They where greatly reduced, not destroyed. The communists did not achieve the objectives they set out to, but they did find a route to victory from Tet.
Not for several years and not as a direct result of Tet. Tet was Jan/Feb 1968, last troops out of Vietnam was 1973.
1.)The whole list is flawed because of your opinion?
2.)You know when Saigon fell correct? In 1975. You know when the Viet Cong dissolved? In 1976. You know why? The war was over and the country was united under another government. They won and became part of a united Vietnam.
Moving the goalposts now? What did I say that you disagreed with?
They where greatly reduced, not destroyed. The communists did not achieve the objectives they set out to, but they did find a route to victory from Tet.
Not for several years and not as a direct result of Tet. Tet was Jan/Feb 1968, last troops out of Vietnam was 1973.
Not opinion, fact.
1) The American Revolution wasn't a guerilla war.
2) The Mujahadeen didn't begin seeing success, until they were supplied with conventional weapons and training in conventional tactics.
3) As I pointed out, The Viet Cong was destroyed in 1968.
4) The Communists fighting against The Rhodesians won, but through attrition, not tactics. The free world turned its back on Rhodesia, while the commies had material flowing freely from The Soviets, Cuba and East Germany.
Knowing all these details is very important. It damages your credibility when you make an erroneous claim that The Viet Cong was still in existence in 1976.
On This Day: Saigon Falls to Vietcong, Ending Vietnam War
April 30, 2011 07:00 AM
by Shannon Firth
On the morning of April 30, 1975, South Vietnam’s President Duong Van Minh surrendered to the Vietcong, ending decades of violence between the North and South.
Nope! I'm going by what you said, when you claimed that no other country suffered more than Russia. Would you like me to post your exact words?
You never restricted your comments to battlefield casualties, alone.
Thee Tet Offensive in 1968 was the classic example of how you can lose a battle and win a war. Everything Gerald says about the military effects of Tet are true; from a straight military analysis Tet was a disastrous battle for the North. Every gain that the NV's made in Tet was retaken within about a month, and the NVA was badly hurt while the Viet Cong essentially ceased to exist as a coherent force.
USS Clueless - The Tet Offensive
Part of it very much was because of the tactics of both the American Revolutionaries and Native Americans...Not opinion, fact.
(0)Dont wanna discuss the Viet Cong anymore?
1) The American Revolution wasn't a guerilla war.
I would love you to prove that correlation, and they were mostly armed by the CIA, not a lot of training went out to most of the Mujhadden Warlord Leaders, and most of the "Mujhadeen" were mostly just villagers fighting to protect their village.2) The Mujahadeen didn't begin seeing success, until they were supplied with conventional weapons and training in conventional tactics.
Just because they lost the Tet Offensive does not mean they were "destroyed".. Immediately after the Tet Offensive they retook control of the countryside. They also had many sucessfull pushed in 1974 and 1975. If they "were destroyed in 1968" how did their offensive in the years I just mentioned happen?3) As I pointed out, The Viet Cong was destroyed in 1968.
Just because you receive foreign assistance does not mean it wasn't a guerilla war... Just because they won because of "attrition" does not mean the Guerilla war was not succesfful. They fought them so long that they lost the will to continue to fight.4) The Communists fighting against The Rhodesians won, but through attrition, not tactics. The free world turned its back on Rhodesia, while the commies had material flowing freely from The Soviets, Cuba and East Germany.
:lamo This is basic history...Knowing all these details is very important. It damages your credibility when you make an erroneous claim that The Viet Cong was still in existence in 1976.
You might want to quote the exact words, and read them carefully for meaning...
Are you? No country was as brutally devastated as the Russia was...
and, if they ceased to exist "as a coherent force", how is it that they were around for President Duong Van Minh to surrender to in 1975?Surrendered to the Viet Cong? :lamo
I thought you were educated; possess multiple degrees. Yes?
https://books.google.com/books?id=K...dq=Viet+Cong+ceased+to+exist&output=html_text
Part of it very much was because of the tactics of both the American Revolutionaries and Native Americans...
I would love you to prove that correlation, and they were mostly armed by the CIA, not a lot of training went out to most of the Mujhadden Warlord Leaders, and most of the "Mujhadeen" were mostly just villagers fighting to protect their village.
Just because they lost the Tet Offensive does not mean they were "destroyed".. Immediately after the Tet Offensive they retook control of the countryside. They also had many sucessfull pushed in 1974 and 1975. If they "were destroyed in 1968" how did their offensive in the years I just mentioned happen?
Just because you receive foreign assistance does not mean it wasn't a guerilla war... Just because they won because of "attrition" does not mean the Guerilla war was not succesfful. They fought them so long that they lost the will to continue to fight.
:lamo This is basic history...
and, if they ceased to exist "as a coherent force", how is it that they were around for President Duong Van Minh to surrender to in 1975?
Could it be that they came together in the meantime to again become a "coherent force"?
Or perhaps the writer of a blog aptly named the "USS Clueless" got it wrong?
Or, maybe a combination of both? Anyway, the president of the now non existent republic of South Vietnam surrendered to the Viet Cong in 1975.
You might want to learn to convey your point more clearly.
Very little was assymetrical warfare. Conventional tactics decided the war.
I have read the book before. Nowhere in the book does he mention the training was conventional. All it states is that they trained guerilla armys. No where does it state the training was to move them away from conventional tactics. The organized mujhadeen units are in themselves guerilla armies. He calls the war itself a Guerilla War and the people they were training as Guerilla Armies/units/squads etc.Read Charlie Wilson's War and you'll learn a lot. Its one of many historical work as you should read.
:dohImmideatly after the offesnive they retook the country side. In the 1970's the launched an offensive that reopened the Ho Chi Minh Trial. Thats two years bud.Because they didn't happen. It took the commies 4 years to reconstitute enough strength to launch another offensive, which they lost.
What kept up the attrition? The Guerilla Warfare being used by the ZANU guerillas which made the government tired of fighting them so they settled for peace and promise of elections.I never said the Rhodesian Bush War wasn't a guerilla war. I saw simply pointed out that attention, not tactics won the war.
Saying that pretty much every point you have brought up is easily proven wrong.Your knowledge of history is extremely wanting. Don't you have a fancy degree, too?
No wonder the government collapsed.Not on topic, but interesting information from that Wikipedia entry on the Viet Nam war:
"...In December 1960, the National Liberation Front (NLF, a.k.a. the Viet Cong) was formally created with the intent of uniting all anti-GVN activists, including non-communists. According to the Pentagon Papers, the Viet Cong "placed heavy emphasis on the withdrawal of American advisors and influence, on land reform and liberalization of the GVN, on coalition government and the neutralization of Vietnam." Often the leaders of the organization were kept secret.[40]
The reason for the continued survival of the NLF was the class relations in the countryside. The vast majority of the population lived in villages in the countryside where the key issue was land reform. The Viet Minh had reduced rents and debts; and had leased communal lands, mostly to the poorer peasants. Diem brought the landlords back to the villages. People who were farming land they held for years now had to return it to landlords and pay years of back rent. This rent collection was enforced by the South Vietnamese army. The divisions within villages reproduced those that had existed against the French: "75 percent support for the NLF, 20 percent trying to remain neutral and 5 percent firmly pro-government,"..."
Wikipedia
You dont think that guerilla attacks inland that cut off British supply was important tactic?
I have read the book before. Nowhere in the book does he mention the training was conventional. All it states is that they trained guerilla armys. No where does it state the training was to move them away from conventional tactics. The organized mujhadeen units are in themselves guerilla armies. He calls the war itself a Guerilla War and the people they were training as Guerilla Armies/units/squads etc.
:dohImmideatly after the offesnive they retook the country side. In the 1970's the launched an offensive that reopened the Ho Chi Minh Trial. Thats two years bud.
What kept up the attrition? The Guerilla Warfare being used by the ZANU guerillas which made the government tired of fighting them so they settled for peace and promise of elections.
Saying that pretty much every point you have brought up is easily proven wrong.
I did actually, and your response was a link to a book review about things that happened after the war. Do you think that what happened after the war impacted the results of the war? Hint: cause comes before effect.
Don't get dizzy from all that spinning. What's next? You were really talking about WW1?
No, I was talking about WW2, and your mistaken beliefs about it. Linking to a story about events after the war, that would be kinda not real relevant to what happened during the war would it?
"A few"? It was a lot and cut off British supply lines so they could not advance and supply their troops inland....A few guerilla operations does not a guerilla war make. US troops used guerilla techniques during WW2. Does that make WW2 a guerilla war?
No I have. If you have please point me to the correct page number and quote..You didn't read it.
http://www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org/files/Who-Dares-Loses.pdfLink, bud.
Yes. They used guerilla tactics, and were a guerillas. They fought a guerilla war aginst the government...Do you know what, "tactics", means?
I have already.Prove me wrong, then. So far you're just posting words.
"A few"? It was a lot and cut off British supply lines so they could not advance and supply their troops inland....
No I have. If you have please point me to the correct page number and quote..
http://www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org/files/Who-Dares-Loses.pdf
Yes. They used guerilla tactics, and were a guerillas. They fought a guerilla war aginst the government...
I have already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?