Go Back   Kampfgruppe Forums > Military History > Cold War Era

 
We are happy to announce open registration on the KG forums has begun! Welcome everyone!

View Poll Results: What Would You Do In '68?
Launch a WWII-esque Massive Bombing Campaign to Knock the North into the Stone Age. 7 41.18%
Invade Cambodia & Laos on a Large Scale. 0 0%
Invade North Vietnam on a Large Scale. 1 5.88%
Invade Cambodia, Laos & North Vietnam on a Large Scale. 2 11.76%
Other. Tell us your plans. 7 41.18%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 09-24-2006, 12:39 PM
KG_Soldier's Avatar
KG_Soldier KG_Soldier is offline
General der Panzer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eden
Posts: 2,417
Default

Advocating the use of "Tactical Nukes" on China or North Vietnam is crazy. I personally think the most telling thing about your mindset yet seen in this forum. KILL THEM ALL. ALL WHO ARE NOT LIKE US. The Muslims are like the North Vietnames and the Chinese, NOT LIKE US. KILL THEM ALL. NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!! NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!! WE'LL WIN. You so remind me of George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove, Col. Buck Turgelson, I Think. Let us not forget the Soviet Union. Ho had more allies than just China. I can honestly say I've never met anyone so ready for Armageddon. You'd make a good suicide bomber.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 09-24-2006, 02:41 PM
KG_Swampfox's Avatar
KG_Swampfox KG_Swampfox is offline
Leutnant
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Duluth, Minnesota
Posts: 1,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG_Panzerschreck View Post
At the risk of upsetting a few people, which is not my intention, when i started this poll, i asked a simple question, "What would you do......" Not what are you personal feelings about the real war, not what are your political feelings about the real war. I asked a Hypotetical question about a Hypothetical situation. I dont know why some of you guys always insist on reading between the lines and not answering the questions i ask. Im just a little frustrated is all im trying to say.
Well then just tell me the answer you want to hear and I'll just whip up a few lines

I'm done responding to this type of poll
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 09-24-2006, 03:00 PM
KG_AGCent's Avatar
KG_AGCent KG_AGCent is offline
Oberste Befehlshaber (Ret.)
Oberst
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Doing Laps Around the Beads for You Heathen
Posts: 1,620
Send a message via MSN to KG_AGCent
Default

Interesting... from all the history I have read, victory rarely comes after a brilliant and dashing... withdrawl. Maybe I ought to read more French versions of history to gain this insight.
__________________
"Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken." - John C. Wright
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 09-24-2006, 03:02 PM
KG_AGCent's Avatar
KG_AGCent KG_AGCent is offline
Oberste Befehlshaber (Ret.)
Oberst
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Doing Laps Around the Beads for You Heathen
Posts: 1,620
Send a message via MSN to KG_AGCent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG_Soldier View Post
blah blah blah
I knew I could get a rise out of you. You're too easy.
__________________
"Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken." - John C. Wright
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 09-24-2006, 03:30 PM
KG_SSpoom's Avatar
KG_SSpoom KG_SSpoom is offline
Oberstleutnant
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,335
Default

Victory was NOT specifically mentioned in the question to start this thread.
If achieving a Military victory on the field of battle was mentioned in the opening statement we would have a very different thread going here.
Sometimes cutting your losses and living to fight another day instead of flailing away in a possibly unwinnable war IS the best alternative.
I do like the French comment however =) Rob =)
__________________
Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 09-24-2006, 04:32 PM
KG_AGCent's Avatar
KG_AGCent KG_AGCent is offline
Oberste Befehlshaber (Ret.)
Oberst
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Doing Laps Around the Beads for You Heathen
Posts: 1,620
Send a message via MSN to KG_AGCent
Default

Ah! So right you are. The terms of victory were never established.
__________________
"Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken." - John C. Wright
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 09-24-2006, 04:33 PM
KG_RCT_Hasty's Avatar
KG_RCT_Hasty KG_RCT_Hasty is offline
Gefreiter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 85
Send a message via MSN to KG_RCT_Hasty Send a message via Yahoo to KG_RCT_Hasty
Default

I thought the question was what you'd do if you're top military commander, the one who have no political or withdrawal option ... A question about military options is alot more fun than one about politics *cough* like a joke bout routing french*cough*
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 09-24-2006, 08:01 PM
KG_Jag's Avatar
KG_Jag KG_Jag is offline
Vice Kommandir
Generalfeldmarschall
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Braunfels, TX & Reno, NV
Posts: 3,762
Default

Anyone who believes that a "political" answer about Vietnam is off point was either not around at the time or smoking more than his comic books for the entire 60's.

Vietnam was in all things political. It is the most political war we ever fought. It started out with the US providing military advisers to South Vietnam. The political objective and the military strategy was to stop the spread of the Communism of the North to the South. It was viewed by many as a replay of Korea albeit by somewhat different method of attack and conquest. By the time frame posed in the initial question, Johnson had been personally picking bombing and mining targets in the North. He had directed strategy and placed limitations on what our troops/air power could and could not do. He additionally determined when and where they could operate (at least officially). No one under Johnson had any significant power about any of these things in 1968. On that basis alone, I have a major problem with the premise of the question as originally posed.

Further, if you as are decision maker and determine that your basic premise for being in the "conflict"--in this case to stop the spread of Communism, is wrong--then you should initiate an orderly withdrawal of you forces or resign. That is especially true in 1968, when the country was so polarized over Viet Nam. Remember (or if you were not yet born or were too young to be aware--have you read about) the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention and all the political events of that time? In 1968 Johnson announced that he would not seek the nomination of his party or seek reelection as President. This was because of Viet Nam and the splintering of his own party over it. By 1968 no major escalation of that war was politically possible (especially for someone in that Democratic administration), and no long term continuation of the war at or near the then current ground force levels or higher was an option. Massive bombing of the North was probably off the table too. The basis of the discussion by 1968 was how we would lower of our troop levels, and over what period of time. It was the "Vietnamization" phase of the war.
__________________
“A government big enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson--the first Democrat President

Last edited by KG_Jag; 09-24-2006 at 10:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.