Taliban: we won the war

[bluesmoke]

As long as you grasp that South Vietnam was overrun largely because when the US left, our politicians cut off any and all aid to them and the soviets and Chinese continued fund the North Vietnamese, we are not in significant disagreement. Before US and Soviet involvement, it was a civil war. Afterwards, it became a proxy war.

What do you mean "As long as" being a qualifier for you to acknowledge the facts as I implied in my most recent post? I don't have to acquiesce to what you say because that point is not in contention and what I say stands without regard. Prove what I said wrong and not irrationally require some kind of undue acquiescence from me for you to accept facts you cannot refute. See you on another thread.

 

[joluoto]

I want ISIS and the brutal dictator both crushed.

Tyranny is not stability.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

What do you mean "As long as" being a qualifier for you to acknowledge the facts as I implied in my most recent post? I don't have to acquiesce to what you say because that point is not in contention and what I say stands without regard. Prove what I said wrong and not irrationally require some kind of undue acquiescence from me for you to accept facts you cannot refute. See you on another thread.

It's not rocket science. One side was continuously funded and the supplied while the other side was not supplied and not funded. That's all you have to understand. And I really don't give a damn what you acquiesce to.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It's not rocket science. One side was continuously funded and the supplied while the other side was not supplied and not funded. That's all you have to understand. And I really don't give a damn what you acquiesce to.

Entire cities surrendered without firing a shot. That wasn't an issue of supplies. That was an issue of one side not filling to fight for its cause.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Entire cities surrendered without firing a shot. That wasn't an issue of supplies. That was an issue of one side not filling to fight for its cause.

It absolutely was an issue of supplies and funding. They surrendered without firing a shot because they did not have the funding or supplies to fight a against both the North Vietnamese and the USSR. Od did you expect them to fight with spears, bow and arrows, and pugil sticks?

 

[Jredbaron96]

It absolutely was an issue of supplies and funding. They surrendered without firing a shot because they did not have the funding or supplies to fight a against both the North Vietnamese and the USSR. Od did you expect them to fight with spears, bow and arrows, and pugil sticks?

Lol, so the Southern stocks the North used to supply their offensive didn't exist? The NVA didn't capture and then use hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Lol, so the Southern stocks the North used to supply their offensive didn't exist? The NVA didn't capture and then use hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies?

I think we have worn this one out and will not change each others minds. Cya on another thread.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I think we have worn this one out and will not change each others minds. Cya on another thread.

In other words, "I have no sources to back up my beliefs but I will not entertain any other ideas".

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

In other words, "I have no sources to back up my beliefs but I will not entertain any other ideas".

Not at all. I made my points. You just happen to disagree. Let's move on. We have been going over the same territory over and over again.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Not at all. I made my points.

You've made *claims*. Claims that I've disputed by pointing out the evidence to the contrary and you decided to drop it.

But that's fine.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

You've made *claims*. Claims that I've disputed by pointing out the evidence to the contrary and you decided to drop it.

But that's fine.

You have presented no such evidence. I am just getting bored with us addressing the same points over and over and over again. We both have our own beliefs. Let's respectfully disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You have presented no such evidence.

lol

For starters, no, the PAVN (North Vietnamese), did not have the unrivaled benefit of continued support. In fact, prior to 1975 they were drastically short on munitions:

"By 1974, PAVN's entire stock of heavy artillery and tank ammunition, including all ammunition held by combat units at forward warehouses, and in North Vietnam's strategic reserves, totaled just 100,000 rounds. The ammunition problem was so serious that the PAVN artillery command had to replace the larger weapons in a number of units with obsolete 76.2mm and 57mm artillery pieces drawn out of storage for which there still was adequate ammunition."

Source: Military History Institute of Vietnam, History of the People's Army of Vietnam, Vol. II

As a result the PAVN only was authorized about 10% of their stockpiles of artillery for their 1975 Spring Offensive. This ended up not mattering, because the PAVN quickly captured massive stockpiles from the ARVN.

"In the midst of his efforts, fortune finally smiled on Tra. During their initial attacks Tra's troops overran the small ARVN outposts at Bu Dang and Bu Na on Route 14. COSVN Military Command reported to Hanoi on 20 December that within the ruins of these two outposts PAVN forces had captured intact four 105mm howitzers and 7,000 rounds of artillery ammunition. This unexpected treasure trove stunned the leadership in Hanoi. Seven thousand rounds were more than half the number the General Staff had planned to expend nationwide during the entire 1975 campaign."

Source: HPAV, p. 485; Tran Van Tra, p. 173; Hoang Van Thai, p. 80.

A couple small outposts held over half of what the PAVN had been authorized for their offensive. Clearly, the issue wasn't that of lack of supplies, since the north was hurting more for them than the South.