What's new

Vietnamese communists call for end to communism

I just have only one word: Those who betray the belief or lost the heart can believe others call u brain-washed.

U have no goal in ur life and don't know what u should do and what u will do.
Me? I am brain-washed by the Net to think that cats are cute, while in fact they are fluffy ball of fur, spawn of the devil to take our souls. I'm gonna go home now and worship my 3 cats. Ciao.:yay:
 
Me? I am brain-washed by the Net to think that cats are cute, while in fact they are fluffy ball of fur, spawn of the devil to take our souls. I'm gonna go home now and worship my 3 cats. Ciao.:yay:
Save ur time with @gambit, he was a CIA agent. His job is to brainwash u.

dryiceboy_2258461792955926.JPG
 
Good men died on that attack, there were more VNese, both North and South, than American death. The attack set back the unification effort of VN and it took more than 3 years after the US withdrew its troops for NVN to achieve the total victory. Many VNese experts said that if we had had the force before 1968, it would have took only 3 months instead of 3 years.

Yes, if I remember correctly, about 45,000 NV and VC troops were killed, about two thirds of the attacking force, that's a big loss and I imagine those were probably the best quality troops also.
 
Yes, if I remember correctly, about 45,000 NV and VC troops were killed, about two thirds of the attacking force, that's a big loss and I imagine those were probably the best quality troops also.

a heavy damage, but I don't believe in the counting system of USA at that time ...
My father says VC would bring their bodies and guns away ...
 
Yes, if I remember correctly, about 45,000 NV and VC troops were killed, about two thirds of the attacking force, that's a big loss and I imagine those were probably the best quality troops also.
a heavy damage, but I don't believe in the counting system of USA at that time ...
My father says VC would bring their bodies and guns away ...
The battle of Khe Sanh alone cost around 22.000 NV troops. Many platoons were wiped out. Troops sent to recover the bodies of fallen soldiers were also killed by fierce US air strike and cannons. I guess NV gens wanted a second Dien Bien Phu at Khe Sang, but they failed. So many lives thrown away.
 
how can be communist if you have stock market?

South Vietnamese wanted nothing to do with communism. The 1968 Tet Offensive was proof of that. Giap did not -- DID NOT -- wanted that battle but he was overruled by the Politburo. Giap knew that the South Vietnamese was ALREADY resistant to communism and argued against the plan. The failure of the battle and the gross atrocities committed by both the NVA and the Việt Cộng reinforced the South Vietnamese resolve to resist communism. They were willing to settle for one half of the country to establish their independence.

is this true? can someone give source


Yes, if I remember correctly, about 45,000 NV and VC troops were killed, about two thirds of the attacking force, that's a big loss and I imagine those were probably the best quality troops also.
excuse me **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@gambit Your post was too long so I won't quote it.
You mean it contained too much new info and logic for you to digest due to many years of brainwashing by the Vietnamese communists.

It's true that many people of the South Vietnam People Liberation Front were not communists. Even the leaders who formed the Front were not communists when they did that. But they disgusted the SVN govt enough to joined side with NVN communists, that's enough of a proof for you?
No, it does not constitute proof. Of course there were discontent with the South Vietnamese government. But then there were discontent with the North Vietnamese government as well. Care to explain why there was a constant stream of refugees southward during the war ?

To me, the 1968 Tet Offense came out with both sides lost. NVN lost many good soldiers, many hidden cells. SVN and the US lost face to the world. I agree with Gen Giap that the 1968 attack was a rush, and we should have prepared more. But if it wasn't for half a million US troops in SVN, the outcome might be very very different.

SVN troops, without the US troops to fight for them, lost in 2 years, even when US money poured non-stop in SVN.
Like I said, communism make people stupid. You think the NVA fought without materiel support from the Soviets and the Chinese ?

Under the program 'Vietnamization' of the war, the US would gradually withdraw all ground operations and by 1972, only US Special Forces were active ground combat troops, otherwise, it was only US air power that were involved in active combat. Even so, the ARVN defeated the NVA in what the Americans called 'Easter Offensive'. Giap was for this battle but as usual, he proved himself no better than a guerrilla fighter mentality. Did you know that Giap lost every set piece battle he ever engaged in, going all the way back to his war against French troops in North Viet Nam ? That is why he resorted to guerrilla warfare and other methods such as violating the territorial integrity of Laos and Cambodia to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Laos and Cambodia were declared neutral countries in the Vietnamese civil war. By creating the Trail through Laotian and Cambodian territories, the North Vietnamese leadership committed a war crime, and because NVN dragged Laotian and Cambodian territories into this civil war, the US had every right to violate those territories as well in the bombing campaigns.

Pointing out the number of US troops showed you have no clue on how a military array its forces. Just because there was half mil US troops in SVN, that does not mean all of them were combat troops. The standard ratio of support to combat troop in a modern military, which includes the VN War, is about 10:1, meaning for every 1 shooting infantry soldier, there are 10 non-shooting rear echelon support troops. For the 1960s in the VN War, that mean there were only about 60,000 active shooters at any time, and about half to 2/3 of that amount were in the field seeking out the enemy.

The NVA and the VC were not as sophisticated forces so most likely the ratio is about 5:1, that mean despite the communist forces outnumbering the ARVN/USA alliance, their loss in the 1968 Tet Offensive means that despite the poor reputation of the ARVN, the South Vietnamese soldiers still acquitted themselves adequately enough.

Is any of this info new to you ? Most likely yes. Same for the rest of the Vietnamese members here as well. You guys grew up under tight information control mandated by a leadership fearful of an intelligent and educated citizenry. So well is that brainwashing that despite the Internet, you guys still cannot bear to seek out information for yourself about the most important era in our history.

It's true that current generation of VN leaders are not as good as they were during the wars. But there are good people in the VCP. If they are enough in number, it doesn't matter if they are communists or capitalists, they will do good for the country.
How charmingly naive. A person's ideology will motivate him to act in accordance of what that ideology dictates. Between a communist and a democrat/capitalist, I will take the democrat/capitalist any day.

Oh and don't call me "đồng chí", as I personally don't like communists. My imperession on them are hard-headed, stuborn, strict and old-fashioned.
You talk like one on this forum.

I feel like overthrowing the govt now does not benefit all VNese, as it will cause disturbance to their lives, so I don't act. When I feel like it is the time, I will act, not because you or anyone tell me to, but because to me it's time for change.

Oh and your democracy fighters are not VNeses? They don't follow the laws? I am not saying about laws against anti-govt propaganda, but laws that ensure the protection of the public: like storing and using fire arms and explosive, creating illegal crowd and disturb the public peace, like leaking internal intelligence to foreign organizations, violating safety laws of air travelling? It might be legal to do so in the US or anywhere else, but not in VN. Ok? Democracy fighters? Sound like terrorists to me when they wanted to blow up the VNese soldiers statue in the middle of the park.

I can't believe as a VNese you would prefer the country broken in half rather than an unified one. I am disappointed.
Better half in prosperity and relative freedom than all live in poverty and oppression. See Korea.
 
As I understand it based on what I read from American sources, from a military perspective, the Tet offensive was a complete military defeat for NV and Vietcong, but from a strategic perspective it was a major victory for them because after the Tet, the Americans realized that they could not win the war and they started to plan their withdrawal. They lost the will to continue the war.
In any war, there are two equally important components:

- Political goals.
- Military objectives.

The political goals determine the military objectives, such as taking this hill, that city, and those ports. Without the hill, city, and ports, the politicians cannot negotiate. With the hill, city, and ports, I can present to the other side that they cannot win because my military is superior to theirs. The corollary is that if my military failed to acquire the hill, city, and ports, the other side will argue that since I failed, their military is superior to mine and perhaps I should surrender.

The point is that even if the military achieved crucial objectives, the politicians, driven by other forces, can still lose the war. Which is exactly what happened in the VN War. Militarily speaking, the NVA/VC forces never had the upper hand, no matter how many small victories they had. US airpower dominated the sky over the entire country. Please do not bring on US air losses as rebuttal. US airpower came and go at will over North Vietnamese airspace, losses or not. The SVN/US alliance stopped at the 17th parallel, not because they could not go further, but because they chose partition, like in Korea. If the SVN/US alliance had the same intent of unification like NVN had, the NVA would have been wiped off the Earth.

So here we have two different political goals. North Vietnam was seeking unification. South Vietnam was seeking partition. If political goals determined military objectives, and this is true throughout history, then eventually one side had to give up because there can be no compromises between the two sides. The US lost the will to fight via home public opinions, not because the US military was defeated on the battlefields like the communists would like to brainwash its citizenry to believe.
 
yeah if anyone resists pls send la armada española and crush the moronic posters here on pdf

armada_espanola_600x658.JPG

Ha ha, no need, but I did hit the report button, that worked out ok, first time I see a moderator warning. Actually, if more people were to report, I think the forum would get much better, we don't have to put up with those people.

In any war, there are two equally important components:

- Political goals.
- Military objectives.

The political goals determine the military objectives, such as taking this hill, that city, and those ports. Without the hill, city, and ports, the politicians cannot negotiate. With the hill, city, and ports, I can present to the other side that they cannot win because my military is superior to theirs. The corollary is that if my military failed to acquire the hill, city, and ports, the other side will argue that since I failed, their military is superior to mine and perhaps I should surrender.

The point is that even if the military achieved crucial objectives, the politicians, driven by other forces, can still lose the war. Which is exactly what happened in the VN War. Militarily speaking, the NVA/VC forces never had the upper hand, no matter how many small victories they had. US airpower dominated the sky over the entire country. Please do not bring on US air losses as rebuttal. US airpower came and go at will over North Vietnamese airspace, losses or not. The SVN/US alliance stopped at the 17th parallel, not because they could not go further, but because they chose partition, like in Korea. If the SVN/US alliance had the same intent of unification like NVN had, the NVA would have been wiped off the Earth.

So here we have two different political goals. North Vietnam was seeking unification. South Vietnam was seeking partition. If political goals determined military objectives, and this is true throughout history, then eventually one side had to give up because there can be no compromises between the two sides. The US lost the will to fight via home public opinions, not because the US military was defeated on the battlefields like the communists would like to brainwash its citizenry to believe.

Yes, I know all that. Wars these days are rarely about just military objectives. Case in point, just now, Israel is withdrawing from Gaza mainly because of political reasons and pressures without actually meeting their military objectives for the most part, even that they can if they want to.

Note: I don't get involved into the internal politics of Vietnam (except in very specific situations related to China, which is already a risky situation for me). I'm a foreigner living in Vietnam and I don't need a "visit" from the police and get deported from the country, so please don't get into those subjects with me. Thanks !
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom