Oh, hey, the lib responded with all the righteous indignation and smuggery you'd expect.

First, let me say I appreciate the response video and I do think you raise some valid points, but I'd like to address a few points I think you made unfairly. I understand you and several people had a problem with my introduction in which I state that online communities have debates over whether intervention in Vietnam was justified. This is not me taking a stance on if the US was justified in its intervention, nor do I even take a stance on whether I believe America could have won in Vietnam. The exact quote was "Mentioning the Vietnam War is one of the fastest ways to spark controversy in any military history community. Opinions will rage back and forth about whether or not the USA was justified in its intervention, what mistakes it made, and if America ever had a realistic chance of victory." At no point do I state that I think America was justified in Vietnam, and I'm genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion.

Secondly, I think the most important point you raised was about the Ho Chi Minh quote. Originally we had included the entire quote, but it had been chopped down in the final cut. I do believe that we should have done better in showing more context, so I appreciate you bringing that to attention.

Third, you mentioned that we didn't give enough information when discussing the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The problem is, is that these productions can cost thousands of dollars, so every additional scene or paragraph adds hundreds of dollars to the production costs. It's for that reason that a subject like Dien Bien Phu, which isn't even the primary focus of the video, isn't talked about very long. But speaking of Dien Bien Phu, I dedicated a 15 minute production to covering that battle in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAVYfh2_GTE&ab_channel=TheArmchairHistorian So yes, I do understand its importance.

Fourth, I'd like to clarify that at no point did I say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was true. The exact quote was "This combined with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 to pave the way for a full-scale US invasion." The Gulf of Tonkin Incident did occur, but it was a false flag operation. That is to say that there was an incident at the Gulf of Tonkin, although it was staged and used as false justification to intervene in Vietnam. Perhaps I should have been more clear about that, but I figured that by now it was common knowledge that the Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of the most blatant examples of a false flag attack.

Fifth, at one point you mention that we spliced an image of an American pilot getting killed with the infamous Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. Our artists use numerous reference images to try to get accurate clothing and scenery correct. That scene was not based on one individual photograph, it was simply showing the harsh treatment American pilots endured. It is undeniable that American pilots were killed and starved in North Vietnamese prisons, just as it is undeniable that innocent Vietnamese civilians were killed and Vietnamese soldiers were tortured in prison. Brutality did not exist solely on one side.

Speaking of brutality, at 24:24 you say that I failed to mention how American soldiers murdered innocent villagers, and yet we dedicate multiple entire scenes showing American G.I.'s brutality gunning down innocent civilians and torching a village. Later you also mention how I failed to mention the extensive US bombing campaign, and yet in multiple illustrations, we show bomber planes leveling Vietnamese villages as their inhabitants flee to underground caves.

It seems to me that you went into this with the opinion that everything I stated was wrong, and regardless of how many scenes we show of American brutality, you'll selectively ignore those and focus on misconstruing statements I made like claiming that I thought the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a false flag attack, and claiming that I think US Intervention in Vietnam was justified...

Lastly, I do wish we had time to mention the effects of agent orange, which still affects the people of Vietnam today. Perhaps in the future, we can make a dedicated video on the use of chemical warfare in Southeast Asia during the Cold War.

I do appreciate your feedback and it is very evident that you know a lot about your history. I think most of your criticisms boil down with the video not being long enough, and not exploring each subject in enough depth. I have received this criticism countless times, but at the end of the day, there is only so much you can learn in 15-20 minutes. My videos act as an introductory lesson for those who want to learn more. It is simply impossible to create 30-40 minute long videos with additional depth whilst making these videos completely free.

The last note I'll end on is that I've received a lot of messages from people saying to "stick to my own history" and not try to culturally appropriate other people's history. It is from these same people that I'm told I only cover European history and I need to branch out and cover other cultures. At that point, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I never intended to misconstrue the Vietnamese perspective, and in fact, we had several Vietnamese people within our community review our script and even add their own anecdotes.

The last paragraph is disgustingly arrogant. Boo-hoo the libs were mean to me for being eurocentric. Tell them to fuck off then, christ.