Talk:Battle of Trà Bình

copyright violation ?
removed: someone knows where the permission can be found ? Erkan Yilmaz 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the victory of the North Vietnamese army?
The Korean army succeeded in defending the base, and the North Vietnamese army failed to break through. If victory was due to destroying a part of the base of the Korean army, the second Kharkov battle can be said to be a Soviet victory. What does it mean to destroy some of the bases of the ROK military? It failed to break the base. As a result of this logic, many of the defenses of human history are victory of the offensive side because some of the defensive parts are destroyed. As a result, the North Vietnamese army failed to occupy the Korean base's fire base. How can you call it the victory of the North Vietnamese army?

Is the 2nd Kharkov battle a Soviet victory? Is the Hundred Year War a British victory? Is the Battle of Kovani ISIS a victory? Is the Battle of Verdun a German victory?

All defenders suffered losses, but eventually defeated the attacking army. Do not you just want to write that North Vietnam won?


 * You are asserting that the US and ROK military claims are wrong. On the other hand, the propaganda of North Vietnam is uncritically accepted. If the attacking army fails and retreats, they call it a failure. We should all look at both sides of the argument, but at least in the war, the attacking army quits the attack and does not call it a victory. Your allegation reminds me of a lot of false propaganda that claims to be victorious even if it fails to attack in World War .BerrySonKahn