>>557767 Again, it just really isn't a war that is so easily "won". They could have bombed the Viet-Cong into submission, but of course in doing that they'd kill just as many, if not more civillians, so that could hardly be counted as a victory, at least in modern times.
The way they could have won the conflict in Vietnam would to have been to listen to Patton and flatten Russia immediately after WW2.
But since that didn't happen obviously they had to make do with what they had.
The Vietnam War had a clear insurgency phase and a clear conventional phase.
The US won both.
From 1964 to 1969, the Viet Cong was destroyed to the point where they could no longer have any say over the future of Vietnam. In between Tet, the Pheonix Program, and constant, grinding engagements against a superior enemy, they were simply eliminated.
Once the Viet Cong ceased to exist, the North began to simply send NVA down South to fight.
The problem was, the NVA was a conventional military force, with conventional logistics needs.
The US destroyed North Vietnam's industrial capacity, and destroyed their ability to receive aid from the USSR and PRC.
After Linebacker 2, the North simply had nothing capable of harming the South. Hence why they went to the bargaining table and signed the Paris Peace Accords.
The reason there aren't two Vietnams is 100% American and 0% Vietnamese. In 1974, the authority of the Nixon administration disintegrated under the weight of the Watergate Scandal. This led to Democrats controlling congress, which mean that the US went back on all the guarantees it had made to the South.
The US had agreed to replace lost or destroyed military equipment on a one to one basis. The Democrats reneged on this promise. Nixon had privately agreed to begin another bombing campaign, like the one that had crippled the North, if the North began another offensive. The Democrat controlled congress refused to allow the US to use air power.
The South Vietnamese military had actually become a fairly professional, effective force, but it was utterly dependent on US supplies and air power, and nobody could have predicted that the Nixon administration, which had won the most one-sided electoral victory in US history in 1972, would implode a mere two years later.
>>557859 >the us >learning from one of its trade partners The president could smear shit on a wall an it would be copied as a fundamental aspect of managing a keynesin economy, and it happens all the time.
NFL had mainline forces prior to Tet-1. PRG did not suffer a reduced area of control or scope of control due to US intervention. 1972 failed logistically due to air bombardment but advanced the PRG's scope of control 1975 succeeded
>>557863 >After Linebacker 2, the North simply had nothing capable of harming the South. Then why did the south utterly collapse in the face of an NVA offensive as soon as the Americans left? Notice in the image that when South Vietnamese losses are taken into account, muh ebin kill ratio isn't even that impressive for our side. In the end, the fact that American forces themselves kicked a lot of ass simply wasn't enough to accomplish our goals.
I think that if American pride didn't stop Americans from insisting that Vietnam was a victory, if we would simply accept that there were serious mistakes made that resulted in a defeat, then perhaps we would have more success with our later occupation campaigns against guerrilla forces instead of making the same mistakes over and over.
>>557754 The US Couldve won the Vietnam War if it invaded the North and Soviets & Chinese threat bluff is called out.
The first part of my statement is likely. The latter isn't. Soviet airforces flew for Korea and Chinks fought in Korea with nothing but a shitty infantry army. Who knew what sort of support they could give NVA. >>557863 >The South Vietnamese military had actually become a fairly professional, effective force, >After Linebacker 2, the North simply had nothing capable of harming the South. Hence why they went to the bargaining table and signed the Paris Peace Accords. Funny how there was a big North Vietnamese army that rolled into Saigon.
>>559037 I'm not that guy, I just got here, so no.
But if you're going to be comparing Vietnam to anyone, at least pretend not to be a complete retard by comparing it with a country that has a considerably different language, climate, religion and history.
Comparing two countries is an impossible endeavour that is really only ever done by people with some sort of agenda in mind, desu, but if you are going to do so, Vietnam can only really be compared to Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodja, Burma or Laos.
You know, countries with somewhat similar religion, climate and history
And even then, you'd have to factor for so many things that the exercise becomes meaningless.
For instance, Thailand or Malaysia didn't fight a decade long war with the world's foremost superpower, and weren't susequently economically shunned by the global community afterwards
>>557767 You don't "win" a war of attrition. The only way is to occupy the country long enough to crush the spirits of any dissenters to your reign. Taking Vietnam as the 51st United State of America would've brought in even higher casualties, plus the locals would (whatever the Vietnamese word for "Alla-hu Ackbar" it forever).
Thread replies: 37 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 431702
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.