But still we couldn't keep it and have been humiliated at dien-bien-phu which is a very well known military defeat.
Also because colonialism is nothing to be proud of. Vietnam went from euro invaders leaving to american invaders inviting themselves in less than a year,
It's a shit take but so is "the French surrender immediately".
The French soldiers had a pretty impressive track record and fought well in WWII. French military planning used outdated strategies, though, and let the Germans encircle them to the point where evacuating the Allied soldiers to England was the last reasonable choice. And the French still managed to hold off the Germans for long enough to evacuate 300,000 men. The rest went quickly because it's hard to fight a war when you just had to evacuate most of your soldiers. Without their equipment.
Likewise, the USA had a decent military track record and well-equipped professional soldiers. But that didn't mean shit when they were (from the NV perspective) the bad guys in an anticolonial war of liberation with broad support from the civilian population. Vietnam was a guerilla war, to which there was no good doctrinal answer back then. And even today those are hard to deal with.
So yeah, "the French surrender when they see the enemy" is on the same level as "the US Army can't stand against the military might of a bunch of rice farmers".
Plus, people don't realize how close Rommel was to complete encirculation when he drove to the channel. He ignored all orders to halt his advance because he couldn't be supplied or reinforced. Fortunately for him, the French and British troops had no clue what was going on and couldn't capitalize on his precarious position. It was a complete failure of French military doctrine.
Yeah. While you could argue that it's no shame be surprised by a madman who keeps advancing with no concern for supply routes, it is a shame to be unprepared for mobile warfare in general. An army with more awareness of the possibilities tanks of the era offered could've countered him. Of course such an army also wouldn't have relied on the Maginot Line.
The French fought valiantly but no amount of valor can offset catastrophically bad leadership.
Well, the rice farmers were supporting a dedicated military force with the backing of two major countries and a robust covert logistics network. That kinda changes things a little bit.
You aren't doing a very good job of countering the thesis that the 'US lost a war to rice farmers'. Of course they had support, so did the US, and the US lost.
The army and the foreign support did a lot of heavy lifting there. Discounting them is like saying that the American Civil War was won by a bunch of escaped cotton pickers. Sure, those escaped cotton pickers fought alongside the armed forces of some twenty-ish American states but they participated so we can attribute victory to them.
To bring the logic to the extreme, WWII was singlehandedly won by a French tennis player. Sure, his contribution consisted of finding American soldiers to rescue prisoners from the SS during the Battle of Castle Itter but he fought against the Third Reich and we'll just look past everyone else who did. (If that isn't absurd enough for you, I also could've nominated an SS officer as the war's winner, also from the same battle. It was a very weird battle.)
There are two types of people in this world. Those who use the metric system, and those who lose against people who are Vietnamese peasants in the jungle.
Who the fuck calls french monkeys? Frogs maybe, but not a monkey. It's slightly derogatory in some cases, but not the way I think of it, and for a very good reason. (I still probably wouldn't go out of my way to call a French person a frog.)
I learned the French being referenced as frogs from Art Spiegelman’s Maus when I was a kid and it was in a positive context. The way he used animals in his books was brilliant. While the trend obviously started from cats and mice (Nazis and Jews), the use of other animals was super interesting. It kinda flipped the meaning of the terms in a very somber way.
I can't quite put my finger on it, or even put words to it, but expressing the slang as actual characters is something to take very seriously in its underlying meaning. Regardless, Spiegelman didn't pull any punches when it came to showing how nasty people could actually be.
"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was a well-known insult during the 2000's for several years after France refused to help the US attack Iraq. The whole freedom fries period.
I mean these are all jokes but I've definitely heard surrender monkey (primarily from Simpsons now that I think about it, which was also clearly in jest)
We at least conquered Vietnam.
But still we couldn't keep it and have been humiliated at dien-bien-phu which is a very well known military defeat.
Also because colonialism is nothing to be proud of. Vietnam went from euro invaders leaving to american invaders inviting themselves in less than a year,
and they beat both
Heh, that's before China invaded.
Oh.
It's a shit take but so is "the French surrender immediately".
The French soldiers had a pretty impressive track record and fought well in WWII. French military planning used outdated strategies, though, and let the Germans encircle them to the point where evacuating the Allied soldiers to England was the last reasonable choice. And the French still managed to hold off the Germans for long enough to evacuate 300,000 men. The rest went quickly because it's hard to fight a war when you just had to evacuate most of your soldiers. Without their equipment.
Likewise, the USA had a decent military track record and well-equipped professional soldiers. But that didn't mean shit when they were (from the NV perspective) the bad guys in an anticolonial war of liberation with broad support from the civilian population. Vietnam was a guerilla war, to which there was no good doctrinal answer back then. And even today those are hard to deal with.
So yeah, "the French surrender when they see the enemy" is on the same level as "the US Army can't stand against the military might of a bunch of rice farmers".
Plus, people don't realize how close Rommel was to complete encirculation when he drove to the channel. He ignored all orders to halt his advance because he couldn't be supplied or reinforced. Fortunately for him, the French and British troops had no clue what was going on and couldn't capitalize on his precarious position. It was a complete failure of French military doctrine.
Yeah. While you could argue that it's no shame be surprised by a madman who keeps advancing with no concern for supply routes, it is a shame to be unprepared for mobile warfare in general. An army with more awareness of the possibilities tanks of the era offered could've countered him. Of course such an army also wouldn't have relied on the Maginot Line.
The French fought valiantly but no amount of valor can offset catastrophically bad leadership.
So the French did a 'strategic retreat' but the Americans did infact lose a guerrilla war to some rice farmers.
Well, the rice farmers were supporting a dedicated military force with the backing of two major countries and a robust covert logistics network. That kinda changes things a little bit.
You aren't doing a very good job of countering the thesis that the 'US lost a war to rice farmers'. Of course they had support, so did the US, and the US lost.
Arms manufacturers won. And they're still winning. No matter how we frame our thoughts.
The army and the foreign support did a lot of heavy lifting there. Discounting them is like saying that the American Civil War was won by a bunch of escaped cotton pickers. Sure, those escaped cotton pickers fought alongside the armed forces of some twenty-ish American states but they participated so we can attribute victory to them.
To bring the logic to the extreme, WWII was singlehandedly won by a French tennis player. Sure, his contribution consisted of finding American soldiers to rescue prisoners from the SS during the Battle of Castle Itter but he fought against the Third Reich and we'll just look past everyone else who did. (If that isn't absurd enough for you, I also could've nominated an SS officer as the war's winner, also from the same battle. It was a very weird battle.)
That is very well put. Good one.
To be fair, they invited us in. Pretty sure Nixon heard someone in South Vietnam say, "United States" 3 times in front of a mirror.
can we not? colonialism really isn't the flex you think it is.
Colonianism is only bad when americans do it, apparently.
Remember that france is the country that made haiti pay reparations after the haitian slave revolt and never paid the money back.
Oh, the French history in Haiti is way worse than that.
All they understood was "Vietnam" and that was enough.
Translation: At least we conquered Vietnam
The French have won more wars the the USA
Yeah, but what about the one people actually remember?
If we start looking at past victories where do we stop? I mean, Italy is not exactly Rome...
Pretty much everybody has won more wars than the USA...
There are two types of people in this world. Those who use the metric system, and those who lose against people who are Vietnamese
peasantsin the jungle.But the French invented the metric system.
the french also invented losing to the vietmin.
at one point they asked us to nuke dien bien phu. no shit.
so this is rich lol
They weren't peasants, they abolished the nobility during the revolution!
Fair point. Apologies.
Who the fuck calls french monkeys? Frogs maybe, but not a monkey. It's slightly derogatory in some cases, but not the way I think of it, and for a very good reason. (I still probably wouldn't go out of my way to call a French person a frog.)
I learned the French being referenced as frogs from Art Spiegelman’s Maus when I was a kid and it was in a positive context. The way he used animals in his books was brilliant. While the trend obviously started from cats and mice (Nazis and Jews), the use of other animals was super interesting. It kinda flipped the meaning of the terms in a very somber way.
I can't quite put my finger on it, or even put words to it, but expressing the slang as actual characters is something to take very seriously in its underlying meaning. Regardless, Spiegelman didn't pull any punches when it came to showing how nasty people could actually be.
"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was a well-known insult during the 2000's for several years after France refused to help the US attack Iraq. The whole freedom fries period.
So fucked up, I mean, why bring cheese into this?
I mean, France does eat cheese, that part is accurate.
It's from The Simpsons.
Older than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_hanger?wprov=sfla1
(Not to be confused with monkey hangers/ape hangers/monkey bars, which are also terms for excessively tall handle bars on motorcycles.)
Monkey bars are playground equipment about 5 feet off the ground for children to swing from.
I mean these are all jokes but I've definitely heard surrender monkey (primarily from Simpsons now that I think about it, which was also clearly in jest)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys
Any chance a somewhat self-respecting american can get a translation "see foo play?"
I’m pretty sure it’s roughly “at least we beat Vietnam”
Appreciated ❤️ I've learned a little Spanish, a little Portuguese, a little Japanese, and even a little Latin and Vietnamese. French still evades me 😭
At least we conquered vietnam
"At least we beat vietnam"