pages from 1789 till the 1950s for an assignment). 

And yes, I didn't mention Finland, that was embarrassing as well lol. They also won the Caucasus wars, but it took them so long and so much trouble that it was embarrassing as hell. 

And yeah thread is derailed, but how much discussion can there be over who lost the Vietnam war? It's pretty clear that the US failed to meet their objectives in Vietnam. Korea is a different story, that war was won(or it was a draw, but North Korea was the first to invade south Korea and failed) even though the north remained communist. They also lost the war on Cuba even though they never attacked Cuba directly, they did support a Cuban invasion force however, but they didn't support them enough(which is probably why Kennedy got assassinated, by angry Cubans that were against communism in Cuba. But my knowledge is fuzzy about that subject.)

We know who shot Kennedy. I was not aware that he was acting on behalf of or at the behest of Cubans.