[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Did the US lose the Vietnam War?
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 163
Thread images: 18
File: latest[1].jpg (158 KB, 1200x787) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
latest[1].jpg
158 KB, 1200x787
Did the US lose the Vietnam War?
>>
>>515842
Well they certainly didn't win it
>>
>>515842
Answer me, "What was the Vietnam war" and you answer your own question.
>>
Since the aim was to keep the South Vietnamese nation around, then yes.

inb4
>but we withdrew our support before it collapsed :^)

You don't win in vidya because you resign from the match before you're actually defeated by your opponent
>>
>>515849
Argument by reference to first person shooter culture isn't really an appropriate way to ground your theoretical terms.
>>
They won the first one, didn't get involvement in the second one. The non involvement is traditionally interpreted as "they lost". The notion that North Vietnam kicked their ass however is factually incorrect.
>>
If you didn't achieve your strategic goals you certainly didn't win
>>
>>515849
lol what
>>
>>515849
That wasn't the goal. The goal was to stop communism from spreading to southeast asia, which happened. The goal was accomplished.

That being said we didn't trade with Vietnam until 1995 after the cold war was over, so obviusly it would've have been more ideal to stay in south vietnam and just trade with them until the cold war ended, then annex north vietnam.

So I guess you could say we lost but it wasn't a hardcore defeat.
>>
>>515861
>They won the first one
No, the French lost that one.
>>
>>515868
>That wasn't the goal. The goal was to stop communism from spreading to southeast asia, which happened. The goal was accomplished.

That was never the goal. Ike and JFK and LBJ's power plays over the region show that the goal was no further states aligned with the Soviet Union or China.

Stop projecting post-1975 claims into the early 1960s.
>>
>>515873
But that means the exact same thing. Denying allies to your political enemies.
>>
>>515861
What are you even talking about?
>>
>>515871
Talking about the 1965-1973 war which was ended by a peace conference in Paris.
>>
>>515877
Vietnam was united under the VWP.
Laos and Cambodia also exited the USA's crony state system.

Claiming, post-facto, that you really really only wanted to save Thailand is fucking ridiculous.

The USA's game was crony capitalist elites in all of South East Asia.
>>
>>515879
>Talking about the 1965-1973 war which was ended by a peace conference in Paris.
Really? Because the 1959-1975 war KEPT ON FUCKING GOING.
>>
>>515842

The USA lost. They had a very good performance on the battlefield, but they lost. You can thank the hippies and your shitty journalists for that.
>>
>>515881
Here's a smartass response.

Not gonna deny the occupation was shit but it's not like the Viet Mihn or pol pot where even remotely better. One of the first thing the north Vietnamese did when they liberated Saigon from the crony capitalists was establish concentration camps and executed 300,000 civilians.
>>
>>515883
It didn't, please learn some actual history. There was effectively no war between early 73 and late 74.
>>
>>515863
>If you didn't achieve your strategic goals you certainly didn't win

This. Who kicked whose ass is not important; who met their goals is. The North's goal was to unify Vietnam under its rule, an objective which was delayed by the US intervention but ultimately achieved.

The goal of the US was to "contain" communism by preventing the conquest of the south by the north. This was an objective that was demonstratively possible to achieve, but the cost of achieving it was the constant presence of US troops in Vietnam and the attendant costs of that in money and lives. Eventually the government became unwilling to pay these costs and abandoned their attempt to maintain the independence of the south, resulting in the victory of the north a few years later.

Plainly, (North) Vietnam won and the US lost.
>>
>>515901
165,000* people.
>>
>open /his/.org
>It Ain't Me starts playing
>>
>>515902
>It didn't, please learn some actual history. There was effectively no war between early 73 and late 74.

You need to learn the history of the PRG and the ARVN.

>effectively no war
So there was a war, but you choose to discount it because it doesn't meet your seppocentric narrative. Start using a trip so we can filter you out.
>>
>>515899
The anti-war movement was a Soviet psyop, so they lost the war against the commies plain and simple. It was however a political loss, not a military war.
>>
>>515942
>Stabbed in the back!!!!!

It was a loss. Just admit that Giap pounded your little asses until you needed talcom powder.
No republican president has ever won a war
>>
>>515936
There was no fighting, which is what fits my description of a war. The NVA didn't re-engage until the American troops were gone.
>>
>>515949
He claimed it was a loss. I'm the only person itt claiming otherwise.

>no republican pres has ever won a war.
Cute, but that's like saying ww1 and 2 are the only wars to have ever happened. The second and third gulf wars actually were larger than the average war.
>>
>>515949
>your

I'm not American my country actually supplied North Vietnam during the war. And didn't Giap lose almost every battle he commanded?
>>
>>515955
>NVA
>NVA
>NVA

Fuck me mate, just fuck me.

The PLAF continued the war which they had begun in 1959.
>>
>>515868
It wasn't that much of an accomplishment, both Laos and Cambodia went communist while the war was still on. Fuck, it got so bad in Cambodia, North Vietnam itself went to go out a stop to it. While it eventually disappeared long term SE Asia was almost full red during the period where the ideas of containment were in place
>>
>>515972
Southeast asia isn't four countries. It includes stuff like India and the Philipines. If the country had a port from 70 on it was likely trading with the United States, legally or on the black market. Except for vietnam, and cambodia.
>>
>>515985
>Southeast asia … includes … India

The American.
>>
File: PolPot.jpg (17 KB, 300x371) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
PolPot.jpg
17 KB, 300x371
well here in 4chan you will find americans posting memes about how they were nice and never wanted to win....but in reality they were suffering massive butthurt that at the end they supported this crazy retard
>>
>>516043
>never wanted to win

Well America is not a hivemind, the government obviously wanted to win, but many of the people didn't, and after these people got elected to the congress they prevented the army from re-engaging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk
>>
>>515985
>Southeast Asia includes India
You should probably look at a map sometime, matey.
>>
>>516070
>You should probably look at a map sometime, matey.
You might like to as well. India is classified as South Asia.
>>
File: americanflag.png (9 KB, 312x312) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
americanflag.png
9 KB, 312x312
>>516068
>prague university
at least you tried
>>
>>516078
Prager, not Prague you illiterate fuck.
>>
>>516076
But it isn't classified as Southeast Asia
>>
>>516076
South Asia!= South East Asia
Please consult atleast Wikipedia before you post things like this
>>
>>516085
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia

Come the fuck on mate
>>
>>516031
>>516070
He's an idiot for including India but completely correct about countries like the Philippines and Indonesia.
>>
File: image.jpg (38 KB, 480x254) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
38 KB, 480x254
>>515868
>The goal was to stop communism from spreading to southeast asia, which happened. The goal was accomplished.
>was accomplished

F-UUUUCK THAT! When the United States entered Vietnam, only North Vietnam was Communist. When the United States withdrew, Laos, Cambodia, and the entirety of Vietnam were under Communist control. We made no gains, Communism made several.

That the Vietnam War was anything but useless hinges on the idea that without large-scale American military intervention, the entirety of South Asia would have become Communist dictatorships. This is provably false. If a bunch of third-world guerrilla rice farmers were able to out-attrition the entire United States Armed Forces, it shows that if the local populace is behind the ideology enough, no amount of American guns are going to stop them.
>>
>>515868
But communism DID spread, and it lasted for quite a while after the war had ended.
>>
>>516078
So basically an ad hominem against the source instead of refuting anything what he said, good job.
>>
>>516121
North Vietnam didn't invade South Vietnam because the US entered South Vietnam. US entered South Vietnam because North Vietnam was going to invade it.
>>
>>516098
What are you even trying here it confirms india isn't south east asia which is what I was trying to say
>>
>>516195
>North Vietnam didn't invade South Vietnam because the US entered South Vietnam

No. They didn't invade south vietnam at all. They provided fraternal assistance to the NFL / PLAF.

>US entered South Vietnam because North Vietnam was going to invade it.

Which is weird because until the reinstatement of the Giap clique in early 1968 (just pre-Tet), the standard line was "General Uprising / General Offensive" primarily from PLAF assets. It was Giap who had argued for a "General Offensive" line using PAVN assets.
>>
>>516244
>fraternal assistance

Nice way of saying it was organized, controlled and funded by Hanoi.
>>
File: vn.jpg (79 KB, 800x560) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
vn.jpg
79 KB, 800x560
>>
>>516250
>Nice way of saying it was organized, controlled and funded by Hanoi.
Only after 1968. All of the revolution in the south, the NFL and the southern VWP maintained a considerable influence until Tet-1 was a massive horrible clusterfuck that Giap specifically warned them about.
>>
>>516277
tbf the Soviets and Chinese were funneling the VIetnamese loads of not-outdated-weapons.
>>
>>515860

Agreed. But it does get it's point across in this crowd, I've noticed...
>>
>>515962
That's true, but irrelevant. He won every battle but 3.
>>
>>515962
>And didn't Giap lose almost every battle he commanded?
He won almost every war he commanded in through decisive battle.
>>
>>515960
You mean the police action and the OIL Illegal invasion Baby bush did?

Bush one had the Saudis guiding him by the hand, while bush 2 failed like all republican president do.
>>
>>515902

Wars are not always defined by what's written on papers and delivered by diplomats to other diplomats, but I get what you're saying. This Final Campaign of the war is by most historians considered part of the Second Indo-China war (I.e.: The Vietnam war).
>>
>>515842
No, but that implies that the NVA "won" based on their own military prowess. All they really did was wait for the Americans to leave and then lucked out when Congress cut Hanoi's funding. The United States military did everything that was required of them. Washington made incompetent mistake after mistake and time and time again. War could have been over in week had they just done the obvious and taken out the North. I still doubt the Chinese or the Soviets would have gone nuclear over it.
>>
>>516400
>when Congress cut Hanoi's funding
>>
>>516416
erp Saigon...
>>
>>516400
>I still doubt the Chinese or the Soviets would have gone nuclear over it.
What the USA feared was a conventional war and a repeat of the disaster that was the Korean War.
>>
>>516400
>The United States military did everything that was required of them.

PLAF logistics cut: fail.
PLAF safe areas reduced: fail.
NFL recruitment & politics disrupted: fail.

No they fucking didn't.
>>
>>516431
M8 the NFL drafts players from American colleges lmao they don't go all the way to Vietnam
>>
>>516469
Nah mate, the National Front for Liberation recruited vietnamese nationalists and revolutionaries in the RVN.
>>
>>516482
That was the NLF not the NFL top kek NFL is a football league dude step it up you're losing it
>>
>>516494
NLF was le ameregon
>>
>>516068

>this video again

Tell me again how 'bombing' a forrest trail and destroying a non-existant industry broke North Vietnam, when excessive bombing of German cities couldn't break the Nazi Germany

USA lost North Vietnam just get over it. The Paris Conference was just an opportunity to get out of it, without huge embarassement.
>>
>>516357
why are you even on /his/ if all you do is read headlines and not the sources behind the articles?
>>
>>516277
>the whole army
>a few hundred

wew
>>
>>516539
>non existant industry
>North Vietnam
>>
>>516975
Come on, don't torment the seppo over ALMOST getting there.
>>
>>516978
>seppo

Back to your containment island, abo.
>>
>>515842
In the short run Vietnam won the Vietnam War because it went Communists.

In the long run US won because Communism went bust.

Its a sad, but true thing.
>>
>>515842
I wish more of my fellow Americans would acknowledge the Vietnam War as a loss. I think the insistence that it was somehow a victory or at worst a draw is one of the reasons our country has continued to struggle with wars and occupations since then. Simply put, our leadership at the time made a bunch of mistakes and really fucked things up. Then in the years following the nation deluded itself into thinking it was some kind of victory. And what we end up with today is our leadership making almost the exact same mistakes. It seems like one of the best examples of history repeating itself due to people refusing to learn from it.
>>
>>516993
>>516993
Two bs in abbo you racist fuck
>>
>>517136
Call the national guard I don't give a fuck
>>
>>517143
Sep cunt, fully munt.
>>
>>515842
It could've been victory but was a defeat because of pussy ass politicians and hippies who got butthurt. Just like Iraq & Afghanistan today.
>>
>>516539
you know realize the Viet Minh signed a cease fire.
>>
>>515842

North Vietnamese air defenses were too thick and America was unwilling to accept the probable losses necessary to take the fight directly to North Vietnamese soil, and American military planners were worried that a full scale US attack might have frightened the USSR and China into going nuclear.
>>
>>515949
>No republican president has ever won a war

Lincoln
>>
>>515949
>says this
>ww1 and ww2 were solved with amazing diplomacy!
>>
>>515842
To use Paradox language, we made a white peace. South Vietnam lost.
>>
>>515924
lel
>>
>>515942
>It was however a political loss, not a military war.

all wars produce political results and are consequences of political decisions.

And according to your narrative, every progressive is a soviet spy.
>>
>>515962
>my country actually supplied North Vietnam during the war

then you 're chinese
>>
>>516085
>>516098

Hi guys! May I remind you to stop quoting wikipedia?
>>
>>517677
The soviets did, cambodia also quartered and probably sold to them as well. There was probably also unchecked venture capitalism from other small countries. That being said yeah he's probably Chinese.
>>
A did a paper on this my junior year and argued that we won because 'Nam was a front to keep communism from spreading in the east and after the War it drastically reduced. I think a I got a high B
>>
>>517559
Dassss raycissss
>>
How did the Americans get cucked into fighting a lengthy war to preserve the French colonial regime in Vietnam?

Before the Americans showed up, the Vietnamese people had spent decades fighting for their independence from France, much like the American people fought for their independence from Britain.

And yet somehow the US was tricked or cajoled by France into extending the dark era of colonialism until well into the 1970s.

It's an embarrassing story from start to finish.
>>
Here is how i see it
Technically yes but all this proves is that we have a flawed concept of victory and defeat.
In reality, nobody really won but i do not think the US "lost" as much as i do not think they won either.
Imagine you are a citizen of North Vietnam at the end of the war, you are happy that the American Devils and their democratic allies in the south are finally defeated, but when you look around what do you see?
You see destruction, death, ruins, swathes of jungle cleared out and entire cities decimated by bombs. You see millions dead, millions more wounded and displaced, and most importantly you see a not very promising economic situation. If you still insist on calling it a victory at that point at least acknowledge that the Vietnamese "victory" was hollow, borderline pointless at worst since they are basically a free market economy now, and Pyrrhic at best.
But again, even with all this it is technically wrong to say the USA won, but they sure as fucking hell did not lose
>>
>>517990
>to preserve the french colony
That evolved. We wanted to be 100% sure that Europe would remain nato (would continue trading with us) throughout the 50's. By the 60's the goal had shifted to denying allies to warsaw since Europe was secured.
>>
>>518038
>>517990
So we helped France in the first Indochina war with airstrikes. But when we entered Vietnam ourselves it had nothing to do with France.
>>
File: eisenhower-diem.jpg (176 KB, 592x473) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
eisenhower-diem.jpg
176 KB, 592x473
>>515842

Not really.

To understand Vietnam, you have to look at the broader objective of containing Communism. When Eisenhower first put troops in Vietnam he put them there right after China had gone red and the Rosenbergs had sold nuclear secrets to the Russians, allowing them to build nuclear bombs. Then Sputnik occurred in 1957 and the US collectively shit it's pants over fears of Russian nuclear ICBMs.

As a result, backing down wasn't going to be an option since it the US was afraid of an all-out war with the USSR. First and foremost, the priority was making sure the South Pacific was secure so the Russians would be unable to directly attack the American west coast. Thus, Vietnam was seen as a necessary fight.

Anyway, over time the policy of brinkmanship led up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where war with Russia could have easily occurred. Then JFK was assassinated and a Texan was tasked with not only securing victory in Vietnam, but also keeping peace on the homefront. Another thing Eisenhower did was appoint Warren to the SCOTUS, who then struck down segregation. The effect was that the New Deal Consensus completely broke down as the south got mad.
>>
File: lbj_1160.jpg (100 KB, 1160x653) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
lbj_1160.jpg
100 KB, 1160x653
>>518169

Anyway, with the Democrats dissolving into two camps (reformists vs southerners), Congress did not have it's shit together. Vietnam became increasingly bloody, demanding more troops. It was, however, not a lost cause. LBJ was staying the course and the US had made progress. Then the Tet Offensive occurred, and LBJ couldn't handle the heat, and decided not to run. The Democratic party imploded at their convention, with a literal riot happening outside due to anitwar protesters.

This was the moment Vietnam was "lost": not with Cronkite (who derided the war effort on TV), but with LBJ choosing to not continue. That was when public support for the war ended, and people wanted out. Bear in mind, Americans put more troops into Korea and still supported the war. But it was the President giving up that caused morale to fall out.

Then up comes Tricky Dick, Eisenhower's VP. Nixon promised "Peace With Honor". He, and his buddy Kissinger, had a different idea of diplomacy. This is where things become less black and white.
>>
>>518022
Look at the strategic goals of America: to prop up the South Vietnamese / French Colonial regime in order to contain communism.
Look at the strategic goals of the Viet Nimh: the extend their control over the whole territory of Vietnam and establish a Marxist-Leninist state.

Which of these actors achieved their strategic goal?
Which of these actors failed to achieve their strategic goal?
This will tell you who won the war.
>>
>>518191
>battle is a massive victory
>moral defeat
what went wrong?
>>
>>518219
Fifth columnist red newspaper editors
>>
File: NIXONcampaigns.jpg (2 MB, 2961x2052) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
NIXONcampaigns.jpg
2 MB, 2961x2052
>>518191

Enter Nixon. With the Democrats self-destructing, he walks in and is able to be given enough leeway/political capital to make a completely new strategy. First, with segregation: he doesn't comment on it other than that he will uphold the law. Southerners aren't pleased with this, but increasingly they realize that it's a loosing battle. JFK and LBJ sent federal troops to guard the freedom riders in the 1960s, and things were unlikely to change. Besides, White Flight brought a new kind of segregation: urban cities were abandoned in favor of newer car-exclusive suburbs.

Anyway, on Vietnam: in 1970 Nixon began the bombing of Cambodia, on a scale that still has not been matched. The NVA got fucked, hard, by design. The ground war itself was still unpopular, but the NVA conceded to a ceasefire with the Paris Accords in 1973. The war was, officially, "won", as the pull out began.

Meanwhile, Nixon had gone on a trip to China in 1972. This was his new strategy: instead of fighting the communists head on he would play China against Russia. Both countries had issues with each other, which became more apparent as Mao hit his twilight years. Nixon opened up diplomatic relations, and trade, with China. This cut down the USSR's access to the pacific and more importantly would make it more difficult for a united communist front to form since China now had some economic ties to the US.

A convenience of this was that China hates Vietnam, and vice versa. In effect, Chinese communists would end up fighting Vietnamese communists supplied by Russia. When South Vietnam fell in 1975, the new nation was completely isolated from the rest of the world and in effect completely devastated economically. The result was genocide and a lost decade until they came crawling back to the US in the late 90s.
>>
>>518169
>>518191
>>518230

tl;dr The US, technically, won Vietnam. Even if you don't buy that, the postwar country was isolated and ruined while the US was not. And ultimately Vietnam has come back to the US since the 90s, especially very recently with the rise of Chinese naval aggression/territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Again, since the Vietnamese hate China and vice versa, what will end up happening is that relations with China will cool as Vietnamese-US relations warm up. It took 40 years, but ultimately Vietnam is siding with the US. The same cannot be said of Iran, or the still unresolved situation in Korea.

>>518219

LBJ wasn't cut out for the job of President. He also wasn't cut out to deal with the segregation issue which did far more damage to the Democratic party than anything else. He lost the southern vote, and thus his base of support collapsed entirely. Instead of trying to find new supporters, he gave up. The rest of the country gave up with him. The most damaging thing a leader can do is give up and resign. Nixon figured this out too, his resignation and Watergate hurt the US more than any war.

Vietnam and the antiwar struggle is a flashier story though, but one that doesn't hold any water when you realize that the antiwar protesters of the 1970s became the neocons of the 1980s and neoliberals of the 1990s, both of whom are pro war.
>>
>>518245
>US won the Vietnam war because Vietnam is with us guys!
You do realize Vietnam is the greatest user of allies in history?
Vs. Mongols, it sided with its hated enemy, China.
Vs. The French, it sided with its hated enemy, China, again.
And now you're just filling that niche up.
>>
>>515842
Did the Finns lose the Winter War?
>>
File: 1447388043110.jpg (112 KB, 776x830) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1447388043110.jpg
112 KB, 776x830
>>518245
>tl;dr The US, technically, won Vietnam. Even if you don't buy that, the postwar country was isolated and ruined while the US was not. And ultimately Vietnam has come back to the US since the 90s, especially very recently with the rise of Chinese naval aggression/territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Jesus. The fairy tales that Americans tell themselves...
>>
>>518245
lel at writing a gigantic essay trying to manipulate reality into fitting your narrative that America somehow won a war it decisively lost
>>
>>518270
>>518245
Oh and I should: add, before Vietnam turned to you guys for help with China, they were fast budds with the USSR.

When that disappeared, only then did they turn to the US.
>>
>>518275
Kinda impressive mental gymnastics tho
>>
>>518275
>>518283
>>518309
Unfortunately it's 100% true gooks on suicide watch
>>
>>518327
Protip: if you have to write an enormous treatise to justify your position, and your opponent can point to simple facts and events, they you are probably the one who is wrong.
>>
>>518230
>>518245

It's also worth remembering that the biggest foreign policy failure of the Nixon administration, and every succeeding one, is the middle east. Nixon pulled the US off the gold standard in 1973, which was a good thing since the Bretton Woods system was untenable. But, by ending it there was now a means for organizations like OPEC, as well as commodities investors, to manipulate the price of oil easily.

Then Israel had the Yom Kippur war and took the Suez from Egypt. OPEC was mad since they didn't want to be made Israel's bitch, so they began the embargo until Israel troops left. The result was that the US was made the bitch of literal sandniggers and pretty much ended the traditional cold war politics right there. The transition of the US defense policy from aimed purely at nation states and game theory to it's modern asymmetric model.

Nixon wasn't able to respond too much since he resigned halfway through it due to Watergate, and succeeding Presidents couldn't come up with a new strategy for the middle east (unlike Nixon did in the South Pacific. Had he stayed on, the mideast would had become his focus through 1976). Supporting the Shah turned out to be a bad idea, as when he fell the process of islamic radicalization began in the middle east. Along with the assassination of Nasser six years earlier, the hope for a secular, panarab mideast died. Also, the humiliation of Carter via the hostage crisis led to the death of the New Deal Democrats, and the rise of the New Democrats. The failure of Operation Eagle Claw also led the US Army to get a fetish for developing a tilt-rotor helicopter/plane. It took them 30 years to make it.
>>
>>518366

Anyway, Nixon's replacement, Ronald Reagan, didn't have a clue about the sunni/shia conflict either. All they cared about was containing communism in the middle east. Sound familiar? Reagan was lucky the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979 which would help bankrupt them.Meanwhile Saddam, a sunni, led a war against the shia Iran. This is where the radicalization of the sunni world really started kicking off.

Then of course, 9/11 happened and we invaded Iraq as a police styled action. Much like we had done in Yugoslavia, as well as many south american countries. Except this time, we not only pissed off all the sunnis with the Coalition Provisional Government's idiocy, but in 2010 we also left a shia in power (Al-Maliki) who validated all the fears said sunnis have. The result is ISIS.

Meanwhile, Iran sits back and laughs. So does Russia, who now has ground troops in Syria. Notice that? Most of the middle east will, in some form, either become pro Russian or accept Russian/Iranian dominance in the region in the coming years. This is, objectively, a failure of the original 1950s policy of Russian containment. But, since Russia isn't perfect friends with China, it'll likely grease the skids when the US looks to Russia to help contain China in the Pacific.
>>
>>518366
>>518377
Mate, what the fuck are you talking about?
This is a thread concerning Vietnam.
Go sperge somewhere else.
>>
File: nixon-map-2-622.jpg (395 KB, 622x414) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
nixon-map-2-622.jpg
395 KB, 622x414
>>518345

I wrote 6+ posts on it because this isn't a shitpost board

Let me break it down more simply for you: The US won in Vietnam since in 1973 the NVA signed the Paris Accords in 1973, effectively admitting that a further war would result in their complete destruction. Then in 1976 the war started again as a separate event which South Vietnam lost. But the new country was diplomatically and economically isolated, rendering all their gains for naught.

Vietnam then experienced two lost decades of extreme violence and economic depression until they started warming up to us in the 90s after watching all the other Asian Tigers get ridiculously rich. Today, Vietnam is rapidly becoming a US ally since they hate the renewed Chinese aggression in their waters. The end result will be a US-Vietnamese alliance. Or, Victory.

Meanwhile the entire Middle East is falling under Russia's wing, as I said here >>518366 and here >>518377. This is a Failure, or Defeat, of US policy in the region.
>>
>>518345
Brandolini's law.
>>
File: putin-assad-getty.jpg (125 KB, 1368x1026) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
putin-assad-getty.jpg
125 KB, 1368x1026
>>518390

I'll sperg out because I feel like it.

Yes, this thread's topic is Vietnam. But Vietnam is just one pawn in the larger American defensive strategy. Much like the countries in the middle east. While they are separate topics they are intimately related to each other when you look at it from the larger angle the Pentagon, and many other policymakers, do.
>>
>>518401
>Today, Vietnam is rapidly becoming a US ally since they hate the renewed Chinese aggression in their waters. The end result will be a US-Vietnamese alliance. Or, Victory.
two comments
1) Again, if mental gymnastics was a sport, you'd get gold
2) Actually Vietnam is trying to ally with the USA in a not-overt fashion by being buddies with the Philippines: A US ally.

Despite Vietnamese/Chinese clashes, Vietnam *still* wants to have continued economic relationship with China, no matter how arms length it is. If it explicitly allied with the USA then all bets are off.
>>
>>518270
>>518287

Yes, but it didn't matter since China wasn't buddies with the USSR. Domino Theory only works when China is a lost cause. With China being friendly with the US, Vietnam's importance was diminished especially when China was very effective at negating the USSR influence there due to their own war with Vietnam.
>>
>>518423

Vietnam also doesn't want to become China's bitch, for cultural reasons. I have no doubt that if push were to shove, they'd side with the USA now *especially* if trade relations with China were to fall apart, and US firms look to them for outsourcing.
>>
>>518401
>the NVA signed the Paris Accords in 1973, effectively admitting that a further war would result in their complete destruction. Then in 1976 the war started again as a separate event which South Vietnam lost.
Again, as the anon above pointed out, ragequitting a war before the enemy defeats you does not count as a win.
>>
>>518442

Yes, it does. The NVA were bombed into submission and were given the option to end the war. They chose that option, rather than take more casualties from American B-52s.

Of course, the peace lasted less than two years. But it didn't matter since American troops had pulled out by then, and with Detente Vietnam has become irrelevant in the larger scheme.
>>
>>515842

yes

only ones who dont feel so are retarded murricans
>>
>>518169
Not trying to call bullshit or anything, but what does the South Pacific have to do with protecting the US West Coast? Isn't the biggest Russian naval base Vladivostok, way in the north pacific? Or did you mean against the Chinese, not Soviet, navy?
>>
>>518442
But it was the North who ragequit. Anytime they tried anything or refused to negotiate they got bombed to oblivion.
>>
>>518219
A lot of people in our government thought that the battle of Khe Sanh was the decisive battle of the war. They insisted that after we won that battle, the rest would be "mopping up" and that the enemy didn't have the will or capability to fight. Shortly after Khe Sanh, the enemy attacked almost every city and military base in South Vietnam. The fact that they failed to capture hardly anything didn't matter, as the American people had been assured that the enemy was nearly beaten and no longer had the ability to launch large offensive operations at all.

When you consider how much many Americans distrust and dislike our government today, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how they felt during the Vietnam War when politicians were saying one thing, while the public were seeing something totally different on television.
>>
>>518451
The US submitted to peace talks because the anti-war movement was tearing American society apart at the seams.
>>
File: south pacific.gif (59 KB, 627x497) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
south pacific.gif
59 KB, 627x497
>>518476

>but what does the South Pacific have to do with protecting the US West Coast?

what does eastern europe have to do with protecting western europe?
>>
>>518498

The US started the peace talks, after Nixon had blown apart Cambodia. The antiwar movement, while it got lots of airtime, was not nearly as important as desegregation. If the antiwar movement had any water, McGovern would had beat Nixon in '72.
>>
>>518511

>had any water

*held any water
>>
>>518498
>US submitted

The US wanted the peace negotiations since they wanted to preserve the status quo. North Vietnam wanted to annex South Vietnam and refused to negotiate, in fact the US used several heavy bombing campaigns just to get them to sit at the table.
>>
>>518504
So despite your snarky comment, I think what you meant by that was that the U.S. didn't want to let the Soviets get set up there. It wasn't a direct threat at the time, it was a potential one in the future.
>>
>>518504
>U.S.S.R (includes Russia)
>Award for most unnecessary parenthesis
>>
>>518272
Yes. In the end, the Soviets got the territory that they initially wanted. The Finns get talked up so much because they were hugely outmatched and made it a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviets.

Considering the death and devastation suffered in Vietnam, the Vietnam War could also be considered a Pyrrhic victory for the communists. But since their goal was to take over the South, and they did, it was still a victory.
>>
>>518527

Yes. Generals always fight the last war. In Russia, this means preparing for a blitz from the west, in the US it's preparing for a naval campaign in the Pacific. The South Pacific is the first stop for any would-be power to take on the actual Pacific (Midway, Hawaii, mainland US).
>>
>>518511
You're not one of these "muh silent majority" narrative morons are you?
The anti-war movement was not only a huge force in American society, it fucking won! It forced the government to give up the war, and left deep influences in American society that are still felt today.

To dismiss the counterculture as some impotent vocal minority is foolish and illogical.
>>
>>517668
Look up active measures.
>>
>>518551

>it fucking won! It forced the government to give up the war

No, LBJ gave up on the war and the rest of the government followed suit. LBJ gave up on the war because he was simply not able to handle the stresses of being President.

>and left deep influences in American society that are still felt today.

Objectively, desegregation had a larger influence. Chief Justice Warren singlehandedly destroyed a 150 year tradition of Southern support for the Democrats, while forcing racial integration in all 50 states. The effects of this are still seen today in every city across the US. One of the reasons American hate transit is because they brink darkies into their town. This wasn't a problem when segregation was still legal.

Meanwhile the antiwar counterculture was dead by 1980. Nowadays it's just a thing boomers remember in fading pictures.
>>
>>518584
>the antiwar counterculture was dead by 1980
The largest protest in history occurred on February 15, 2003 in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq. Somewhere between 8 and 30 million people took part.

Your claim that the anti war movement is dead is quite silly.
>>
>>518609

And yet, liberals today want another ground war in Iraq against ISIS. The ground war with Iraq went on seven years after that protest, including the Surge in 2007. Today the war continues as a Cambodia-esque drone assassination program.

The antiwar movement is either dead, or is completely incapable of actually having any power. The last time the Democrats were staunchly for a pullout was back in 2006, which was ten years ago. Their champion, President Obama, continued the war for another three years (per the original pullout plan Bush made), then began his airstrike campaign which has only intensified since it began.

Meanwhile, it's illegal for most stores to refuse service to customers based on race.
>>
>>518423
Ya'll not viewing this right. Today everybody trades with everybody and nobody cares because nobody is at war.

Before 1990, that was a differant story, so the United States trading with countries in southeast asia after withdrawing from vietnam is what you'd use to argue that we didn't lose.
>>
>>518622
I actually kinda like obama as a warmonger. Not sure why my peers slam him so hard. He totally cucked our opponents.
>>
>>518659

It would be alright if he wasn't so clueless. Foregin policy was never his cup of tea and it really shows considering how the middle east is burning down now. /pol/shit aside, Iraq was always going to have problems following the US pullout. But a full scale sunni vs shia civil war would had been contained to Iraq if it wasn't for Obama being a retard and arming the FSA, while turning Syria into a partially failed state. This is a problem because since Assad is shia, the sunnis in Syria hate him. They quickly took up arms against him AND the shia dictator in Iraq, Al-Maliki.

Essentially, the tinderbox got a spark and now here we are.

By the time Obama realized what he was doing, it was too late. Meanwhile Iran is running a civil war in Yemen and there's ISIS in both Libya and Egypt.

At this juncture, things could either go really good (ISIS burns itself out, dissolves) or really bad (full blown sunni vs shia war). I'm betting on the latter since Putin already has ground troops in Syria, while Congress won't tolerate another ground war. Which means that the shia have the advantage. And that europe's migrant problem will turn into a crisis.
>>
Lack of political will to properly prosecute the war.
>>
>>515899
>You can thank the hippies and your shitty journalists for that

Any faggot can blame "internal enemies", Germany did the same with blaming communists and Jews for their defeat in WW1
>>
>>520047
Are you allowed to do it when they lose you wars?
>>
>>516158
Some sources have a bad academic reputation for good reason and are mostly a waste of time.
>>
>>516277
>>516291
true... they were still inferior, and the US basically killed thousands of north veitnamese and vietcong...

(allegedly anyway)...

The US would've been better served by recognizing the communist government of a united Vietnam.. . and treat them like they treated Titoist Yugoslavia.. that is as a neutral state. They were Nationalists first, Communists second.
>>
>>516539
>>517502
mostly because they were killing mostly harmless civilians....

hell the North Vietnmese government should be fucking thanked for stopping lynchings of downed US airmen...
>>
>>520055
You can't really prove a claim like that, though. It's so qualitative and open to interpretation that anyone can twist it to fit their ideology, which is what makes me skeptical. It makes so many unspoken assumptions like boiling down all the different motives for opposing the war into one neat little Soviet package, so you can act persecuted by the big old scary leftist media. Pacifism existed a long time before the USSR you dipshit.
>>
>>517502
>you know realize the Viet Minh signed a cease fire.
If I recall correctly that was in 1953.

Given you can't identify who people were correctly, why should we trust your narrative or interpretations?
>>
>>516158
>Praeger
Brb, have to piss, laughing.
>>
>>515842
I think the US has lost every war since its involvement in WW2
>>
>>520257
>>520060
>all these communists
>>
>>520352
There are plenty of conservative presses that are credible. OUP, CUP, YUP, HUP, Chicago
>>
>>518194
This is exactly what i mean when i say flawed concept of victory and defeat
Our goal in the long run was to stop the spread of communism and ultimately even with the fall of South Vietnam it didnt really take root in the rest of Asia like Washington feared.
Sure the North Vietnamese got their state, but fucking look at it. It was an awful place to live already and the war made it worse tenfold.
All things considered the USA came away from the conflict FAR better off than Vietnam did.
If you got beat up for 45 minutes by a guy twice your size and then he just walked away would you say you defeated him because he left? No because he beat the shit out of you and left your crippled. Sure he didnt kill you but hes gonna be just fine and you're gonna be in a wheelchair the rest of your life.
Go ahead and claim that win though champ
>>
>>518622
Now that's, pretty normal, isn't it?
t. Alberto Barbosa
>>
>>520399
The guy isn't saying anything that isn't credible.
>>
>>520459
I'm saying that Praeger press and Praeger University aren't credible.
>>
>>520479
I don't care if it's Jehovah's Witnesses saying it, the content of the video is still accurate.
>>
>>520479
It's Prager. Preager press is something different altogether.
>>
>>520500
Mea culpa, mea culpa maxima.
>>
>>516277
In a pitched battle? The US. Look at the Tet Offensive: Fighting face to face with US forces almost destroyed the VC.
>>
>>520603
Yet not the PAVN.
>>
Does anyone have a pdf to Shelby Stanton's book 'Vietnam Order of Battle'? I liked his other books, but I don't want to shell out $50 for that one.
Thread replies: 163
Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 370515



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.