Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. 351
  2. 206
  3. 166
  4. 117
  5. 58
  6. 56
  7. 51
  8. 44
  9. 22
  10. 19
  11. 18
  12. 16
  13. 15
  14. 9
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 7
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 5
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. King Baldwin IV​​​​​​​​​​ Your point is that the bank robber did not achieve his aim of robbing the bank, because he signed a piece of paper promising not to do it. Well, FYI the 'bank robber' (North Vietnam) marched into the bank and took what he wanted. That is called 'not honoring an agreement', and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The only thing the US 'won', is a piece of worthless paper. You may now display your 'piece of paper' in a display cabinet in Washington (note here, NOT in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City), and declare yourself the...ahem...'winner'... Obviously, very few people see things the way you do. You would probably have tried to enforce the peace treaty, by resuming the war in 1975, pouring billions more into a useless cause, sending thousand of more GIs to the death, killing more Vietnamese civilians, enforcing the stupid 'body count' policy (resulting in overzealous lower ranks murdering Vietnamese civilians, simply declaring them to be VC)...torn the national unity back home in the USA apart with uprisings and riots.....all for 'a principle'...LOL Look up 'cause and effect', and try not to confuse these. There is also an entire science based on 'confusing cause and effect'. If you wish, you can do more reading about the subject of logic. If you don't wish to, that is solely your prerogative. The US cause was to avoid the North taking over the South, and you didn't achieve that goal. Trying to avoid the Vietnamese nation from independence and uniting was a lost cause, and they proved it by first throwing out the French, and then the US foreign meddlers. They fought for 30 years, and would have fought ANOTHER 30 years. The USA had their chance to support Vietnam in its quest for freedom in 1945, and blew it. Personally, I would have preferred to see a friendly, pro-western independent Vietnam come out of WW2.
    3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. King Baldwin IV​​​​​​​​​​​​​ You are like the kid in class wailing about how he failed the exam 'because the teacher hated me', because 'the books are terrible', because 'I had so much else to do', because 'my parents didn't support me enough', because 'I just broke up with my girl-friend', because...because... Do you see a pattern here? "Communism is evil?" Who the hell EVER said that communism wasn't evil? Of course it was. We are NOT discussing concepts of 'good' or 'evil'. That is an ENTIRELY different debate, and your comment is clearly the old attempt at obfuscating the point under discussion. The US simply extricated herself out of a pointless situation (OWN decision to intervene in the Vietnamese nation's strive for independence as a united nation) by making a deal in Paris and sneaking out the back door. Promises of support were broken, and the cause of your puppet ally abandoned. Here is a short overview of the BIG PICTURE in 1973. 1) world opinion = where were your allies? 2) home front = a continuation of war if the peace accord was broken was out of the question 3) opposition = willingness to accept almost unlimited losses, with the FULL support (as proxy) of China and the SU. In view of the big picture, only a FOOL would have tried to cling to the initial objective. It was therefore a lost cause. The North won. The USA and the region paid the price for western power players' with their colonial attitude of dominance, and their unwillingness to come to terms with the new reality which had been strengthened during WW2. The Vietnamese nation's declaration of independence in September 1945, should simply have been accepted as the reality of things.
    2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2