• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Arguably a self imolator ended the war in Vietnam.

    No, he fucking didn’t. The Vietnamese breaking the US military through the use of force ended the war in Vietnam.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I hate to be the one to break it to you… but the Vietnamese broke the US military. Swallow all the cope the propagandists have been spoon-feeding you about this since the 70s - it doesn’t change anything.

        • Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          What do you mean by “broke”? I’m quite literally in a class on the Vietnam War this semester, writing a paper about how ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society that only needed to supply its forces 50 tons of supplies a day.

          Please, elaborate.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society

            “Ineffective” at what? The indiscriminate carnage that the US visited on SE Asia from the air was possibly the most effective mass-slaughter campaign ever perpetrated by a colonialist power - it was even more effective than the colonialist slaughter Germany visited on eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during WW2.

            So no… as far as the tenets of colonialist warfare is concerned, it was perfectly effective.

            • Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              At stopping supplies and people from moving south?

              So, our goal was genocide? I’m not saying we were the good guys, but clearly we weren’t comparable to the fucking Nazis eastern campaign.

              You still didn’t answer what it meant to break the US military.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                but clearly we weren’t comparable to the fucking Nazis

                Actually, the US actions in SE Asia is very comparable to what Germany and it’s allies did in eastern Europe and Russia… not even the Nazis attempted to use chemical warfare to starve their victim population into submission - the US did.

                What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) “Cold War.” The only reason the Nazis became infamous for it was because they literally perpetrated it on the (so-called) “civilized” world’s doorstep on people that looked “white.”

                You still didn’t answer what it meant to break the US military.

                That’s because I won’t - there is no need. Col. Robert D. Heinl answered this all the way back in 1971.

                TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

                • Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) “Cold War.”

                  Homie, I think you should learn some more about the eastern front. The United States wasn’t on an ethnic cleansing campaign in Indochina. The Nazi’s were on an ethnic cleansing campaign.

                  TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

                  Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Homie,

                    We are not friends.

                    You mean like this? Oops, sorry… wrong war. It’s not my fault - when you get into the grisly details they all start looking the same.

                    The United States wasn’t on an ethnic cleansing campaign

                    Ooooh… you completely got me there. The millions dead in the Congo thanks to Belgium exploitation? Perfectly okay because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.” The millions starved to death in Bengal due to British colonialist policies during WW2? Perfectly fine because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.”

                    If only Hitler had you around to handle his PR for him, eh?

                    Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

                    I’m just going to go ahead and assume it’s also a complete mystery to you why the vaunted US military failed so abysmally in Afghanistan, eh?

                    It’s only a mystery to you and your ilk - why do you think that is?