Was the battle for Gilneas the undead version on Vietnam?

Or would there be another appropriate analogy?

Friend, there is almost always a more appropriate analogy than Vietnam.

Especially when it’s zombies and werewolves.


Not necessarily. The analogy of it being something or someones Vietnam is used decently often. Nothing unique about it in human history


Short answer: No.

Long answer: The invaders did not win in Vietnam, did not cause the survivors to flee the country for however many years, and was not fought viuctoriously in a very short period of time. Outside of a pocket of guerilla fighters, the forsaken pushed the entire Gilnean race out of northern EK in what was a lightning quick campaign.

There’s really no room to compare beyond it also being a war.


You mean the Forsaken ousting the Gilneans in Cataclysm or the reclamation of Gilneas in Dragonflight?

1 Like

A more apt analogy would be me considering cucumbers for lunch; that’s how much sense this makes. What you have made is in no way an appropriate comparison and it displays a great deal of unawareness and insensitivity to massive, real-life horrific tragedies that occurred between the French colonial occupation of the 1800s through the 1950s to the American withdrawal in the 70s.

You get a big boo from me.

e: booooo


The Endless Halls was my Vietnam.

1 Like


I can see this.

Much like when you decided whether or not to eat cucumbers for lunch, the forsaken themselves have had to make important life choices regarding Gilneas. Would they join Sylvanas’s war machine? Would they remain behind? This, much like food choices, would be a question that defines them for all time.

Similarly, the outcome of such a choice could have dire outcomes. By choosing cucumbers, you risk upsetting the person making your sandwich or salad, because what if you make your choice after the sandwich or salad was nearly finished? For the forsaken, what if chooing to take part in the siege of Gilneas had similar long-ranging consequences if they chose too late? Imagine the plight of the forsaken footsoldier realizing he wished to have made a different outcome, but already had cucumber blood on his hands?

I think your analogy is much more apt.


You are trying to hard

Is he really though?

Or is it that your analogy makes absolutely no sense at all?

Hint: It’s the latter.


Yes he is. Someone or something “Vietnam” is a decently used analogy denoting an objective for something that came at great cost and in the end wasn’t accomplished. I think it fits. I think you are being obtuse on purpose now because you are upset your orcs got called out.

Or your analogy is terrible and your just mad several people told you that it’s terrible


Ah, the old “you are trying ‘to’ hard,” otherwise known as the “why should anyone care what words mean” trick. You can’t fool me.

You have cucumber blood on your hands.

  1. Gilneas didn’t come at great cost.
  2. While Gilneas was intermittently claimed by the forsaken, the worgen, the forsaken, the black dragonflight, ogres and then Scarlets, it’s not true to say the goal wasn’t accomplished. At best you could say only partial victory (removing the majority of resistance across the northern Eastern Kingdoms) was accomplished.
  3. Your idea of what a “something is someone’s Vietnam” is flawed and overly distilled. The analogy is used for long, drawn-out, high-cost wars that ended in total defeat on the field and a moral defeat at home. You ignored the important parts of the analogy to fixate on the least important.

I’m not. Obtuse would be using a wildly incorrect analogy, then doubling down on it. I previously gave you a very good explanation why the analogy didn’t work at all, to which you had no response. You instead went and attempted a personal attack on someone else, because you lacked any real argument.


Thing is that’s an opinion. You’ve presented your argument and been told that others disagree. Now for some reason you appear to be arguing about if other people are allowed to have opinions.

No need for this, hostility only begets more hostility.

Yeah… about that.

Technically the True Horde pulled off their objective, which wasn’t to attack Gilneas, as demonstrated by their failure to establish a port or finish the job, which could have been done if they’d actually intended to carry through, but to start a war and weaken the Forsaken, both objectives were completed.


You picked Vietnam for the title hook so people would engage easily, didn’t you.


Who gets mad over a few rando wow forums posters? I’m just calling it like it is and gave examples of why I thought so.

1 Like

Sounds like some people did the same.



Some of your responses seemed like you were mad is all.

But I’ve yet to see anyone agree with you, so there is that


You gave a completely under-thought rationale for a poor analogy, after accusing others of being mad when they pointed out the flaw in your analogy.

You might as well have compared Gilneas to the Forsaken’s Iraq War, but you’d have better grounds to compare.