世界上还有哪个强大的大国在与弱小的国家的战争中输得像美国在越南那样惨？
正文翻译
Has any big, powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny, weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
世界上还有哪个强大的大国在与弱小的国家的战争中输得像美国在越南那样惨？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：神刀 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Has any big, powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny, weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
世界上还有哪个强大的大国在与弱小的国家的战争中输得像美国在越南那样惨？
评论翻译
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：神刀 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Tony Huynhston, Bachelor Medical Sciences & Psychology, University of Canberra (2017)
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Okay, I really recommend you pick up a history book on the Vietnam war. Vietnam wasn’t some tiny puny country, it had the backing of the Communist Nations.
Secondly, no other war comes close to the kind of war Vietnam was. But the closest thing would have to be Battle of Isandlwana - but the outcome of the war resulted in British victory, so not the same as the US.
TLDR US won the war, but Congress couldn’t keep the victory.
First and foremost, war is always nasty. Then you combine that with a culture that doesn’t want to be involved in Vietnam, as well as one that has journalists hell bent on writing a story (for whatever reason) and you suddenly have the perception that the USA was getting annhilated in Vietnam.
The Vietnam war was the first time the US got a taste of modern gurreilla warfare. (Russia had theirs in Afghanistan, and they were badly bloodied too).
So let’s look at the numbers.
The US, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand Taiwan and Phillipines, had approximately 64,000 military dead. Wounded on the other hand brushes close to 318,000 (though 150,000 did not require hospital care).
South Vietnam, suffered 220,357–313,000 military dead. These guys did most of the dying on the Coalition side. Thus bringing up our military dead total between 284,000–377,311
On the Communist side, they suffered over 849,018 military dead. Kind of hard to say that the Allied side lost the war when they suffered around a third of the military deaths.
Of course war isn’t just decided by body counts, there were other factors at play here. Most people don’t like to admit it, but the Vietnam War was won in Vietnam, but lost in American homes and I’ll tell you what I mean by that.
The Allies where helping ARVN fight a defensive war against the North. The desired outcome was for South Vietnam to become it’s own country like South Korea. Unfortunately, Communist propaganda can sway just about most people, educated or uneducated.
So instead of fighting the convention NVA, the Allies were also fighting guerrilla Viet Cong. This resulted in horrific collateral damage, which fuelled the anti-war movement back in the States.
Democrat politicians in the US began to campaign against the war, taking part in anti-war rallies and the like.
Meanwhile, the Allies wanted to get the North back to the negotiating table again, so the US did what any superpower would do. Bomb them into submission.
After awhile, the North agreed to come to the peace talks as long as the bombing campaign was halted.
When the negotiations were done, the North agreed to stay on their side of the border and not to invade. US withdrew its forces, but promised to keep the South supplied with military hardware. This was seen as a victory for the US.
Unfortunately, the following year, we had the Watergate Scandal, a few months later the democrats won a landslide in Congress. Many of those members used this majority to essentially break the promise of military aid through defunding it.
Gerarld R Ford begged congress to allow the US to supplies, but most of them walked out on the address. Why? Because it would look bad for any democratic politician to be even seen supporting the war in anyway shape or form because they were the ones at the anti-war rally.
The North with the backing of other Soviet Nations broke the treaty, to test American resolve. They took one village after another and no military response from the US came. Soon it was cities, and then finally provinces.
In short, the US didn’t lose because of the Communists, but lost because of the Democrat majority of the 94th Congress.
好吧，我真的建议你拿一本关于越南战争的历史书好好看看，越南不是什么弱小国家，它有GC主义国家的支持。
其次，没有任何一场战争能与越南战争相比较，但是最接近的是伊散德尔瓦纳战役——但是战争的结果是英国的胜利，所以和美国不一样。
另外，美国赢得了战争，但国会无法保持胜利。
首先，也是最重要的，战争总是令人讨厌的。
再加上一种不想卷入越南战争的文化，以及一种让记者拼命写报道的文化( 无论出于什么原因 ) ，你会突然觉得美国在越南战争中失势了。
越南战争是美国第一次尝到现代游击战争的滋味。 ( 俄罗斯在阿富汗也有他们的军队，而且他们也血流成河)
让我们来看看这些数字。
美国、澳大利亚、韩国、新西兰、泰国、台湾和菲律宾大约有64000名军人死亡， 另外，受伤人数接近318000(尽管150,000人不需要医院护理)。
南越死亡220,357-313,000人，这些家伙占了联军死伤的绝大部分， 因此，我们军队的死亡人数在284,000-377,311人之间。
越共方面，他们遭受了超过849,018名军人的死亡，很难说在遭受了三分之一的军事伤亡后联军输掉了这场战争。
当然，战争不仅仅是由死亡人数决定的，还有其他因素在起作用。
大多数人不愿意承认，但是越南战争是：在越南战场赢了，但在美国国内输了，我会告诉你我的意思。
联军在那里帮助南越军打一场对抗北方的防御战争，期望的结果是南越成为像韩国一样，建立自己的国家，不幸的是，GC主义的宣传可以左右大多数受过教育或没受过教育的人。
联军不是和传统的正规军作战，而是和越共游击队作战，这导致了可怕的附带损害，助长了美国的反战运动。
美国民主党政客开始反战，参加反战集会等活动。
与此同时，联军希望让北越重返谈判桌，所以美国做了任何超级大国都会做的事情：轰炸他们让他们屈服。
过了一段时间，北越同意参加和平谈判——只要停止轰炸行动。
谈判结束后，北越同意留在边界，不再入侵，美国撤出了军队，但承诺继续向南越提供军事装备，这被视为美国的胜利。
不幸的是，第二年，我们发生了了水门事件，几个月后，民主党在国会赢得了压倒性的胜利。
其中许多成员利用这一多数，取消了军事援助资金，实质上违背了军事援助的承诺。
杰拉尔德福特恳求国会允许美国提供补给，但他们中的大多数人都选择无视。
为什么？ 因为任何一个民主政治家被看到以任何形式支持战争，都会显得很糟糕，因为他们参加了反战集会。
北方在其他苏维埃国家的支持下破坏了该条约，以考验美国的决心，他们占领了一个又一个村庄，美国没有给予任何军事回应，占领范围很快就变成了城市，然后是省份。
简而言之，美国失败不是因为越共，而是因为民主党在第94届国会中占多数。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Okay, I really recommend you pick up a history book on the Vietnam war. Vietnam wasn’t some tiny puny country, it had the backing of the Communist Nations.
Secondly, no other war comes close to the kind of war Vietnam was. But the closest thing would have to be Battle of Isandlwana - but the outcome of the war resulted in British victory, so not the same as the US.
TLDR US won the war, but Congress couldn’t keep the victory.
First and foremost, war is always nasty. Then you combine that with a culture that doesn’t want to be involved in Vietnam, as well as one that has journalists hell bent on writing a story (for whatever reason) and you suddenly have the perception that the USA was getting annhilated in Vietnam.
The Vietnam war was the first time the US got a taste of modern gurreilla warfare. (Russia had theirs in Afghanistan, and they were badly bloodied too).
So let’s look at the numbers.
The US, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand Taiwan and Phillipines, had approximately 64,000 military dead. Wounded on the other hand brushes close to 318,000 (though 150,000 did not require hospital care).
South Vietnam, suffered 220,357–313,000 military dead. These guys did most of the dying on the Coalition side. Thus bringing up our military dead total between 284,000–377,311
On the Communist side, they suffered over 849,018 military dead. Kind of hard to say that the Allied side lost the war when they suffered around a third of the military deaths.
Of course war isn’t just decided by body counts, there were other factors at play here. Most people don’t like to admit it, but the Vietnam War was won in Vietnam, but lost in American homes and I’ll tell you what I mean by that.
The Allies where helping ARVN fight a defensive war against the North. The desired outcome was for South Vietnam to become it’s own country like South Korea. Unfortunately, Communist propaganda can sway just about most people, educated or uneducated.
So instead of fighting the convention NVA, the Allies were also fighting guerrilla Viet Cong. This resulted in horrific collateral damage, which fuelled the anti-war movement back in the States.
Democrat politicians in the US began to campaign against the war, taking part in anti-war rallies and the like.
Meanwhile, the Allies wanted to get the North back to the negotiating table again, so the US did what any superpower would do. Bomb them into submission.
After awhile, the North agreed to come to the peace talks as long as the bombing campaign was halted.
When the negotiations were done, the North agreed to stay on their side of the border and not to invade. US withdrew its forces, but promised to keep the South supplied with military hardware. This was seen as a victory for the US.
Unfortunately, the following year, we had the Watergate Scandal, a few months later the democrats won a landslide in Congress. Many of those members used this majority to essentially break the promise of military aid through defunding it.
Gerarld R Ford begged congress to allow the US to supplies, but most of them walked out on the address. Why? Because it would look bad for any democratic politician to be even seen supporting the war in anyway shape or form because they were the ones at the anti-war rally.
The North with the backing of other Soviet Nations broke the treaty, to test American resolve. They took one village after another and no military response from the US came. Soon it was cities, and then finally provinces.
In short, the US didn’t lose because of the Communists, but lost because of the Democrat majority of the 94th Congress.
好吧，我真的建议你拿一本关于越南战争的历史书好好看看，越南不是什么弱小国家，它有GC主义国家的支持。
其次，没有任何一场战争能与越南战争相比较，但是最接近的是伊散德尔瓦纳战役——但是战争的结果是英国的胜利，所以和美国不一样。
另外，美国赢得了战争，但国会无法保持胜利。
首先，也是最重要的，战争总是令人讨厌的。
再加上一种不想卷入越南战争的文化，以及一种让记者拼命写报道的文化( 无论出于什么原因 ) ，你会突然觉得美国在越南战争中失势了。
越南战争是美国第一次尝到现代游击战争的滋味。 ( 俄罗斯在阿富汗也有他们的军队，而且他们也血流成河)
让我们来看看这些数字。
美国、澳大利亚、韩国、新西兰、泰国、台湾和菲律宾大约有64000名军人死亡， 另外，受伤人数接近318000(尽管150,000人不需要医院护理)。
南越死亡220,357-313,000人，这些家伙占了联军死伤的绝大部分， 因此，我们军队的死亡人数在284,000-377,311人之间。
越共方面，他们遭受了超过849,018名军人的死亡，很难说在遭受了三分之一的军事伤亡后联军输掉了这场战争。
当然，战争不仅仅是由死亡人数决定的，还有其他因素在起作用。
大多数人不愿意承认，但是越南战争是：在越南战场赢了，但在美国国内输了，我会告诉你我的意思。
联军在那里帮助南越军打一场对抗北方的防御战争，期望的结果是南越成为像韩国一样，建立自己的国家，不幸的是，GC主义的宣传可以左右大多数受过教育或没受过教育的人。
联军不是和传统的正规军作战，而是和越共游击队作战，这导致了可怕的附带损害，助长了美国的反战运动。
美国民主党政客开始反战，参加反战集会等活动。
与此同时，联军希望让北越重返谈判桌，所以美国做了任何超级大国都会做的事情：轰炸他们让他们屈服。
过了一段时间，北越同意参加和平谈判——只要停止轰炸行动。
谈判结束后，北越同意留在边界，不再入侵，美国撤出了军队，但承诺继续向南越提供军事装备，这被视为美国的胜利。
不幸的是，第二年，我们发生了了水门事件，几个月后，民主党在国会赢得了压倒性的胜利。
其中许多成员利用这一多数，取消了军事援助资金，实质上违背了军事援助的承诺。
杰拉尔德福特恳求国会允许美国提供补给，但他们中的大多数人都选择无视。
为什么？ 因为任何一个民主政治家被看到以任何形式支持战争，都会显得很糟糕，因为他们参加了反战集会。
北方在其他苏维埃国家的支持下破坏了该条约，以考验美国的决心，他们占领了一个又一个村庄，美国没有给予任何军事回应，占领范围很快就变成了城市，然后是省份。
简而言之，美国失败不是因为越共，而是因为民主党在第94届国会中占多数。
Pars Jackson, Proud of the United States
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Originally Answered: Has any big powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
Your question is either bating or very ignorant of the Vietnam War. You''''re implying that "tiny weak" Vietnam, defeated or rather, badly defeated the US. That is a total falsehood. The US was not defeated in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell after the US forces departed Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were never able to militarily defeat the US. This is why they agreed to the Paris Peace Accords. This is why they agreed or had to agree, that the US be able to resupply bullet for bullet, any and all military hardware and arms, needed by South Vietnam.
Unfortunately for South Vietnam, a new, Democratic controlled Congress was voted in and later refused to fund the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords...most importantly, funding for military armaments that was promised to South Vietnam. You can watch the news reels of then President Ford, practically begging Congress for funding for the arms that were promised.
If the US was "badly defeated" in Vietnam, then why would the North Vietnamese cautiously invade the South in ''''75, carefully watching if the US returned to save the South? If that occurred, the North would have turned around and they admit this. If the US, who left South Vietnam in 1973 was defeated in 1975, then it was a ghost military and figment of someone''''s imagination.
The "victorious" Vietnamese want very badly, to be a friend of the US, to help protect them from the growing military power of China. So who are we kidding? The French were militarily defeated in Vietnam. The US was militarily defeated in Washington DC. There''''s a big difference and sorry if I offend some people, but I really don''''t care. If the US went into full mobilization and threw all its power into the Vietnam War, that war would have ended in a month. It''''s the same situation for the USSR in Afghanistan. Do you really believe the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan? If that country went into its WWII frenzy and threw everything it had at Afghanistan, the country would have been devoid of life and the remaining horses would have mutated into mules with two heads.
你问这样的问题，要么是很无知，要么是对越南战争一无所知。你在暗示，“弱小的”越南打败了美国，或者更确切地说，是打惨了美国，这完全是谎言。
美国并没有在越南战败，美军撤离越南后，南越陷落，北越从未在军事上打败过美国，这就是为什么他们同意1973年越美巴黎协定的原因，他们不得不同意，美国能够为南越补任何和所有南越需要的军事装备和武器。
对南越来说不幸的是，民主党控制的国会通过了一个新的投票，后来拒绝按照1973年越美巴黎协定的条款资助南越， 最重要的是，承诺给南越的军事装备资金，你可以看到当时的福特总统的新闻录像，他几乎是在乞求国会为他承诺的武器提供资金。
如果美国在越南被“ 严重打败” ，那么为什么北越会在1975年小心翼翼地侵略南方，仔细观察美国是否会回来拯救南方？ 如果真是这样，北越就会转过身来，承认这一点， 如果说1973年离开南越的美国在1975年被击败，那么它就是一支幽灵军队，是某些人凭空想象出来的。
“胜利的”越南人非常渴望成为美国的朋友，帮助他们抵御中国日益增长的军事力量。
所以我们有骗谁？ 是法国人在越南军事上被打败了，美国在华盛顿特区“被打败”， 这里边有很大的区别，如果我冒犯了一些人，我很抱歉，但我真的不在乎。
如果美国全面动员起来，把它所有的力量都投入到越南战争中，那场战争将在一个月内结束。
苏联在阿富汗的情况也是如此，你真的相信苏联在阿富汗战败了吗？ 如果苏联进入二战的狂暴状态，把它所有的资源都扔到阿富汗，这个国家早挂了，渣渣都不剩。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Originally Answered: Has any big powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
Your question is either bating or very ignorant of the Vietnam War. You''''re implying that "tiny weak" Vietnam, defeated or rather, badly defeated the US. That is a total falsehood. The US was not defeated in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell after the US forces departed Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were never able to militarily defeat the US. This is why they agreed to the Paris Peace Accords. This is why they agreed or had to agree, that the US be able to resupply bullet for bullet, any and all military hardware and arms, needed by South Vietnam.
Unfortunately for South Vietnam, a new, Democratic controlled Congress was voted in and later refused to fund the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords...most importantly, funding for military armaments that was promised to South Vietnam. You can watch the news reels of then President Ford, practically begging Congress for funding for the arms that were promised.
If the US was "badly defeated" in Vietnam, then why would the North Vietnamese cautiously invade the South in ''''75, carefully watching if the US returned to save the South? If that occurred, the North would have turned around and they admit this. If the US, who left South Vietnam in 1973 was defeated in 1975, then it was a ghost military and figment of someone''''s imagination.
The "victorious" Vietnamese want very badly, to be a friend of the US, to help protect them from the growing military power of China. So who are we kidding? The French were militarily defeated in Vietnam. The US was militarily defeated in Washington DC. There''''s a big difference and sorry if I offend some people, but I really don''''t care. If the US went into full mobilization and threw all its power into the Vietnam War, that war would have ended in a month. It''''s the same situation for the USSR in Afghanistan. Do you really believe the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan? If that country went into its WWII frenzy and threw everything it had at Afghanistan, the country would have been devoid of life and the remaining horses would have mutated into mules with two heads.
你问这样的问题，要么是很无知，要么是对越南战争一无所知。你在暗示，“弱小的”越南打败了美国，或者更确切地说，是打惨了美国，这完全是谎言。
美国并没有在越南战败，美军撤离越南后，南越陷落，北越从未在军事上打败过美国，这就是为什么他们同意1973年越美巴黎协定的原因，他们不得不同意，美国能够为南越补任何和所有南越需要的军事装备和武器。
对南越来说不幸的是，民主党控制的国会通过了一个新的投票，后来拒绝按照1973年越美巴黎协定的条款资助南越， 最重要的是，承诺给南越的军事装备资金，你可以看到当时的福特总统的新闻录像，他几乎是在乞求国会为他承诺的武器提供资金。
如果美国在越南被“ 严重打败” ，那么为什么北越会在1975年小心翼翼地侵略南方，仔细观察美国是否会回来拯救南方？ 如果真是这样，北越就会转过身来，承认这一点， 如果说1973年离开南越的美国在1975年被击败，那么它就是一支幽灵军队，是某些人凭空想象出来的。
“胜利的”越南人非常渴望成为美国的朋友，帮助他们抵御中国日益增长的军事力量。
所以我们有骗谁？ 是法国人在越南军事上被打败了，美国在华盛顿特区“被打败”， 这里边有很大的区别，如果我冒犯了一些人，我很抱歉，但我真的不在乎。
如果美国全面动员起来，把它所有的力量都投入到越南战争中，那场战争将在一个月内结束。
苏联在阿富汗的情况也是如此，你真的相信苏联在阿富汗战败了吗？ 如果苏联进入二战的狂暴状态，把它所有的资源都扔到阿富汗，这个国家早挂了，渣渣都不剩。
Charlie Armstrong, studies at South Iredell High School (2021)
Answered Jan 18, 2018
Why yes, multiple countries have.
Let’s talk about the first Italian-Ethiopian war. Starting in 1893, it’s incredible how Ethiopia retained their independence during the Scramble for Africa. Against all odds, an African nation was able to fight off technologically superior European powers, specifically the Italians. The Ethiopians, in this first war, were supported by the Russian Empire, with both nations being Orthodox Christian nations, though supplying them training, advisors, and weapons. With these, they managed to fight of the Italians and retain their Independence. During the Scramble for Africa, they were the most major nation to do so.
In the case of the Ethiopians, I think their achievement of retaining independence during this scenario is even greater an achievement. They were fighting European colonial powers with technology greater than theirs, with only support from Russia, who was at the time still a backwards and not industrialized country.
Known as Abyssinia at the time, Ethiopia was the first major nation to retain their independence in an age of European colonialism in Africa, which was a major achievement. Unfortunately, Ethiopia was occupied by Italy later during WW2, but upon the Axis losing WW2, the Ethiopians retained their independence.
为什么这么问？
是，有很多这样的国家。
我们来谈谈第一次意大利-埃塞俄比亚战争。
从1893年开始，埃塞俄比亚在瓜分非洲期间保持了独立，令人难以置信，尽管困难重重，一个非洲国家还是战胜了技术上占优势的欧洲强国，特别是意大利。
在第一次战争中，埃塞俄比亚人得到了俄罗斯帝国的支持，两个国家都是东正教基督教国家，为他们提供训练、顾问和武器，有了这些，他们设法与意大利人作战，并保持了他们的独立性， 在瓜分非洲时期，他们是这样做的最主要的国家。
就埃塞俄比亚人而言，我认为他们在这种情况下保持独立是一项巨大的成就，他们与比他们技术更先进的欧洲殖民势力作战，只有俄罗斯的支持，当时俄罗斯还是一个落后的非工业化国家。
埃塞俄比亚在当时被称为阿比西尼亚，是非洲欧洲殖民主义时代第一个保持独立的主要国家，这是一项重大成就。 不幸的是，埃塞俄比亚后来在第二次世界大战期间被意大利占领，第二次世界大战轴心国失败后，埃塞俄比亚人保持了独立。
Answered Jan 18, 2018
Why yes, multiple countries have.
Let’s talk about the first Italian-Ethiopian war. Starting in 1893, it’s incredible how Ethiopia retained their independence during the Scramble for Africa. Against all odds, an African nation was able to fight off technologically superior European powers, specifically the Italians. The Ethiopians, in this first war, were supported by the Russian Empire, with both nations being Orthodox Christian nations, though supplying them training, advisors, and weapons. With these, they managed to fight of the Italians and retain their Independence. During the Scramble for Africa, they were the most major nation to do so.
In the case of the Ethiopians, I think their achievement of retaining independence during this scenario is even greater an achievement. They were fighting European colonial powers with technology greater than theirs, with only support from Russia, who was at the time still a backwards and not industrialized country.
Known as Abyssinia at the time, Ethiopia was the first major nation to retain their independence in an age of European colonialism in Africa, which was a major achievement. Unfortunately, Ethiopia was occupied by Italy later during WW2, but upon the Axis losing WW2, the Ethiopians retained their independence.
为什么这么问？
是，有很多这样的国家。
我们来谈谈第一次意大利-埃塞俄比亚战争。
从1893年开始，埃塞俄比亚在瓜分非洲期间保持了独立，令人难以置信，尽管困难重重，一个非洲国家还是战胜了技术上占优势的欧洲强国，特别是意大利。
在第一次战争中，埃塞俄比亚人得到了俄罗斯帝国的支持，两个国家都是东正教基督教国家，为他们提供训练、顾问和武器，有了这些，他们设法与意大利人作战，并保持了他们的独立性， 在瓜分非洲时期，他们是这样做的最主要的国家。
就埃塞俄比亚人而言，我认为他们在这种情况下保持独立是一项巨大的成就，他们与比他们技术更先进的欧洲殖民势力作战，只有俄罗斯的支持，当时俄罗斯还是一个落后的非工业化国家。
埃塞俄比亚在当时被称为阿比西尼亚，是非洲欧洲殖民主义时代第一个保持独立的主要国家，这是一项重大成就。 不幸的是，埃塞俄比亚后来在第二次世界大战期间被意大利占领，第二次世界大战轴心国失败后，埃塞俄比亚人保持了独立。
Ken Kahre, lives in The United States of America
Answered Jan 17, 2018
You question is baiting and faulty in its premise. No, we didn’t lose. We simply opted not to win. There is a difference. We got the North Viet Namese government to sign the Paris Peace Accords. They agreed to leave South Viet Nam, and we left South Viet Nam. Game over.
But if you were to ask “Has there been any other example where a large, powerful has been stymied, or bogged down by a smaller, less power nation?” then yes. You nay have heard of it. Afghanistan.
We’ve been stuck in that quagmire of a backwoods country since 2001 and there’s no real sign of getting out yet. But before that, there was another country that did the same thing, and it was one of reasons that caused its down fall - the Soviet unx.
The Soviets got involved in what was basically a dirty civil war in Afghanistan that lasted nine years. Like the US in Viet Nam, they were soon looking at endless body counts, a war they could not afford, and no exit strategy. It proved to be a huge mistake. But they were not the first European power to learn that the hard way. There was the British.
While the British occupied Afghanistan from 1839 to 1919, they learned the hard way and quickly not to meddle too closely in its internal affairs or even to try and dictate too strongly how to run things. It was during the First Anglo-Afghan War, or as its also known, The Disaster in Afghanistan. It was infamous in the British lose of 4,500 British and Indian soldiers, plus 12,000 of their families by Afghan tribesman. It was not until they were certain that it was not a threat to what is now Pakistan that the British let it go.
你的问题在其前提下是有诱导性和错误的。
不，我们没有输，我们只是选择了不赢，这是有区别的，我们与北越政府签署了1973年越美巴黎协定，他们同意离开南越，我们离开了南越，游戏结束。
但是如果你问“有没有其他的例子，一个强大的国家被一个弱小的国家所阻碍，或者陷入困境? ” 那么，是的，有，你应该听说过，阿富汗。
自2001年以来，我们一直陷在这个偏远的泥潭中，而且还没有真正的迹象表明我们要走出这个泥潭。
但在此之前，还有另一个国家——苏联，也做了同样的事情，这也是导致苏联解体的原因之一。
苏联卷入了一场持续了九年的阿富汗肮脏内战，就像在越南的美国一样，他们很快就开始关注无休止的死亡人数，一场他们承担不起的战争，以及没有退出的战略，事实证明这是一个巨大的错误，但他们并不是第一个认识到这一点的欧洲强国，还有英国人。
英国人从1839年到1919年占领阿富汗的时候，他们明白了这是一条艰难的道路，那就是不要过于干涉阿富汗的内政，甚至不要过于强烈地要求管理事务，第一次英阿战争战争时期，或者也就是众所周知的阿富汗灾难时期，英军在这场战争中损失了4500名英国和印度士兵，另外12000名士兵的家人被阿富汗部落杀害，臭名昭著， 直到他们确定它不会对现在的巴基斯坦构成威胁，英国才放手。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
You question is baiting and faulty in its premise. No, we didn’t lose. We simply opted not to win. There is a difference. We got the North Viet Namese government to sign the Paris Peace Accords. They agreed to leave South Viet Nam, and we left South Viet Nam. Game over.
But if you were to ask “Has there been any other example where a large, powerful has been stymied, or bogged down by a smaller, less power nation?” then yes. You nay have heard of it. Afghanistan.
We’ve been stuck in that quagmire of a backwoods country since 2001 and there’s no real sign of getting out yet. But before that, there was another country that did the same thing, and it was one of reasons that caused its down fall - the Soviet unx.
The Soviets got involved in what was basically a dirty civil war in Afghanistan that lasted nine years. Like the US in Viet Nam, they were soon looking at endless body counts, a war they could not afford, and no exit strategy. It proved to be a huge mistake. But they were not the first European power to learn that the hard way. There was the British.
While the British occupied Afghanistan from 1839 to 1919, they learned the hard way and quickly not to meddle too closely in its internal affairs or even to try and dictate too strongly how to run things. It was during the First Anglo-Afghan War, or as its also known, The Disaster in Afghanistan. It was infamous in the British lose of 4,500 British and Indian soldiers, plus 12,000 of their families by Afghan tribesman. It was not until they were certain that it was not a threat to what is now Pakistan that the British let it go.
你的问题在其前提下是有诱导性和错误的。
不，我们没有输，我们只是选择了不赢，这是有区别的，我们与北越政府签署了1973年越美巴黎协定，他们同意离开南越，我们离开了南越，游戏结束。
但是如果你问“有没有其他的例子，一个强大的国家被一个弱小的国家所阻碍，或者陷入困境? ” 那么，是的，有，你应该听说过，阿富汗。
自2001年以来，我们一直陷在这个偏远的泥潭中，而且还没有真正的迹象表明我们要走出这个泥潭。
但在此之前，还有另一个国家——苏联，也做了同样的事情，这也是导致苏联解体的原因之一。
苏联卷入了一场持续了九年的阿富汗肮脏内战，就像在越南的美国一样，他们很快就开始关注无休止的死亡人数，一场他们承担不起的战争，以及没有退出的战略，事实证明这是一个巨大的错误，但他们并不是第一个认识到这一点的欧洲强国，还有英国人。
英国人从1839年到1919年占领阿富汗的时候，他们明白了这是一条艰难的道路，那就是不要过于干涉阿富汗的内政，甚至不要过于强烈地要求管理事务，第一次英阿战争战争时期，或者也就是众所周知的阿富汗灾难时期，英军在这场战争中损失了4500名英国和印度士兵，另外12000名士兵的家人被阿富汗部落杀害，臭名昭著， 直到他们确定它不会对现在的巴基斯坦构成威胁，英国才放手。
Niklaus Hostettler
Answered Jan 18, 2018
Except of course for the ideological one when those who want the war wont pay for it, be it actual cost or the consequences - clergy and the crusades for example, the following is explains much about offensive wars:
1) War is a numbers game: How many men do I loose to achive my obxtive. If it is not worth it, or cannot afford it. it wont happen.
2) War is economics: How will I pay for it? If the loot, short term, or exploitation, long term, doesn''''t pay for it, it wont happen.
3) War is geopolitical: Can I afford not to occupy an area, or to loose it respectively? Do I better have control over this [strategic] location or my commerce (peace time), or strategy (war time) is in trouble?
4) War is propaganda: Unless one can rally up a country for war, and even more so, those who do the dirty work and “bleed,” nothing happens. No lies, no propaganda, no war.
What can a little country do to defend itself? Keep the cost above what the agressor can afford. In the case of Vietnam: Hold out to wear them down. This always works for 1), 2), and 3) of the above. In case of3), the smart thing is to look for a "how do I loose the least" agreement.
Can anyone give a list of wars the US fought to defend itself? Or even better, a war that wasn''''t fought for economic interests not any differently from the European colonialists fought their wars outside Europe?
Some commented: We won! Sorry, wrong! Kennedy said it rather well, old enough to remember this from one of his speaches about the cold war: They will go bankrupt before we do. All the colonial empires eventually bankrupted themselves, US no exception, and only only differs in that it hasn''''t fallen yet.
Back to the topic:
Q: Why did the US go to war in Vietnam?
A: It had nothing to do with communism, but everything about colonialism, 3).
Q: Why did the US loose?
A: Mostly 2), what vietnamese understood, and 4), what happened in the US.
Q: Shouldn''''t the US have won by criteria 1)?
A: Absolutely so. But it there was no Pearl Harbour, and 4), propaganda, wore out. However, 2) should also have been a factor but Smedley D. Butler book, War is a Racket, explains it rather well.
显然，除了那些意识形态战争，那些想要战争的人不会为战争付出代价，不管是实际的代价还是后果——例如，神圣十字军东征。
以下是关于进攻性战争的多种解释：
1、战争是一场数字游戏：为了实现目标，我会损失多少人， 如果它不值得，或者承担不起，就不会发生。
2、战争就是经济：我如何为战争买单？ 是短期的掠夺，或是长期的剥削？没人买单，它就不会发生。
3、战争是地缘政治：我能承受不占据一个区域的代价吗，或者失去它的代价吗？ 我是更好地控制这个(战略) 位置，还是让我的商业( 和平时期) 或战略( 战争时期) 陷入困境？
4、战争是宣传：除非一个国家能够团结起来，尤其是把那些干脏活、“流血”的人团结起来，否则什么都不会发生，没有谎言，没有宣传，就没有战争。
一个小国能做些什么来保护自己呢？ 让入侵成本高于侵略者所能承受的水平。
放在越南这个例子中就是：坚持到底，消耗他们。
这对于上面的1、2和3总是有效的，在这种情况下，聪明的做法是寻找达成一个“怎样才能减少损失”的协议。
有谁能列出美国为自卫而打过的战争吗？或者一场不是为了经济利益而战的战争？这样的战争与欧洲殖民者在欧洲之外进行的战争有任何不同？
有人评论说：我们赢了！ 对不起，错了！
肯尼迪说得很好，年纪大一点的人应该记住他关于冷战的一段话：他们会在我们之前破产。
所有的殖民帝国最终都破产了，美国也不例外，唯一不同的是它还没有垮台。
回到主题：
问：为什么美国要在越南开战？
答：与殖民主义有关。
问: 为什么美国输了？
答: 基本就是第2种解释的情况，越南人理解的很到位，以及第4种：在美国发生的事情。
问：按照标准1，美国不是应该赢吗？
答：绝对是这样。 但是那里没有珍珠港，宣传已经过时了。 然而，第2个解释也应该是一个因素，斯梅德利·D·巴特勒的《War is a Racket》（《战争是一场骗局》）很好地解释了这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Answered Jan 18, 2018
Except of course for the ideological one when those who want the war wont pay for it, be it actual cost or the consequences - clergy and the crusades for example, the following is explains much about offensive wars:
1) War is a numbers game: How many men do I loose to achive my obxtive. If it is not worth it, or cannot afford it. it wont happen.
2) War is economics: How will I pay for it? If the loot, short term, or exploitation, long term, doesn''''t pay for it, it wont happen.
3) War is geopolitical: Can I afford not to occupy an area, or to loose it respectively? Do I better have control over this [strategic] location or my commerce (peace time), or strategy (war time) is in trouble?
4) War is propaganda: Unless one can rally up a country for war, and even more so, those who do the dirty work and “bleed,” nothing happens. No lies, no propaganda, no war.
What can a little country do to defend itself? Keep the cost above what the agressor can afford. In the case of Vietnam: Hold out to wear them down. This always works for 1), 2), and 3) of the above. In case of3), the smart thing is to look for a "how do I loose the least" agreement.
Can anyone give a list of wars the US fought to defend itself? Or even better, a war that wasn''''t fought for economic interests not any differently from the European colonialists fought their wars outside Europe?
Some commented: We won! Sorry, wrong! Kennedy said it rather well, old enough to remember this from one of his speaches about the cold war: They will go bankrupt before we do. All the colonial empires eventually bankrupted themselves, US no exception, and only only differs in that it hasn''''t fallen yet.
Back to the topic:
Q: Why did the US go to war in Vietnam?
A: It had nothing to do with communism, but everything about colonialism, 3).
Q: Why did the US loose?
A: Mostly 2), what vietnamese understood, and 4), what happened in the US.
Q: Shouldn''''t the US have won by criteria 1)?
A: Absolutely so. But it there was no Pearl Harbour, and 4), propaganda, wore out. However, 2) should also have been a factor but Smedley D. Butler book, War is a Racket, explains it rather well.
显然，除了那些意识形态战争，那些想要战争的人不会为战争付出代价，不管是实际的代价还是后果——例如，神圣十字军东征。
以下是关于进攻性战争的多种解释：
1、战争是一场数字游戏：为了实现目标，我会损失多少人， 如果它不值得，或者承担不起，就不会发生。
2、战争就是经济：我如何为战争买单？ 是短期的掠夺，或是长期的剥削？没人买单，它就不会发生。
3、战争是地缘政治：我能承受不占据一个区域的代价吗，或者失去它的代价吗？ 我是更好地控制这个(战略) 位置，还是让我的商业( 和平时期) 或战略( 战争时期) 陷入困境？
4、战争是宣传：除非一个国家能够团结起来，尤其是把那些干脏活、“流血”的人团结起来，否则什么都不会发生，没有谎言，没有宣传，就没有战争。
一个小国能做些什么来保护自己呢？ 让入侵成本高于侵略者所能承受的水平。
放在越南这个例子中就是：坚持到底，消耗他们。
这对于上面的1、2和3总是有效的，在这种情况下，聪明的做法是寻找达成一个“怎样才能减少损失”的协议。
有谁能列出美国为自卫而打过的战争吗？或者一场不是为了经济利益而战的战争？这样的战争与欧洲殖民者在欧洲之外进行的战争有任何不同？
有人评论说：我们赢了！ 对不起，错了！
肯尼迪说得很好，年纪大一点的人应该记住他关于冷战的一段话：他们会在我们之前破产。
所有的殖民帝国最终都破产了，美国也不例外，唯一不同的是它还没有垮台。
回到主题：
问：为什么美国要在越南开战？
答：与殖民主义有关。
问: 为什么美国输了？
答: 基本就是第2种解释的情况，越南人理解的很到位，以及第4种：在美国发生的事情。
问：按照标准1，美国不是应该赢吗？
答：绝对是这样。 但是那里没有珍珠港，宣传已经过时了。 然而，第2个解释也应该是一个因素，斯梅德利·D·巴特勒的《War is a Racket》（《战争是一场骗局》）很好地解释了这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Dak Caton, random guy who loves this stuff!
upxed Jan 19, 2018
Yep.
Let me take you back, oh 250 or so years.
The biggest baddest military of all time was (almost) in it’s prime.
Rule Britannia!
They had everything.
The Best Trained Military
The Best Navy
The Most Colonies.
You name it.
Guess who they lost to?
Not France — Not Spain — Not (insert some super-power here)
They lost to their own colony.
The militia was made of farmers and innkeepers.
And it wasn’t a stalemate like Vietnam
They had to give the colonies their independence.
Rule America!
有啊
让我带你回到，哦，大概250年前
一支有史以来最大最牛逼的军队 (几乎) 正处于全盛时期
大不列颠！
他们拥有一切
训练有素的军队
最强的海军
最多的殖民地
随便你夸都行
猜猜他们输给了谁？
不是法国-不是西班牙-不是( 请在此处插入任意超级大国 ) 。
他们输给了自己的殖民地。
由农民和旅店老板组成的民兵。
而且它不像越南那样搞成僵局。
他们不得不给予殖民地独立。
统治美国！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
upxed Jan 19, 2018
Yep.
Let me take you back, oh 250 or so years.
The biggest baddest military of all time was (almost) in it’s prime.
Rule Britannia!
They had everything.
The Best Trained Military
The Best Navy
The Most Colonies.
You name it.
Guess who they lost to?
Not France — Not Spain — Not (insert some super-power here)
They lost to their own colony.
The militia was made of farmers and innkeepers.
And it wasn’t a stalemate like Vietnam
They had to give the colonies their independence.
Rule America!
有啊
让我带你回到，哦，大概250年前
一支有史以来最大最牛逼的军队 (几乎) 正处于全盛时期
大不列颠！
他们拥有一切
训练有素的军队
最强的海军
最多的殖民地
随便你夸都行
猜猜他们输给了谁？
不是法国-不是西班牙-不是( 请在此处插入任意超级大国 ) 。
他们输给了自己的殖民地。
由农民和旅店老板组成的民兵。
而且它不像越南那样搞成僵局。
他们不得不给予殖民地独立。
统治美国！
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Tom Aaron
Answered Jan 17, 2018
The USA lost the Vietnam War. However, the American military barely suffered a scratch in its total ability.
Its not that the USA couldn''''t have won militarily but rather that the Anericans have some ethical restraint as to how much damage they want to inflict on a civilian population to achieve a goal. Fortunately this ''''restraint'''' now permeates international conflicts.
Having said this, powerful countries can escalate a conflict if threatened. A weak country is not going to defeat the American, Chinese, Russian , Israeli, British, etc. military…they can only stop or hinder certain goals in specific limited conflicts. Nuclear tipped missiles with precision delivery systems are always the ace that can be played.
Annnnnnd then we return the favor in Vietnam two centuries later…
美国输掉了越南战争，然而，美国军队的整体实力几乎没有受到任何影响。
这并不是说美国不能再军事上取胜，而是说美国人在道德上有一些节制，对他们想要对平民人口造成多大的损害以实现一个目标有一些道德上的约束。
幸运的是，这种“克制”现在弥漫在国际冲突中，但话虽如此，如果受到威胁，强国可以将冲突升级。
一个弱小的国家不可能打败美国、中国、俄罗斯、以色列、英国等军队，他们只能在特定的有限冲突中阻止或阻碍某些目标。
有着精确发射系统的核导弹永远是可以发挥作用的王牌，然后，（也学）两个世纪后，越南会对我们感恩戴德。。。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
The USA lost the Vietnam War. However, the American military barely suffered a scratch in its total ability.
Its not that the USA couldn''''t have won militarily but rather that the Anericans have some ethical restraint as to how much damage they want to inflict on a civilian population to achieve a goal. Fortunately this ''''restraint'''' now permeates international conflicts.
Having said this, powerful countries can escalate a conflict if threatened. A weak country is not going to defeat the American, Chinese, Russian , Israeli, British, etc. military…they can only stop or hinder certain goals in specific limited conflicts. Nuclear tipped missiles with precision delivery systems are always the ace that can be played.
Annnnnnd then we return the favor in Vietnam two centuries later…
美国输掉了越南战争，然而，美国军队的整体实力几乎没有受到任何影响。
这并不是说美国不能再军事上取胜，而是说美国人在道德上有一些节制，对他们想要对平民人口造成多大的损害以实现一个目标有一些道德上的约束。
幸运的是，这种“克制”现在弥漫在国际冲突中，但话虽如此，如果受到威胁，强国可以将冲突升级。
一个弱小的国家不可能打败美国、中国、俄罗斯、以色列、英国等军队，他们只能在特定的有限冲突中阻止或阻碍某些目标。
有着精确发射系统的核导弹永远是可以发挥作用的王牌，然后，（也学）两个世纪后，越南会对我们感恩戴德。。。
Doug Freyburger, works at IT- Industry
Answered Jan 17, 2018
The Roman Republic and Roman Empire fought hundreds of wars. Usually they won against large opponents. Their record against small opponents were amazingly mixed. Some small opponents just plain stopped existing. Some became colonies. Some beat the Romans.
Happens all the time across history.
罗马共和国和罗马帝国打了数百场战争，通常他们会战胜强大的对手，但他们对付弱小对手的战绩出奇地好坏参半， 一些弱小对手消失了， 一些变成了殖民地，有些则打败了罗马人。
这种事情在历史上屡见不鲜。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
The Roman Republic and Roman Empire fought hundreds of wars. Usually they won against large opponents. Their record against small opponents were amazingly mixed. Some small opponents just plain stopped existing. Some became colonies. Some beat the Romans.
Happens all the time across history.
罗马共和国和罗马帝国打了数百场战争，通常他们会战胜强大的对手，但他们对付弱小对手的战绩出奇地好坏参半， 一些弱小对手消失了， 一些变成了殖民地，有些则打败了罗马人。
这种事情在历史上屡见不鲜。
Alex Wong
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Technically, it was the USA, Australia, and South Vietnam + misc. vs the Soviet unx, China, and North Vietnam + misc.
It also was not really a civil war in the traditional sense, but merely a proxy for the Cold War.
So… pretty much everything about your premise is incorrect. Your question does not make sense due to this fact. Not sure how to proceed.
Do you want other examples of proxy wars or do you want actual examples of David vs Goliath?
严格来说，是美国、澳大利亚+南越+其它 vs 苏联、中国+北越的战争。
它也不是传统意义上的内战，是冷战期间的代理人战争。
因此，，你所提问题中的几乎所有前提都是错误的，由于这个事实，你的问题毫无意义， 我不知道该怎么回答你。
你是想要其他代理人战争的例子？还是想要大卫 vs 歌利亚的实际例子？
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Technically, it was the USA, Australia, and South Vietnam + misc. vs the Soviet unx, China, and North Vietnam + misc.
It also was not really a civil war in the traditional sense, but merely a proxy for the Cold War.
So… pretty much everything about your premise is incorrect. Your question does not make sense due to this fact. Not sure how to proceed.
Do you want other examples of proxy wars or do you want actual examples of David vs Goliath?
严格来说，是美国、澳大利亚+南越+其它 vs 苏联、中国+北越的战争。
它也不是传统意义上的内战，是冷战期间的代理人战争。
因此，，你所提问题中的几乎所有前提都是错误的，由于这个事实，你的问题毫无意义， 我不知道该怎么回答你。
你是想要其他代理人战争的例子？还是想要大卫 vs 歌利亚的实际例子？
Lawrence Trevethan
Lawrence Trevethan, Analyst (2017-present)
Answered Jan 24, 2018
I take issue with the concept that Vietnam was (or is) a tiny, weak country. This is a profound misunderstanding. Vietnam dates its national identity from the successful resistance to Chinese aggression over a thousand years ago. In the 20th century it defeated Japan, France and the USA - although in all three cases not because it was a full scale war between any of them and it. {It was a sideshow, not involving a majority of forces].
Tiny weak countries occasionally do beat large ones. Perhaps the most consistent is Switzerland. Apart from winning wars as such, it demonstrated the ability to deter wars (e.g. WWI and WWII) by being PREPARED to render invasion too expensive to be worth undertaking. Of course, it does have the advantage of mountains. But equally, in my view, is its universal military service. Everyone (not disabled) is in the militia from 18 to 54. Everyone has a rifle and 20 rounds at home. A platoon can form up in minutes - they all live on the same street. Buildings have built in demolition charge points. And so on.
我不同意越南曾经(或现在) 是一个弱小国家的观点，这是一个深刻的误解。
越南的国家认同源于一千多年前对中国oo的成功抵抗，在20世纪，它击败了日本、法国和美国——尽管这三个国家都不是因为它们之间爆发了全面战争。 （只是一个小插曲，不涉及全面对抗）
弱小的国家偶尔也会击败大国，也许最能稳定（发挥）的国家是瑞士。
除了打赢这样的战争，它还展示了阻止战争( 例如第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战) 的能力，使得入侵的代价过于巨大而不值得承担。
当然，越南也确山地地形的优势，但在我看来，同样重要的是其普遍的兵役制度， 从18岁到54岁，每个人(非残疾人) 都是民兵， 每个人家里都有一支步枪和20发子弹，一个排可以在几分钟内列队待命——他们都住在同一条街上， 建筑物内设有爆破装药点等等，诸如此类。
Lawrence Trevethan, Analyst (2017-present)
Answered Jan 24, 2018
I take issue with the concept that Vietnam was (or is) a tiny, weak country. This is a profound misunderstanding. Vietnam dates its national identity from the successful resistance to Chinese aggression over a thousand years ago. In the 20th century it defeated Japan, France and the USA - although in all three cases not because it was a full scale war between any of them and it. {It was a sideshow, not involving a majority of forces].
Tiny weak countries occasionally do beat large ones. Perhaps the most consistent is Switzerland. Apart from winning wars as such, it demonstrated the ability to deter wars (e.g. WWI and WWII) by being PREPARED to render invasion too expensive to be worth undertaking. Of course, it does have the advantage of mountains. But equally, in my view, is its universal military service. Everyone (not disabled) is in the militia from 18 to 54. Everyone has a rifle and 20 rounds at home. A platoon can form up in minutes - they all live on the same street. Buildings have built in demolition charge points. And so on.
我不同意越南曾经(或现在) 是一个弱小国家的观点，这是一个深刻的误解。
越南的国家认同源于一千多年前对中国oo的成功抵抗，在20世纪，它击败了日本、法国和美国——尽管这三个国家都不是因为它们之间爆发了全面战争。 （只是一个小插曲，不涉及全面对抗）
弱小的国家偶尔也会击败大国，也许最能稳定（发挥）的国家是瑞士。
除了打赢这样的战争，它还展示了阻止战争( 例如第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战) 的能力，使得入侵的代价过于巨大而不值得承担。
当然，越南也确山地地形的优势，但在我看来，同样重要的是其普遍的兵役制度， 从18岁到54岁，每个人(非残疾人) 都是民兵， 每个人家里都有一支步枪和20发子弹，一个排可以在几分钟内列队待命——他们都住在同一条街上， 建筑物内设有爆破装药点等等，诸如此类。
James H. Smith, OCS Graduate and former Infantry Officer
Answered Jan 17, 2018
How did the USA get beat in Vietnam? We killed almost 2 million NVA soldiers forced them to a Peace Treaty in 1973 that they reneged on after our troop withdraw. Hanoi was left in ruins. If we had bombed the NVA supply trains in China it would have been over sooner.
The US Army has not lost a battle that I am aware of since Little Big Horn 1876.. You either bullshitting or not very informed
美国怎么就在越南被击败了？ 我们杀了近200万北越军士兵，迫使他们在1973年签订了一项和平条约，但在我们的部队撤出后，他们违背了这项条约，河内成了一片废墟。
如果我们轰o了中国的北越补给列车，这一切会结束得更快。
自从1876年的小大角号战役以来，美国军队从未输过一场战役。
你要么是在胡咧咧，要么就是脑子有点不灵光。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
How did the USA get beat in Vietnam? We killed almost 2 million NVA soldiers forced them to a Peace Treaty in 1973 that they reneged on after our troop withdraw. Hanoi was left in ruins. If we had bombed the NVA supply trains in China it would have been over sooner.
The US Army has not lost a battle that I am aware of since Little Big Horn 1876.. You either bullshitting or not very informed
美国怎么就在越南被击败了？ 我们杀了近200万北越军士兵，迫使他们在1973年签订了一项和平条约，但在我们的部队撤出后，他们违背了这项条约，河内成了一片废墟。
如果我们轰o了中国的北越补给列车，这一切会结束得更快。
自从1876年的小大角号战役以来，美国军队从未输过一场战役。
你要么是在胡咧咧，要么就是脑子有点不灵光。
Bob Mayer, West Point, Infantry, Special Forces
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Originally Answered: Has any big powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
It’s kind of amazing people still insist we weren’t defeated militarily.
We didn’t win and we left. That’s called defeat.
Vietnam was neither tiny or weak. They’d taken the French down.
The real sad part is the American advisors from the OSS who fought with Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese in WWII recommended we side with him against the French.
If only we had taken that sound military advice.
令人惊讶的是，人们仍然坚持认为我们没有在军事上被打败。
我们没有赢，我们离开了，这就是失败。
越南既不小也不弱，他们打败了法国。
真正可悲的是，美国战略情报局的顾问们曾在二战中与胡志明并肩对抗日本，他们建议我们与胡志明并肩对抗法国。
要是我们采纳了那个明智的军事建议就好了。
Answered Jan 17, 2018
Originally Answered: Has any big powerful country in the whole wide world ever lost a war against a tiny weak country as badly as the USA in Vietnam?
It’s kind of amazing people still insist we weren’t defeated militarily.
We didn’t win and we left. That’s called defeat.
Vietnam was neither tiny or weak. They’d taken the French down.
The real sad part is the American advisors from the OSS who fought with Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese in WWII recommended we side with him against the French.
If only we had taken that sound military advice.
令人惊讶的是，人们仍然坚持认为我们没有在军事上被打败。
我们没有赢，我们离开了，这就是失败。
越南既不小也不弱，他们打败了法国。
真正可悲的是，美国战略情报局的顾问们曾在二战中与胡志明并肩对抗日本，他们建议我们与胡志明并肩对抗法国。
要是我们采纳了那个明智的军事建议就好了。
很赞 5
收藏