Marx created a narrative. The Soviets perfected it. The West internalized it. It "explains" all evil in terms of either American or British empire-building. The only problem with it being it is a pack of lies from start to finish. This is where the history of the evolution of the free world can be honestly written.


Postby kerravon » 2011-02-22 14:40

kerravon wrote:6.5 1973 - America et al abandon South Vietnamese allies, who are then successfully invaded by a column of North Vietnamese tanks that could have easily been destroyed from the air. No member of the free world willing to provide air cover to the South Vietnamese. UK and Canada were complete no-shows. Soviets lie and claim that guerillas won the war (not tanks), and that America was the bad guy, rather than the North Vietnamese communist dictatorship. West stupid enough to believe the whole story. Beginning of Western decline.

I was recently challenged on this by a lefty, who insisted that given that everything he had read, seen and heard from TV, school, friends and family said that the US lost in Vietnam, that I must be wrong.

I pointed out that they said the same thing about Galileo with his "whacky" theory about the earth revolving around the sun, and the ever-tolerant Democrats of his era imprisoned him, just as they wanted to do to Aristarchus who had the same theory nearly TWO MILLENIA prior!!!

"that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle"

"the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the charge of impiety"

Anyway, here is the non-obfusciated version of how Vietnam actually went down: ... 70503.aspx

"By the time American troops left in 1972, the only threat to South Vietnam was invasion by the North Vietnamese army. That happened twice. First, in 1972, North Vietnamese tanks and infantry divisions crossed the border. With some U.S. air support, that invasion was thrown back. The second invasion, in 1975, succeeded. The reason for that was not just a lack of any American air support, but the absence of much U.S. support at all. Congress had cut off nearly all American aid to South Vietnam. This included things like ammunition and spare parts. By 1975, American troops were gone for several years. The pictures of American helicopters evacuating people, showed American citizens and diplomats being taken out, along with South Vietnamese who could expect harsh treatment from the communists."

I was wondering how this showed up in Wikipedia, such that people still manage to read about Vietnam and not understand the simple fact that the US wasn't even there to lose.

"The Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress prohibited use of American military after 15 August 1973, unless the president secured congressional approval in advance."

Here's the US military being prevented from even providing air support unless the US Democrats approve it.

"The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese army in April 1975 marked the end of the Vietnam War. North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year."

Here's the 1975 invasion by the North Vietnamese army (you know, the one with tanks, not friggin glorious guerillas).

"In 1971 Australia and New Zealand withdrew their soldiers"

Here's the treacherous southerners abandoning their US and South Vietnamese allies.

"Vietnamization was again tested by the Easter Offensive of 1972, a massive conventional invasion of South Vietnam."

Note - "conventional invasion", as in - friggin tanks!!!

"it became clear that without American airpower South Vietnam could not survive."

This is quite friggin normal. Iceland for example is completely dependent on NATO's military, given that Iceland HAS NO MILITARY AT ALL. You can't expect Fiji to hold of a concerted Soviet invasion on its own either. South Korea is the world's second-strongest military and it STILL has US troops backing it today!!!

"The last remaining American ground troops were withdrawn in August."

1972 - US gone. Goodbye. As in. Not there. Not fighting. Not winning. Not losing. No opinion. And soon not even allowed to provide air support.

"On 13 December 1974, North Vietnamese forces attacked Route 14 in Phuoc Long Province. Phuoc Binh, the provincial capital, fell on 6 January 1975. Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused. The fall of Phuoc Binh and the lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese elite demoralized."

Here's that early 1975 invasion thing. Tank invasion. One that the US Republicans were not allowed to respond to because of the treacherous US Democrats. One that could have been easily won from the air - the US's strong suit.

It was in fact correctly pointed out that the US can't be trusted to keep its word:

"An embittered and tearful President Thieu resigned on the same day, declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam. In a scathing attack, he suggested U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had tricked him into signing the Paris peace agreement two years ago, promising military aid that failed to materialise.

At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis.But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days?...The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men"

The information that completely dispells the narrative is right there in plain sight. The left hasn't fabricated the data when editting Wikipedia or anything of the sort.

Another quote from Strategypage:

"The U.S. didn't lose the war in South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did. Tet was a victory for the United States, and a major defeat for the Viet Cong. For years, you had to go dig up old newspapers, or obscure books, to find the evidence that Tet was an American victory and Vietnam was not an American defeat. But now you can just use Google. All the facts are there. All you have to do is go look. Many prefer not to, which is another problem."

I think the problem is more than being unwilling to use google, but instead more how the brain works. I didn't have the strategypage link in front of me at the time I first went to Wikipedia, and had trouble getting the dates I was looking for. There was too much data to process that it all got jumbled up, even though I roughly knew what should be there.

I had to pull up the strategypage article, see the mention of the "years where conventional invasion occurred" and then try to find where 1972 was mentioned, then 1975. It was there, but if you already have an expectation of "US lost Vietnam", then the data that conflicts with that meme is probably automatically dismissed as "confusing, must have misunderstood" rather than "fuck me dead - am I the victim of a completely pervasive and near-totally successful Soviet psyop that in the entire friggin planet, no-one has made a campaign of correcting?".

Hopefully my colourful use of hyperbole may change that, where even strategypage has failed.

And let's get a very simple timeline for people to follow:

1965 - US (and allies such as Australia) begin deployment of ground troops to help fight South Vietnam's internal (Viet Cong - guerillas) and external enemies (NVA - North Vietnamese Army - conventional warfare).

1968 - Internal enemies essentially completely eliminated after making the mistake of launching the Tet offensive which revealed who they were, an unwise move.

1971 - Australia departs before the freedom of the South Vietnamese people is secured. Another untrustworthy member of the free world, along with the UK and Canada who never even showed up in the first place! It turns out that Thailand is the most friggin reliable member of the free world.

1972 - NVA invades (with tanks) and is predictably defeated by the US air force. US ground forces are out of the picture (ie gone home, bye bye, not needed - South Vietnam can look after itself so long as it has US air support).

1973 - treacherous US Democrats realise that their communist allies like Jane Fonda can't win while ever US air cover is available to South Vietnam, so make it illegal to provide US air cover to our South Vietnamese allies.

1975 - NVA invades (with tanks) and due to having everything it needs courtesy of Jane Fonda, the US Democrats and the Soviet Union, is able to demolish our South Vietnamese allies who for the first time are forced to operate without US air cover - the normal way to absolutely guarantee victory - for those who think victory is a good thing - who then rightly complain about gross betrayal for which the entire free world should hang its head in shame like FUCKING FOREVER if you've ever seen the inside of a FUCKING COMMIE GULAG, and fuckwits like Kevin Rudd should issue a public apology on behalf of not just the Australian people but the entire friggin free world who should have known better if they would only get their information from a more reliable source than the FUCKING COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-01-29 04:01
Location: Australia, Free World South

Re: vietnam

Postby kerravon » 2011-03-12 08:12

By the way, here is the Soviet Union directly paying for lies about Vietnam: ... 260828.asp

And John Kerry doing the same for free: ... 71-fisked/
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-01-29 04:01
Location: Australia, Free World South

Re: vietnam

Postby kerravon » 2014-11-05 04:21

Just a correction on the timeline.

The 1972 invasion ( began on 30 March 1972.

From what I have read, at that time, the ground troops were all (or almost all) South Vietnamese. However, there was a small number of US troops in the country at the time. They didn't fully leave until the end of March 1973. Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-01-29 04:01
Location: Australia, Free World South

Return to narrative

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest