funny how often I see extremely jewish names attached to the leading edge of libtard propaganda.
Another offers what a history professor described as a “frightening” interpretation of how the Vietnam War was lost.
who cares what some communist "history professor" thinks?
A textbook produced by the U.S. Air Force informs students that the United States entered the Vietnam War after the North Vietnamese attacked a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964. But the authors never mention a key part of the story: It was the report of a second, full-on attack two days later that led Congress to approve America’s escalated involvement in Vietnam — and that attack, history eventually revealed, never happened.
Not true. 1 REAL attack 100% happened. The second attack was not "fake" or "never happened", it was just highly defensive sailors firing on radar returns which never got close enough to be identified. It is unknown if any of the returns represented genuine targets. That is still unknown to this day. The Vietnamese denied, it, of course, as you'd expect whether their forces were in the area or not. The NSA study wasn't conclusive either way. The sailors MAY have been firing at false returns, but we simply don't know. This was openly admitted by the captain at the time: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox."
It was openly known that the 2nd attack was dubious. Johnson immediately moved forward with major retaliatory strikes without Congressional approval. Contrary to NYTs liberal lies, the 2nd attack was given no special significance, and there is 0 evidence that had the 2nd attack never happened and only the 1st, that Congress wouldn't have acted in exactly the same way. In fact, they would have, since it was a clear attack by the NV on US ships, and that was the dispositive factor. Liberals just exploit the dubious 2nd attack to muddy the waters.
Liberal propaganda lies about the Gulf of Tonkin in a few major ways:
Liberals ignore the 1st real attack and act like it didn't happen, focusing exclusively on the 2nd "sensor ghost" attack. Here, the NYT, unable to ignore it entirely, instead lies and claims Congress only cares about the 2nd attack, not the 1st. This is simply untrue. In his testimony before Congress, McNamara accused North Vietnam of "aggression" and of an "unprovoked attack" on the destroyers. This statement was objectively true.
Liberals falsely claim that the 2nd attack was deliberately faked by some conspiracy in order to create a pretext to enter the war. This is totally false with 0 evidence in support. The NYT does this.
This NYT article is guilty of both of the foregoing.
The section ends by asking students: “Is there such a thing as too much diversity?”
LOLOLOL the NYT is screeching, HOW DARE THEYYYY?!?!?! hahah. Idiots. Diversity is absolutely worthless in and of itself. "diversity is strength" is a liberal lie.
“According to many analysts, America lost the Vietnam War largely because of these limitations,” the other textbook says.
That assessment is far from universal, especially among the many historians who have studied the Vietnam conflict.
The book doesn't say it's universal, it says "many analysts". You can't fact check something by straw manning it and changing it to claim its a universal statement when it was not made as such. The truth is that the libtard NYT writer simply takes the libtard side, and the ROTC book takes the American patriot side.
Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, a history professor at Columbia University who specializes in the Vietnam War, said the text gave a false interpretation of the war.
lolololol "Lien-Hang T. Nguyen" isn't a neutral unbiased party. It's a young woman who was born in Vietnam, is only 48 years old, which is too young to be taken seriously as a "historian", and works for a libtard ivy league school. You dont finish your PHD in 2008 and immediately get fast tracked to an Ivy League professorship unless you are a perfect doctrinaire liberal propagandist, and the fact that she's a vietnamese woman means she was hired for her politics + box checks. She's a typical meritless affirmative action hire that puppets the party line.
All her articles are taken from the pro-communist side, which is what you'd expect from a libtard school. From one of her interviews: "This is the reason I think I get the “She must be a Communist” treatment from many in the Vietnam diaspora community—because in certain ways Ho and Giap come out as the heroes in the story."
“It’s one of those hawkish, conservative military history interpretations of the war that says if the military had not had to fight with one arm behind its back, it would have won. That’s wrong,” said Ms. Nguyen. “It’s frightening what’s being written.”
Except it's not wrong, and it's not "hawkish" or "conservative" - though she's telling on herself there - it's objectively correct. The US only "lost" in Vietnam because it was given extraordinarily politically motivated limitations which forced it to fight from an extraordinarily disadvantageous position under rules that made victory impossible. All the US was allowed to do was play defense. You can't win a war by solely playing defense.
Had the US military been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam, it would have done so easily. The vast majority of the North's population was settled on a flat coastal plain that US tanks could have rolled through, all the way to Hanoi. The US could have captured all this area easily. "But muh guerilla warfare", could be totally ignored, because there was no need to go "in the jungle" once the population centers were all taken. The NVA would have its back broken and the communists hiding in the jungle could simply be cut off from supplies from China, and bombed until they starved. Easy. But offensive action was not allowed, so the US military was forced to defend an enormously long border with no front lines, and just spread out and wait to get sneak attacked. And they still won every battle under those conditions.
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
Had the US military been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam, it would have done so easily. The vast majority of the North's population was settled on a flat coastal plain that US tanks could have rolled through, all the way to Hanoi. The US could have captured all this area easily. "But muh guerilla warfare", could be totally ignored, because there was no need to go "in the jungle" once the population centers were all taken. The NVA would have its back broken and the communists hiding in the jungle could simply be cut off from supplies from China, and bombed until they starved. Easy.
You must be possessed by a vengeful ghost of a French Union officer.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Ok link a battle that the United States lost.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese
No, that isn't "redefining". If the South Vietnamese lost a battle, that is irrelevant to the question of whether the United States lost a battle. The United States is a different country with different soldiers than South Vietnam. Similarly, some small skirmish or raid is not a BATTLE. A BATTLE means a large engagement of forces.
like at LZ Albany 1965
LZ Albany was not a "battle" it is part of the greater Battle of Ia Drang, which the United States won despite being placed in a terrible position effectively in a trap and being outnumbered. And la Drang was part of a larger operation that was a complete success.
At LZ Albany, the United States also won. A small American force was ambushed by a much larger NVA force. The Americans held their positions and it was the NVA who were driven off and forced to retreat. The NVA has several major units in the area, all of which were badly mauled and forced to retreat back into Cambodia.
Not really sure how you call that a defeat unless you define defeat as "the US K:D ratio wasn't as high as usual", which is stupid.
almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew
lol, nope. also, since when does a victorious enemy withdraw? why wouldn't the enemy try to exploit its "victory" by completely overrunning the American position and killing/capturing the entire American force? Obvious answer: because the American units were never broken, put up solid defensive perimeters, and successfully fought off the NVA attacks until the NVA units were so depleted and suffered such severe losses that they were forced to retreat. Then, in retreat, many NVA were further killed by US air power, forcing them to flee with all their units to Cambodia.
You must be possessed by a vengeful ghost of a French Union officer.
No, and it's a dumb comment. The French were incompetent and bad at fighting, just like WW2. The Americans were far superior and would have easily conquered North Vietnam. Without the NVA having a large power base to draw from, its capacity to wage guerilla warfare would have been an insignificant fraction of what it was in the actual war.
It was utterly foolish to not invade and conquer North Vietnam & execute all the communist leaders. If we did so, Vietnam would be a rich allied country today similar to South Korea or Taiwan.
Here's a few more sample "links" of this "easy" war:
Try to restrain yourself to lying about my words and straw manning me. I know it's difficult since I'm clearly right and you're wrong, and you want to save face. I never said the actual Vietnam War was "easy". I said it would have been easy if the US Military had been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam along the coastal plain.
"On the night of 22–23 August 1968, as part of their Phase III Offensive, a company from the Viet Cong (VC) R20 Battalion and a sapper platoon infiltrated the base, killing 17 Special Forces soldiers. Thirty-two VC were killed."
A single small scale raid with only 17 kills is not a battle. The battle at issue was the Phase III Tet Offensive which was an absolutely crushing defeat for the communists. "The US claimed that the PAVN/VC lost 16,578 soldiers in August and a further 13,163 in September, while U.S. losses over the same period were over 700 dead."
An indecisive skirmish where a small unit of grossly outnumbered US troops on patrol walked into an ambush. The Americans sure did suffer heavy casualties, but ultimately the Viet Cong withdrew out of exhaustion and fear of US air/artillery reprisals. Did the US get the worse end of this skrimish? Sure. Does this invalidate my statement that the US "still won every battle under those conditions." Nope. It was too small and too indecisive. The larger battle this skirmish was a part of was also a US victory.
again, sappers killed some people in a small raid on a small firebase, not a battle, just a small sneak attack that killed a small number of people (about 10% killed) and didn't result in the loss of the base.
Just admit that you can't find any real battle where the US lost. All you've been able to do is produce a few small ambushes and sapper raids. The large scale ones, the US won easily. The actual battles, the US won. You're just bending over backwards trying to paint the US as losers when they weren't.
funny how often I see extremely jewish names attached to the leading edge of libtard propaganda.
who cares what some communist "history professor" thinks?
Not true. 1 REAL attack 100% happened. The second attack was not "fake" or "never happened", it was just highly defensive sailors firing on radar returns which never got close enough to be identified. It is unknown if any of the returns represented genuine targets. That is still unknown to this day. The Vietnamese denied, it, of course, as you'd expect whether their forces were in the area or not. The NSA study wasn't conclusive either way. The sailors MAY have been firing at false returns, but we simply don't know. This was openly admitted by the captain at the time: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox."
It was openly known that the 2nd attack was dubious. Johnson immediately moved forward with major retaliatory strikes without Congressional approval. Contrary to NYTs liberal lies, the 2nd attack was given no special significance, and there is 0 evidence that had the 2nd attack never happened and only the 1st, that Congress wouldn't have acted in exactly the same way. In fact, they would have, since it was a clear attack by the NV on US ships, and that was the dispositive factor. Liberals just exploit the dubious 2nd attack to muddy the waters.
Liberal propaganda lies about the Gulf of Tonkin in a few major ways:
Liberals ignore the 1st real attack and act like it didn't happen, focusing exclusively on the 2nd "sensor ghost" attack. Here, the NYT, unable to ignore it entirely, instead lies and claims Congress only cares about the 2nd attack, not the 1st. This is simply untrue. In his testimony before Congress, McNamara accused North Vietnam of "aggression" and of an "unprovoked attack" on the destroyers. This statement was objectively true.
Liberals falsely claim that the 2nd attack was deliberately faked by some conspiracy in order to create a pretext to enter the war. This is totally false with 0 evidence in support. The NYT does this.
This NYT article is guilty of both of the foregoing.
LOLOLOL the NYT is screeching, HOW DARE THEYYYY?!?!?! hahah. Idiots. Diversity is absolutely worthless in and of itself. "diversity is strength" is a liberal lie.
The book doesn't say it's universal, it says "many analysts". You can't fact check something by straw manning it and changing it to claim its a universal statement when it was not made as such. The truth is that the libtard NYT writer simply takes the libtard side, and the ROTC book takes the American patriot side.
lolololol "Lien-Hang T. Nguyen" isn't a neutral unbiased party. It's a young woman who was born in Vietnam, is only 48 years old, which is too young to be taken seriously as a "historian", and works for a libtard ivy league school. You dont finish your PHD in 2008 and immediately get fast tracked to an Ivy League professorship unless you are a perfect doctrinaire liberal propagandist, and the fact that she's a vietnamese woman means she was hired for her politics + box checks. She's a typical meritless affirmative action hire that puppets the party line.
All her articles are taken from the pro-communist side, which is what you'd expect from a libtard school. From one of her interviews: "This is the reason I think I get the “She must be a Communist” treatment from many in the Vietnam diaspora community—because in certain ways Ho and Giap come out as the heroes in the story."
Except it's not wrong, and it's not "hawkish" or "conservative" - though she's telling on herself there - it's objectively correct. The US only "lost" in Vietnam because it was given extraordinarily politically motivated limitations which forced it to fight from an extraordinarily disadvantageous position under rules that made victory impossible. All the US was allowed to do was play defense. You can't win a war by solely playing defense.
Had the US military been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam, it would have done so easily. The vast majority of the North's population was settled on a flat coastal plain that US tanks could have rolled through, all the way to Hanoi. The US could have captured all this area easily. "But muh guerilla warfare", could be totally ignored, because there was no need to go "in the jungle" once the population centers were all taken. The NVA would have its back broken and the communists hiding in the jungle could simply be cut off from supplies from China, and bombed until they starved. Easy. But offensive action was not allowed, so the US military was forced to defend an enormously long border with no front lines, and just spread out and wait to get sneak attacked. And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
You must be possessed by a vengeful ghost of a French Union officer.
Ok link a battle that the United States lost.
No, that isn't "redefining". If the South Vietnamese lost a battle, that is irrelevant to the question of whether the United States lost a battle. The United States is a different country with different soldiers than South Vietnam. Similarly, some small skirmish or raid is not a BATTLE. A BATTLE means a large engagement of forces.
LZ Albany was not a "battle" it is part of the greater Battle of Ia Drang, which the United States won despite being placed in a terrible position effectively in a trap and being outnumbered. And la Drang was part of a larger operation that was a complete success.
At LZ Albany, the United States also won. A small American force was ambushed by a much larger NVA force. The Americans held their positions and it was the NVA who were driven off and forced to retreat. The NVA has several major units in the area, all of which were badly mauled and forced to retreat back into Cambodia.
Not really sure how you call that a defeat unless you define defeat as "the US K:D ratio wasn't as high as usual", which is stupid.
lol, nope. also, since when does a victorious enemy withdraw? why wouldn't the enemy try to exploit its "victory" by completely overrunning the American position and killing/capturing the entire American force? Obvious answer: because the American units were never broken, put up solid defensive perimeters, and successfully fought off the NVA attacks until the NVA units were so depleted and suffered such severe losses that they were forced to retreat. Then, in retreat, many NVA were further killed by US air power, forcing them to flee with all their units to Cambodia.
No, and it's a dumb comment. The French were incompetent and bad at fighting, just like WW2. The Americans were far superior and would have easily conquered North Vietnam. Without the NVA having a large power base to draw from, its capacity to wage guerilla warfare would have been an insignificant fraction of what it was in the actual war.
It was utterly foolish to not invade and conquer North Vietnam & execute all the communist leaders. If we did so, Vietnam would be a rich allied country today similar to South Korea or Taiwan.
Here's a few more sample "links" of this "easy" war:
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/attack-on-fob-4-the-worst-day-in-us-army-special-forces-history/
https://donmooreswartales.com/2010/06/28/james-shelton/
https://blog.togetherweserved.com/2021/11/24/fire-base-mary-ann/
Try to restrain yourself to lying about my words and straw manning me. I know it's difficult since I'm clearly right and you're wrong, and you want to save face. I never said the actual Vietnam War was "easy". I said it would have been easy if the US Military had been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam along the coastal plain.
"On the night of 22–23 August 1968, as part of their Phase III Offensive, a company from the Viet Cong (VC) R20 Battalion and a sapper platoon infiltrated the base, killing 17 Special Forces soldiers. Thirty-two VC were killed."
A single small scale raid with only 17 kills is not a battle. The battle at issue was the Phase III Tet Offensive which was an absolutely crushing defeat for the communists. "The US claimed that the PAVN/VC lost 16,578 soldiers in August and a further 13,163 in September, while U.S. losses over the same period were over 700 dead."
An indecisive skirmish where a small unit of grossly outnumbered US troops on patrol walked into an ambush. The Americans sure did suffer heavy casualties, but ultimately the Viet Cong withdrew out of exhaustion and fear of US air/artillery reprisals. Did the US get the worse end of this skrimish? Sure. Does this invalidate my statement that the US "still won every battle under those conditions." Nope. It was too small and too indecisive. The larger battle this skirmish was a part of was also a US victory.
again, sappers killed some people in a small raid on a small firebase, not a battle, just a small sneak attack that killed a small number of people (about 10% killed) and didn't result in the loss of the base.
Just admit that you can't find any real battle where the US lost. All you've been able to do is produce a few small ambushes and sapper raids. The large scale ones, the US won easily. The actual battles, the US won. You're just bending over backwards trying to paint the US as losers when they weren't.
I find it hilarious especially since, by your standards, the US lost a "battle" in Afghanistan when 13 us troops died to a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in August 2021.