even easier.. estimates are 10% of all US supplies went missing on the docks.
what lines? there were no lines.
villager worked on base in daytime, owned the night everywhere
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Vietnam fell to conventional invasion from a better supplied communist client state, not to guerilla war.
Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet fallen.
Yes, that's why I was arguing that lines should have been created.
And if you squeeze your eyes shut and wish really hard that might even be true.
But in reality Vietnam feel to an opponent who fought smarter, Iraq has fallen (the South to the Shi'ite and thereby to Iran, the middle to ISIS because they are the only thing that might not murder them as they are sun'ni and the north goes to the kurds... who have locked horn with the turks... which means the US will have to betray them to their atomic bomb carrying ally earlier rather than later) and Afghanistan the coalition never had beyond Kabul... and it is not called the graveyard of Empires for nothing.
@Klausewitz - if I was talking about Tet I would have said so; I wasn't. I was talking about the final invasion.
@Dinglehoff - I really can't remember when you and I agreed on anything, but I agree with most of what you've said here.
@Dinglehoff - I really can't remember when you and I agreed on anything, but I agree with most of what you've said here.
This geopolitical rambling is not correct. Iraq and Afghanistan are not taken over by terrorists yet, Iraq has not been partitioned or dissolved, and yes the communist backed North did invade the South with its army.
They pulled out and left a friendly regime in place that was supposed to keep an eye on the HCMP. Except of course that regime was not only corrupt as hell, but also fairly quickly and embarassingly lost a lot of ground to the Khmer Rouge. So the one effort to shut down the HCMP basically led to Pol Pot's Killing Fields.
The original plan foresaw countrywide democratic elections, and the communists were OK with that since they expected to win those elections.
Once elections were off the table the only way to unification would be through force.
And yea, there was no way either the Diem regime or the military junta could have resisted the communists without US military support.
I mean, they couldn't even resist them with US support.
The US couldn't even stop their supplies from travelling through South Vietnam proper.
Yea, that was the entire reason why the US didn't sign it - so they could erect a friendly regime in the South and wage war from there against the communists.
They had no problem with unrigged elections since pretty much everyone involved, including the US, expected a free election to result in Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh. That was the reason why the US rejected the unification plan to begin with, and started propping up anti-communist forces in the South.
Resulting in a US-backed authoritarian regime that oppressed and murdered its own population.
- 1
The Diem regime had tried things. In some villages they hold a mock election between Bao Dai (former president) and Ho Chi Minh. They gave villagers many food, goods and asked to vote for Bao Dai. They failed miserably !
Yeah it would have been pragmatic for the US to help usher in Ho Chi Min and attempt to reform him into a Socialist/Soc. Democrat and pry him away from China and the Soviets that happened anyway.
Instead a useless and pointless war was fought and it pushed the North into a hardline state.
Instead a useless and pointless war was fought and it pushed the North into a hardline state.
Ho Chi Minh was a dedicated communist, long before 1945. That letter he wrote to Truman in 1945 fooled a lot of people into thinking he was some sort of pliable middle of the road democratic socialist though. Which was the whole point of the letter, it was PR.
yes he is a communist, but not necessary to be close to the Soviet Union or China, like Yugoslavia..
By late 1945, he had received war aid from the US for several years and no support from Stalin. The incoming war against France is dominant matter and he can agree on many things, even with the French to prevent it!
The peripheral communist regime's had a common facet that they tended to quickly drift out of Soviet control if they werent desperate for aid.
The most blatant examples are Yugoslavia,Albania and later Vietnam.
The best strategy in East Asia would have probably been to let every nation sort out its civil war alone and then aid the new regime's against Soviet or Chinese meddling.
Its likely that a united Communist Korea would have been a lot more rational and a lot more hostile to China/USSR.
But alas it seem's like many leaders in the west were to blinded by the ideological conflict to be pragmatic.
The most blatant examples are Yugoslavia,Albania and later Vietnam.
The best strategy in East Asia would have probably been to let every nation sort out its civil war alone and then aid the new regime's against Soviet or Chinese meddling.
Its likely that a united Communist Korea would have been a lot more rational and a lot more hostile to China/USSR.
But alas it seem's like many leaders in the west were to blinded by the ideological conflict to be pragmatic.
Yes. Those poor Koreans wrongfully prevented from benefiting from the rational and enlightened rulership of the Kims.
Enlightened or not is irrelevant.
Fact is that the constant siege mentality turned North Korea into the nightmare it is today and left that peninsula a perpetual source of tension,which could one day cost the lives of millions.
A unified Korea would have nobody but the Soviets or Chinese to threaten it,and by itself would pose no risk to the USA or Japan for that matter.
We have an example to prove it,Vietnam.
Vietnam was united under Communist rule,ended up fighting against China and is nothing like North Korea.
Why would a unified communist Korea be different?
Vietnam was united under Communist rule,ended up fighting against China and is nothing like North Korea.
Why would a unified communist Korea be different?
Because authoritarian governments dont like to be bossed around by people they dont need.
Every time a communist government wasnt under existential threat it turned against the USSR.
It happened in Yugoslavia,Albania and Vietnam.
If Korea is unified then their communist government doesnt have any pressing existential crisis,their dreams are fulfilled,they have nowhere left to expand and the only issue they have now is China and the USSR trying to boss them around.
So in effect there is no siege mentality,no need for a bunker in every toilet,no Juche policy.
Such a Korea has none of the reasons historic NK turned into a hellhole.
Do you people assume NK became a hellhole just because their leaders through it looked fancy?
It had real world reasons for ending up like that,remove the constant siege mentality and pressure and you remove that problem.
In fact it could be argued that even Cuba wouldnt have turned into a USSR bastion if the USA wasnt so obviously trying to squish it.
US efforts to eliminate communist governments was what made them enemies and USSR puppets,not because of the ideological position of the government itself.