Napoleon - Page 5

FrankBullit · May 18, 2002, 12:39

While true the American excursions into Canada did not result in any annexed territory, what they did accomplish was to prevent staging areas for future British invasions into the States. A fact often overlooked by the historical 'experts'.

Jon Shafer · May 18, 2002, 13:15

Actually some raiding parties from Canada actually staked out around the Great Lakes region during the war. They didn't really ever do much, but they were still there.

Coracle · May 18, 2002, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
How did they win?

There were only minor skirmishes, aside from the burning of the White House and York, other than the battle of New Orleans. In that one basically the Americans whipped the British worse than Napoleon ever did.

The Americans did not win the War of 1812. And the Battle of New Orleans came after the peace treaty was signed so it had no effect on the terms of that treaty.

Jon Shafer · May 18, 2002, 21:30

I never said they won. I said no one won.

America's only "defeat" came in an undelcared war, does that mean that none of those battles had any effect on anything?

FrankBullit · May 19, 2002, 16:59

Ah yes, Vietnam! While true America pulled out of Vietnam and enabled the North to win the 'war' by later invading the South unapposed (Nixon had promised to defend the South should the North attack after the pullout, but Americans no longer had any stomach for it), the American military never lost a major engagement during the 'conflict'.

In fact, the paradox of Vietnam is that American forces won the most decisive battle of the war by destroying the Vietcong forces during the battle of Tet in 1968. This forced the NVA regulars to come out of hiding and to continually get their butts whooped.

The problem was, right before Tet Americans had been getting a steady diet of 'light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel' statements from the President and Pentagon. Tet, like the Battle-of-the-Bulge in WW2, shocked the American military and public by the shear size and force of the attack. This caused the U.S. public to believe that they had been lied to by our government and everything at home hit the fan. Johnson declined to run again and Nixon used Kissinger to get a 'face-saving' way out of Vietnam through the Paris talks.

Coracle · May 19, 2002, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Ah yes, Vietnam! While true America pulled out of Vietnam and enabled the North to win the 'war' by later invading the South unapposed (Nixon had promised to defend the South should the North attack after the pullout, but Americans no longer had any stomach for it), the American military never lost a major engagement during the 'conflict'.

In fact, the paradox of Vietnam is that American forces won the most decisive battle of the war by destroying the Vietcong forces during the battle of Tet in 1968. This forced the NVA regulars to come out of hiding and to continually get their butts whooped.

The problem was, right before Tet Americans had been getting a steady diet of 'light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel' statements from the President and Pentagon. Tet, like the Battle-of-the-Bulge in WW2, shocked the American military and public by the shear size and force of the attack. This caused the U.S. public to believe that they had been lied to by our government and everything at home hit the fan. Johnson declined to run again and Nixon used Kissinger to get a 'face-saving' way out of Vietnam through the Paris talks.

TET was a no-lose battle for the Vietnamese. Why?

They came very close to actually winning a straight out military victory, especially in Saigon. But even without an immediate collapse of the puppet government in Saigon they still could not lose as it, politically, did indeed prove how out of it and what damnable liars Westmoreland and Johnson were. It destroyed their credibility, and thus was a political victory. And the turning point of the war.

If there is a hell, LBJ is there.

Jon Shafer · May 19, 2002, 21:31

The U.S. couldn't win in Vietnam whether it had wanted to or not. It was like fighting Japan in World War II, except everything was jungle, and there was no tangible goal for America in defeating the Viet Cong. With Japan, we could sink their ships, shoot down their planes, and bomb their cities. In Vietnam, there were only guerilla fighters that we had no way of tracking down.

Andrew Cory · May 19, 2002, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

TET was a no-lose battle for the Vietnamese. Why?

They came very close to actually winning a straight out military victory, especially in Saigon. But even without an immediate collapse of the puppet government in Saigon they still could not lose as it, politically, did indeed prove how out of it and what damnable liars Westmoreland and Johnson were. It destroyed their credibility, and thus was a political victory. And the turning point of the war.

If there is a hell, LBJ is there.

The problem with your little thesis manifold. First, we were not fighting "the vietnamese", but rather the _northern_ vietnamese. Second, neither ARVN nor the VC could have stood up to the US millitary in an actual stand up battle. Both sides knew that, and that is why they only fought in two battles with the US millitary actualy present. Third, when they saw the light at the end of the tunnel, they were correct. Hell, the VC was DESROYED at the end of the Tet offensive. Fourth, the man who pushed through the Civil rights act could not ever burn in hell.

jdjdjd · May 20, 2002, 09:46

In Oct 1963, Kennedy had signed executive orders to pull out of Vietnam, shortly thereafter and before those orders had been acted upon he was shot. Various conspiracy theories point to the many discrepancies in the Warren Report that said it was a lone gunman, i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald. They say that in all liklihood Oswald was a patsy, he may have been one of many shooters involved. Then, Johnson takes office, and he knows that someone very powerful, powerful enough to kill Kennedy and to cover it up and get the Warren Commission to issue their Report,
was upset with Kennedy and perhaps wanted the Vietnam War. Did Johnson fear these people? Perhaps and maybe thats why he escalated Vietnam, and maybe thats why he refused to run for President again. Thats what some conspiracy theorists will tell you, that Johnson was afraid of being killed, so he continued on with Vietnam.

Some other things the Conspiracy Theorists ask:
Were the Riots at the Democratic Convention in 1968 really caused by Radicals, or set in motion by this group that had Kennedy shot? Was it done to disgrace Humphrey, in order get Nixon elected, someone this group could manipulate? Was RFK shot prior to the 1968 election, because he was probably going to win the Democratic nomination and then easily win against Nixon in the general election? Is it interesting that Frank Sturges, a man often used by the CIA as a "freelance" operative, was in charge of the Watergate break in and happened to also have been in Dallas at the time of Kennedy's shooting? Is it interesting that so was CIA employee John Ehrlichman? Also, is it not interesting that Allen Dulles, ex-director of the CIA, fired by Kennedy, was in charge of the investigative reports that the Warren Commission reviewed? How about that Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission, and was later handed the presidency without ever being elected to the office or to the office of VP...was that pay back?

Well, anyway, thats what they say.

Jon Shafer · May 20, 2002, 10:43

Back on topic...

So how 'bout that Napoleon guy... Austerlitz and Friedland were pretty cool, but Salamanca and Borodino weren't...

Andrew Cory · May 20, 2002, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Back on topic...

So how 'bout that Napoleon guy... Austerlitz and Friedland were pretty cool, but Salamanca and Borodino weren't...

I am about to admit to a very embarassing truth: I know almost nothing about the napoleonic wars. What good books are there out there that can help correct this ignorence? I speak only english, so please recomend only in that language...

jdjdjd · May 20, 2002, 14:01

Try "Napoleon" by Frank McLynn or "Napoleon Bonaparte" by Alan Schom. There are also the Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte and the "Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte" by Robert Asprey. Check Amazon.com or something like that.

Jon Shafer · May 20, 2002, 17:21

The Napoleonic era is my favorite time in history.

The books I currently have now from the libarary include: Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon by Rory Muir, The Napoleonic Wars: an illustrated history 1792-1815 by Michael Glover, and With Musket, Cannon & Sword by Brent Nosworthy.

My favorite one of those is the illustrated history one... it doesn't give much detail about specific battles, but it gives a good oversight on the whole era.

FrankBullit · May 20, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
The U.S. couldn't win in Vietnam whether it had wanted to or not. It was like fighting Japan in World War II, except everything was jungle, and there was no tangible goal for America in defeating the Viet Cong. With Japan, we could sink their ships, shoot down their planes, and bomb their cities. In Vietnam, there were only guerilla fighters that we had no way of tracking down.

FrankBullit · May 20, 2002, 17:35

Not so! America could not win militarily in Vietnam because 1. U.S. could not invade the North without bringing in Russia and China, and 2. The Vietnamese military in the South continually demonstrated a total lack of commitment and interest in prosecuting the war without total U.S. commitment (although the South's elite forces like the Rangers aquitted themselves as well as anyone and put up the last hellacious defense of the South before the collapse). Had the U.S. and South been able to invade the North as the North had continually done to the South, the war could have been won by U.S. and South in weeks, no problem.

Alanus · May 21, 2002, 06:27

Back to topic :

Napoleon did not conquer Vietnam - the French only settled in Indochina in the mid-late 19th century.

So for discussion / poll on Napoleon vs. Joan vs. others, just go to this thread

Jon Shafer · May 21, 2002, 11:14

OT: Napoleon was cool.

Such a pity he decided to send an army of over 300,000 to rot in Spain doing NOTHING.

They had only to fight a British force of about 50,000, and the remains of the Spanish army, but they failed. Alas. That and he didn't plan his supply as well as he should have for his invasion of Russia... he had enough rations for 500,000 troops for 3 months in one depot, but he had no way of moving those up to the front... gahhhh. I won't make the same mistake in my game as France.

FrankBullit · May 21, 2002, 14:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Alanus

Back to topic :

Napoleon did not conquer Vietnam - the French only settled in Indochina in the mid-late 19th century.

So for discussion / poll on Napoleon vs. Joan vs. others, just go to this thread

Vietnam discussion got started when statement was made about America 'losing in Vietnam" earlier. This is the typically ignorant, revisionist stuff being taught in public schools today and I just wanted to set the record straight. America never 'lost' Vietnam, the American people decided it just wasn't worth the lost lives of our soldiers anymore and instead decided to just 'give it up.' I judge this as neither morally right or wrong, just the fact of what happened. The French, on the other hand, DID lose in Vietnam, surrounded and routed in the 50's. 'Nuff said.

High Lord J · May 21, 2002, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Wait! They wanted to be Politicaly Correct _and_ sex up the game?!?! this might be the single stupidest thing you have ever said...

No I think he meant to make sure there were more even distribution between males and females.

Coracle · May 21, 2002, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by High Lord J

No I think he meant to make sure there were more even distribution between males and females.

And that is being Politically Correct.

Jon Shafer · May 21, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
And that is being Politically Correct.

Perhaps... but defineatly not historically correct...

Zachriel · May 21, 2002, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by FrankBullit
America never 'lost' Vietnam, the American people decided it just wasn't worth the lost lives of our soldiers anymore and instead decided to just 'give it up.'

America may not have lost the war in Vietnam, but Vietnam certainly won.

Britain didn't lose the American Revolution, they just made a strategic withdrawal. We still celebrate Independence Day in the U.S., though.

Jon Shafer · May 21, 2002, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
Britain didn't lose the American Revolution, they just made a strategic withdrawal. We still celebrate Independence Day in the U.S., though.

Actually... Britain did officially lose. After Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, Britain admitted defeat to the American and French forces on September 3rd 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

Andrew Cory · May 21, 2002, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

America may not have lost the war in Vietnam, but Vietnam certainly won.

Britain didn't lose the American Revolution, they just made a strategic withdrawal. We still celebrate Independence Day in the U.S., though.

Riiiight... We celebrate the day we signed the declaration of independance, not the day it was granted.

Hell, we don't even celebrate the day we _declared_ indepenance. 2 days earlier, on 2 July 1776, congress voted to declare independance. It took 2 days to write and edit a draft stating this, but the deed was done on the 2nd...

And _now_ you know!

Zachriel · May 21, 2002, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Actually... Britain did officially lose. After Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, Britain admitted defeat to the American and French forces on September 3rd 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

Of course they lost! And then waited the requisite 20+ years to cancel the treaty.

Jon Shafer · May 21, 2002, 21:07

Well, the U.S. did wait 29 turns to declare war again, so I suppose everything works out right.

Andrew Cory · May 21, 2002, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Well, the U.S. did wait 29 turns to declare war again, so I suppose everything works out right.

I'm sorry, 29 what? You can't talk Civ on this thread! Someone get a moderator, we have a guy going OFF TOPIC here...

*grin*

Jon Shafer · May 21, 2002, 21:40

*Banned*

Alanus · May 22, 2002, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by FrankBullit

America never 'lost' Vietnam, the American people decided it just wasn't worth the lost lives of our soldiers anymore and instead decided to just 'give it up.'

The French, on the other hand, DID lose in Vietnam, surrounded and routed in the 50's. 'Nuff said.

It's a pity to read such understatements. The Americans, what are obviously smarter than the French, have been kicked out of Vietnam just like the French before.

Another way to say it : The French, after Dien Bien Phu in 1954, made a strategic withdrawal to preserve lives and their interests.

FrankBullit · May 22, 2002, 20:29

Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way of ignorance. The French forces were surrounded near Dien Ben Phu and surrendered when their vaunted artillery was found to not be able to hit the surrounding heights they were being attacked from. The French artillery commander committed suicide over this.
The French appealed to the U.S. just before collapse for air attacks. The U.S. declined, the key Senator voting against being one Lyndon Baines Johnson. He would later brood over Kha Sahn noting the parallel.

The United States, however, were never in danger of imminent military collapse and could have stayed in Vietnam indefinately, if not for the collapse of support at home. Therefore, the U.S. did not suffer a military defeat as the French did, they left. Nothing 'stragetic' about it, since thier forces were not going to be overrun. Its called History, read some of it.