Comments by "" (@VersusARCH) on "Napoleon III: The Forgotten Bonaparte" video.

  1. Terrible at war he might have been, in Vietnam he still did FAR better than USA ever did 😉
    20
  2.  Stephen Jenkins  If you had realized that France had to somehow FORCE Vietnam into colonial status in the first place (something that US btw never succeeded) before it could be driven out in the 20th century, you would not have tried to look smart using such an "argument"... Check the Sino-French war of the 19th century.
    2
  3.  Stephen Jenkins  As I said Napoleon III did better militarily than US in Vietnam overall (capturing Saigon and several provinces, establishing the french Cochinchina and forcing unequal treaties). You are trying to refute that by introducing time constraints thereby changing the statement. I see no point in arguing with you. Btw - US invaded North Korea less than 20 years before, see how that went with Mao's China in the hood... (don't waste your time pointing out it was after the NK invaded SK, it is not relevant for the point).
    2
  4.  Stephen Jenkins  I corrected the original statement to improve my meaning. I realized that as originally stated it seemed I was comparing overall military achievements of Napoleon III favorably to those of US in Vietnam. While a successful argument even about this could be made, the intended meaning was : Napoleon III sent the French military to Vietnam and it made a century long conquest that was even expanded soon thereafter. The US tried to drag a half of Vietnam into its sphere of influence - and failed utterly after a decade, being sent away with a tail between its legs. Yes, the difference, along with the French defeat in the 1950s is mostly due to China pulling itself together from the chaos it endured in 19th and 1st half of the 20th century, but that does not take anything away from my assertation
    1