Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
351
-
206
-
166
-
117
-
58
-
56
-
51
-
44
-
22
-
19
-
Most Germans interested in military history, are not apologetic about the military actions of the armed forces (Wehrmacht, Heer, KM and LW), unless these were clearly criminal (using acceptable criteria for the word "criminal").
The other thing is the political actions of the Nazi government, such as the intentional killing and genocide of those seen as 'inferior' or by using racial criteria (Holocaust, etc.). In this case, ONLY Neonazis and other idiots use the debating tactics of apologia, finger-pointing, misdirection, misinformation and misinterpretation, to make bad excuses for the actions of their 'heroes'....
18
-
16
-
15
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
King Baldwin IV In case you are looking for a new job, don't try fortune telling :-)
About me, I simply decide on wrong or right, based on the wisdom proclaimed in the the US Constitution.
You know..."liberty", "self-determination"...blah, blah...ALL that stuff.
The end effect of not honoring the wisdom of the Constitution, and the values proclaimed here, and granting the same basic human rights to others, simply come back to haunt your own nation at some point.
You should read up on how Poles (as a nation) imposed themselves on neighbors, starting with a war of aggression....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
Educate yourself.
The end effect of that was that 20 years later, TWO mass-murdering dictators decided that they could play that game too....
Yup...Karma is really a big fat bitch...
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
Sebi One OK, I read again, and see what you mean.
Basically you are stating the principle of 'cause and effect' or the principle 'causation'.
Or, as the propaganda machines would have it, 'reap what you sow', or 'get what you deserve' :-)
I don't mind discussing theories of causation, as long as these are based on facts.
Then, one would also clearly have to define what the topic of discussion is, to avoid confusion.
An example:
The statement, 'the German LW first killed innocent civilians in WW2', is entirely correct.
However, the statement 'the British RAF first use indiscriminate bombing of civilians as a result of doctrine and as a matter of policy', is also correct.
Therefore, the 'who started it'-debate is entirely ridiculous, unless one defines parameters.
The entire bombing war was a matter of escalation, one step on the one side, being 'countered' by another tiny step on the other. Mostly, it is only civilians (not people with military training and background) who argue about the 'who started it', confusing the issues due to an improper use of terminology and definitions, based on a lack of knowledge, or a lack of real interest in the topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2