世界上還有哪個(gè)強(qiáng)大的大國(guó)在與弱小的國(guó)家的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中輸?shù)孟衩绹?guó)在越南那樣慘？

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：神刀 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

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 com...st 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 com...st 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, com...st 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 com...sts, but lost because of the Democrat majority of the 94th Congress.

好吧，我真的建議你拿一本關(guān)于越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的歷史書好好看看，越南不是什么弱小國(guó)家，它有GC主義國(guó)家的支持。
其次，沒(méi)有任何一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)能與越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)相比較，但是最接近的是伊散德爾瓦納戰(zhàn)役——但是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果是英國(guó)的勝利，所以和美國(guó)不一樣。
另外，美國(guó)贏得了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，但國(guó)會(huì)無(wú)法保持勝利。
首先，也是最重要的，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)總是令人討厭的。
再加上一種不想卷入越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的文化，以及一種讓記者拼命寫報(bào)道的文化( 無(wú)論出于什么原因 ) ，你會(huì)突然覺(jué)得美國(guó)在越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中失勢(shì)了。
越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是美國(guó)第一次嘗到現(xiàn)代游擊戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的滋味。 ( 俄羅斯在阿富汗也有他們的軍隊(duì)，而且他們也血流成河)
讓我們來(lái)看看這些數(shù)字。
美國(guó)、澳大利亞、韓國(guó)、新西蘭、泰國(guó)、臺(tái)灣和菲律賓大約有64000名軍人死亡， 另外，受傷人數(shù)接近318000(盡管150,000人不需要醫(yī)院護(hù)理)。
南越死亡220,357-313,000人，這些家伙占了聯(lián)軍死傷的絕大部分， 因此，我們軍隊(duì)的死亡人數(shù)在284,000-377,311人之間。
越共方面，他們?cè)馐芰顺^(guò)849,018名軍人的死亡，很難說(shuō)在遭受了三分之一的軍事傷亡后聯(lián)軍輸?shù)袅诉@場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
當(dāng)然，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)不僅僅是由死亡人數(shù)決定的，還有其他因素在起作用。
大多數(shù)人不愿意承認(rèn)，但是越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是：在越南戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)贏了，但在美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)輸了，我會(huì)告訴你我的意思。
聯(lián)軍在那里幫助南越軍打一場(chǎng)對(duì)抗北方的防御戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，期望的結(jié)果是南越成為像韓國(guó)一樣，建立自己的國(guó)家，不幸的是，GC主義的宣傳可以左右大多數(shù)受過(guò)教育或沒(méi)受過(guò)教育的人。
聯(lián)軍不是和傳統(tǒng)的正規(guī)軍作戰(zhàn)，而是和越共游擊隊(duì)作戰(zhàn)，這導(dǎo)致了可怕的附帶損害，助長(zhǎng)了美國(guó)的反戰(zhàn)運(yùn)動(dòng)。
美國(guó)民主黨政客開始反戰(zhàn)，參加反戰(zhàn)集會(huì)等活動(dòng)。
與此同時(shí)，聯(lián)軍希望讓北越重返談判桌，所以美國(guó)做了任何超級(jí)大國(guó)都會(huì)做的事情：轟炸他們讓他們屈服。
過(guò)了一段時(shí)間，北越同意參加和平談判——只要停止轟炸行動(dòng)。
談判結(jié)束后，北越同意留在邊界，不再入侵，美國(guó)撤出了軍隊(duì)，但承諾繼續(xù)向南越提供軍事裝備，這被視為美國(guó)的勝利。
不幸的是，第二年，我們發(fā)生了了水門事件，幾個(gè)月后，民主黨在國(guó)會(huì)贏得了壓倒性的勝利。
其中許多成員利用這一多數(shù)，取消了軍事援助資金，實(shí)質(zhì)上違背了軍事援助的承諾。
杰拉爾德福特懇求國(guó)會(huì)允許美國(guó)提供補(bǔ)給，但他們中的大多數(shù)人都選擇無(wú)視。
為什么？ 因?yàn)槿魏我粋€(gè)民主政治家被看到以任何形式支持戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，都會(huì)顯得很糟糕，因?yàn)樗麄儏⒓恿朔磻?zhàn)集會(huì)。
北方在其他蘇維埃國(guó)家的支持下破壞了該條約，以考驗(yàn)美國(guó)的決心，他們占領(lǐng)了一個(gè)又一個(gè)村莊，美國(guó)沒(méi)有給予任何軍事回應(yīng)，占領(lǐng)范圍很快就變成了城市，然后是省份。
簡(jiǎn)而言之，美國(guó)失敗不是因?yàn)樵焦玻且驗(yàn)槊裰鼽h在第94屆國(guó)會(huì)中占多數(shù)。

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.

你問(wèn)這樣的問(wèn)題，要么是很無(wú)知，要么是對(duì)越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)一無(wú)所知。你在暗示，“弱小的”越南打敗了美國(guó)，或者更確切地說(shuō)，是打慘了美國(guó)，這完全是謊言。
美國(guó)并沒(méi)有在越南戰(zhàn)敗，美軍撤離越南后，南越陷落，北越從未在軍事上打敗過(guò)美國(guó)，這就是為什么他們同意1973年越美巴黎協(xié)定的原因，他們不得不同意，美國(guó)能夠?yàn)槟显窖a(bǔ)任何和所有南越需要的軍事裝備和武器。
對(duì)南越來(lái)說(shuō)不幸的是，民主黨控制的國(guó)會(huì)通過(guò)了一個(gè)新的投票，后來(lái)拒絕按照1973年越美巴黎協(xié)定的條款資助南越， 最重要的是，承諾給南越的軍事裝備資金，你可以看到當(dāng)時(shí)的福特總統(tǒng)的新聞錄像，他幾乎是在乞求國(guó)會(huì)為他承諾的武器提供資金。
如果美國(guó)在越南被“ 嚴(yán)重打敗” ，那么為什么北越會(huì)在1975年小心翼翼地侵略南方，仔細(xì)觀察美國(guó)是否會(huì)回來(lái)拯救南方？ 如果真是這樣，北越就會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)過(guò)身來(lái)，承認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)， 如果說(shuō)1973年離開南越的美國(guó)在1975年被擊敗，那么它就是一支幽靈軍隊(duì)，是某些人憑空想象出來(lái)的。
“勝利的”越南人非?？释蔀槊绹?guó)的朋友，幫助他們抵御中國(guó)日益增長(zhǎng)的軍事力量。
所以我們有騙誰(shuí)？ 是法國(guó)人在越南軍事上被打敗了，美國(guó)在華盛頓特區(qū)“被打敗”， 這里邊有很大的區(qū)別，如果我冒犯了一些人，我很抱歉，但我真的不在乎。
如果美國(guó)全面動(dòng)員起來(lái)，把它所有的力量都投入到越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，那場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)將在一個(gè)月內(nèi)結(jié)束。
蘇聯(lián)在阿富汗的情況也是如此，你真的相信蘇聯(lián)在阿富汗戰(zhàn)敗了嗎？ 如果蘇聯(lián)進(jìn)入二戰(zhàn)的狂暴狀態(tài)，把它所有的資源都扔到阿富汗，這個(gè)國(guó)家早掛了，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.

為什么這么問(wèn)？
是，有很多這樣的國(guó)家。
我們來(lái)談?wù)劦谝淮我獯罄?埃塞俄比亞戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
從1893年開始，埃塞俄比亞在瓜分非洲期間保持了獨(dú)立，令人難以置信，盡管困難重重，一個(gè)非洲國(guó)家還是戰(zhàn)勝了技術(shù)上占優(yōu)勢(shì)的歐洲強(qiáng)國(guó)，特別是意大利。
在第一次戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，埃塞俄比亞人得到了俄羅斯帝國(guó)的支持，兩個(gè)國(guó)家都是東正教基督教國(guó)家，為他們提供訓(xùn)練、顧問(wèn)和武器，有了這些，他們?cè)O(shè)法與意大利人作戰(zhàn)，并保持了他們的獨(dú)立性， 在瓜分非洲時(shí)期，他們是這樣做的最主要的國(guó)家。
就埃塞俄比亞人而言，我認(rèn)為他們?cè)谶@種情況下保持獨(dú)立是一項(xiàng)巨大的成就，他們與比他們技術(shù)更先進(jìn)的歐洲殖民勢(shì)力作戰(zhàn)，只有俄羅斯的支持，當(dāng)時(shí)俄羅斯還是一個(gè)落后的非工業(yè)化國(guó)家。
埃塞俄比亞在當(dāng)時(shí)被稱為阿比西尼亞，是非洲歐洲殖民主義時(shí)代第一個(gè)保持獨(dú)立的主要國(guó)家，這是一項(xiàng)重大成就。 不幸的是，埃塞俄比亞后來(lái)在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)期間被意大利占領(lǐng)，第二次世界大戰(zhàn)軸心國(guó)失敗后，埃塞俄比亞人保持了獨(dú)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.

你的問(wèn)題在其前提下是有誘導(dǎo)性和錯(cuò)誤的。
不，我們沒(méi)有輸，我們只是選擇了不贏，這是有區(qū)別的，我們與北越政府簽署了1973年越美巴黎協(xié)定，他們同意離開南越，我們離開了南越，游戲結(jié)束。
但是如果你問(wèn)“有沒(méi)有其他的例子，一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的國(guó)家被一個(gè)弱小的國(guó)家所阻礙，或者陷入困境? ” 那么，是的，有，你應(yīng)該聽說(shuō)過(guò)，阿富汗。
自2001年以來(lái)，我們一直陷在這個(gè)偏遠(yuǎn)的泥潭中，而且還沒(méi)有真正的跡象表明我們要走出這個(gè)泥潭。
但在此之前，還有另一個(gè)國(guó)家——蘇聯(lián)，也做了同樣的事情，這也是導(dǎo)致蘇聯(lián)解體的原因之一。
蘇聯(lián)卷入了一場(chǎng)持續(xù)了九年的阿富汗骯臟內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，就像在越南的美國(guó)一樣，他們很快就開始關(guān)注無(wú)休止的死亡人數(shù)，一場(chǎng)他們承擔(dān)不起的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，以及沒(méi)有退出的戰(zhàn)略，事實(shí)證明這是一個(gè)巨大的錯(cuò)誤，但他們并不是第一個(gè)認(rèn)識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)的歐洲強(qiáng)國(guó)，還有英國(guó)人。
英國(guó)人從1839年到1919年占領(lǐng)阿富汗的時(shí)候，他們明白了這是一條艱難的道路，那就是不要過(guò)于干涉阿富汗的內(nèi)政，甚至不要過(guò)于強(qiáng)烈地要求管理事務(wù)，第一次英阿戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期，或者也就是眾所周知的阿富汗災(zāi)難時(shí)期，英軍在這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中損失了4500名英國(guó)和印度士兵，另外12000名士兵的家人被阿富汗部落殺害，臭名昭著， 直到他們確定它不會(huì)對(duì)現(xiàn)在的巴基斯坦構(gòu)成威脅，英國(guó)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 Com...ism, 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.

顯然，除了那些意識(shí)形態(tài)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，那些想要戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的人不會(huì)為戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)付出代價(jià)，不管是實(shí)際的代價(jià)還是后果——例如，神圣十字軍東征。
以下是關(guān)于進(jìn)攻性戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的多種解釋：
1、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是一場(chǎng)數(shù)字游戲：為了實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)，我會(huì)損失多少人， 如果它不值得，或者承擔(dān)不起，就不會(huì)發(fā)生。
2、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)就是經(jīng)濟(jì)：我如何為戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)買單？ 是短期的掠奪，或是長(zhǎng)期的剝削？沒(méi)人買單，它就不會(huì)發(fā)生。
3、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是地緣政治：我能承受不占據(jù)一個(gè)區(qū)域的代價(jià)嗎，或者失去它的代價(jià)嗎？ 我是更好地控制這個(gè)(戰(zhàn)略) 位置，還是讓我的商業(yè)( 和平時(shí)期) 或戰(zhàn)略( 戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期) 陷入困境？
4、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是宣傳：除非一個(gè)國(guó)家能夠團(tuán)結(jié)起來(lái)，尤其是把那些干臟活、“流血”的人團(tuán)結(jié)起來(lái)，否則什么都不會(huì)發(fā)生，沒(méi)有謊言，沒(méi)有宣傳，就沒(méi)有戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
一個(gè)小國(guó)能做些什么來(lái)保護(hù)自己呢？ 讓入侵成本高于侵略者所能承受的水平。
放在越南這個(gè)例子中就是：堅(jiān)持到底，消耗他們。
這對(duì)于上面的1、2和3總是有效的，在這種情況下，聰明的做法是尋找達(dá)成一個(gè)“怎樣才能減少損失”的協(xié)議。
有誰(shuí)能列出美國(guó)為自衛(wèi)而打過(guò)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)嗎？或者一場(chǎng)不是為了經(jīng)濟(jì)利益而戰(zhàn)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)？這樣的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與歐洲殖民者在歐洲之外進(jìn)行的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)有任何不同？
有人評(píng)論說(shuō)：我們贏了！ 對(duì)不起，錯(cuò)了！
肯尼迪說(shuō)得很好，年紀(jì)大一點(diǎn)的人應(yīng)該記住他關(guān)于冷戰(zhàn)的一段話：他們會(huì)在我們之前破產(chǎn)。
所有的殖民帝國(guó)最終都破產(chǎn)了，美國(guó)也不例外，唯一不同的是它還沒(méi)有垮臺(tái)。
回到主題：
問(wèn)：為什么美國(guó)要在越南開戰(zhàn)？
答：與殖民主義有關(guān)。
問(wèn): 為什么美國(guó)輸了？
答: 基本就是第2種解釋的情況，越南人理解的很到位，以及第4種：在美國(guó)發(fā)生的事情。
問(wèn)：按照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)1，美國(guó)不是應(yīng)該贏嗎？
答：絕對(duì)是這樣。 但是那里沒(méi)有珍珠港，宣傳已經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí)了。 然而，第2個(gè)解釋也應(yīng)該是一個(gè)因素，斯梅德利·D·巴特勒的《War is a Racket》（《戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是一場(chǎng)騙局》）很好地解釋了這一點(diǎn)。

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
讓我?guī)慊氐剑?，大?50年前
一支有史以來(lái)最大最牛逼的軍隊(duì) (幾乎) 正處于全盛時(shí)期
大不列顛！
他們擁有一切
訓(xùn)練有素的軍隊(duì)
最強(qiáng)的海軍
最多的殖民地
隨便你夸都行
猜猜他們輸給了誰(shuí)？
不是法國(guó)-不是西班牙-不是( 請(qǐng)?jiān)诖颂幉迦肴我獬?jí)大國(guó) ) 。
他們輸給了自己的殖民地。
由農(nóng)民和旅店老板組成的民兵。
而且它不像越南那樣搞成僵局。
他們不得不給予殖民地獨(dú)立。
統(tǒng)治美國(guó)！

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…

美國(guó)輸?shù)袅嗽侥蠎?zhàn)爭(zhēng)，然而，美國(guó)軍隊(duì)的整體實(shí)力幾乎沒(méi)有受到任何影響。
這并不是說(shuō)美國(guó)不能再軍事上取勝，而是說(shuō)美國(guó)人在道德上有一些節(jié)制，對(duì)他們想要對(duì)平民人口造成多大的損害以實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)目標(biāo)有一些道德上的約束。
幸運(yùn)的是，這種“克制”現(xiàn)在彌漫在國(guó)際沖突中，但話雖如此，如果受到威脅，強(qiáng)國(guó)可以將沖突升級(jí)。
一個(gè)弱小的國(guó)家不可能打敗美國(guó)、中國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、英國(guó)等軍隊(duì)，他們只能在特定的有限沖突中阻止或阻礙某些目標(biāo)。
有著精確發(fā)射系統(tǒng)的核導(dǎo)彈永遠(yuǎn)是可以發(fā)揮作用的王牌，然后，（也學(xué)）兩個(gè)世紀(jì)后，越南會(huì)對(duì)我們感恩戴德。。。

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.

羅馬共和國(guó)和羅馬帝國(guó)打了數(shù)百場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，通常他們會(huì)戰(zhàn)勝?gòu)?qiáng)大的對(duì)手，但他們對(duì)付弱小對(duì)手的戰(zhàn)績(jī)出奇地好壞參半， 一些弱小對(duì)手消失了， 一些變成了殖民地，有些則打敗了羅馬人。
這種事情在歷史上屢見不鮮。

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?

嚴(yán)格來(lái)說(shuō)，是美國(guó)、澳大利亞+南越+其它 vs 蘇聯(lián)、中國(guó)+北越的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
它也不是傳統(tǒng)意義上的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，是冷戰(zhàn)期間的代理人戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。
因此，，你所提問(wèn)題中的幾乎所有前提都是錯(cuò)誤的，由于這個(gè)事實(shí)，你的問(wèn)題毫無(wú)意義， 我不知道該怎么回答你。
你是想要其他代理人戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的例子？還是想要大衛(wèi) vs 歌利亞的實(shí)際例子？

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.

我不同意越南曾經(jīng)(或現(xiàn)在) 是一個(gè)弱小國(guó)家的觀點(diǎn)，這是一個(gè)深刻的誤解。
越南的國(guó)家認(rèn)同源于一千多年前對(duì)中國(guó)oo的成功抵抗，在20世紀(jì)，它擊敗了日本、法國(guó)和美國(guó)——盡管這三個(gè)國(guó)家都不是因?yàn)樗鼈冎g爆發(fā)了全面戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。 （只是一個(gè)小插曲，不涉及全面對(duì)抗）
弱小的國(guó)家偶爾也會(huì)擊敗大國(guó)，也許最能穩(wěn)定（發(fā)揮）的國(guó)家是瑞士。
除了打贏這樣的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，它還展示了阻止戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)( 例如第一次世界大戰(zhàn)和第二次世界大戰(zhàn)) 的能力，使得入侵的代價(jià)過(guò)于巨大而不值得承擔(dān)。
當(dāng)然，越南也確山地地形的優(yōu)勢(shì)，但在我看來(lái)，同樣重要的是其普遍的兵役制度， 從18歲到54歲，每個(gè)人(非殘疾人) 都是民兵， 每個(gè)人家里都有一支步槍和20發(fā)子彈，一個(gè)排可以在幾分鐘內(nèi)列隊(duì)待命——他們都住在同一條街上， 建筑物內(nèi)設(shè)有爆破裝藥點(diǎn)等等，諸如此類。

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

美國(guó)怎么就在越南被擊敗了？ 我們殺了近200萬(wàn)北越軍士兵，迫使他們?cè)?973年簽訂了一項(xiàng)和平條約，但在我們的部隊(duì)撤出后，他們違背了這項(xiàng)條約，河內(nèi)成了一片廢墟。
如果我們轟o了中國(guó)的北越補(bǔ)給列車，這一切會(huì)結(jié)束得更快。
自從1876年的小大角號(hào)戰(zhàn)役以來(lái)，美國(guó)軍隊(duì)從未輸過(guò)一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)役。
你要么是在胡咧咧，要么就是腦子有點(diǎn)不靈光。

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.

令人驚訝的是，人們?nèi)匀粓?jiān)持認(rèn)為我們沒(méi)有在軍事上被打敗。
我們沒(méi)有贏，我們離開了，這就是失敗。
越南既不小也不弱，他們打敗了法國(guó)。
真正可悲的是，美國(guó)戰(zhàn)略情報(bào)局的顧問(wèn)們?cè)诙?zhàn)中與胡志明并肩對(duì)抗日本，他們建議我們與胡志明并肩對(duì)抗法國(guó)。
要是我們采納了那個(gè)明智的軍事建議就好了。