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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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?
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>>516277 >>516291 true... they were still inferior, and the US basically killed thousands of north veitnamese and vietcong...
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.
>>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.
>>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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.