Why was America military defeated in Vietnam?
Vietnam is so small and poor it's amazing to think rich and industrially strong USA could not win on the ground.
What could USA have done differently to win the war?
Anon the military of the US literally raped the North Vietnam Army and Viet Cong. The US lost because Vietnam fell to communism after the Treaty that was signed and US troops pulled out.
The military won.
The politicians lost.
The US military was tactically superior to anything the NVA/VC could throw at them. However, the government didn't have any long term strategic goals aside from KILL MORE GOOKS. They couldn't invade North Vietnam for fear of escalating the conflict, and they couldn't invade neighboring nations to knock out the Ho Chi Minh Trail - oh wait we did lel.
But thinking that because the US military won tactical engagements means they "won" the general conflict is stupid. Basing your level of victory on body count is a stupid idea. We lost more men than the Germans did in WWII and still won, who gives a fuck? The NVA/VC had far more staying power and that's why they won. They had a single objective that in theory was simple to achieve: fight until the Americans get tired of fighting, no matter the cost.
For the last 60 or so years, we have been trying to fight for the people we are fighting. That sentence doesn't make any sense, and is the heart of the issue. As much as people like to bitch about US war crimes, realistically speaking if we had wanted to, we could have done so much worse. Our strategies are essentially half-assed by definition; we just sort of hang around in these places not doing enough to make a long term difference. Think about it: what was our entire goal in Vietnam? Were we fighting the Vietnamese? The Communists? The North? The Vietcong? The Civilians? We have been trying to win wars that have no objectives, and doing it in ways that will never work. So, if America wanted to 'win' the war, what should we have done?
Probably supported the north, as they were not very anti-western until we intervened, they hated the French not America. In fact, they asked us to help them. But for political reasons we sided with.... no one, we basically made up the southern half of the country in order to fight the non-existent communists.
We don't know why we lost, not because we didn't know how to win, but because we didn't (and still don't) have a clue what victory would look like.
I initially read it the same way as you did but clearly he means that in WW2, the americans lost more men than the germans did. Not that more americans were lost in Vietnam than germans in WW2.
It was a lost cause from the start. Bad presidency only escalated this into a war.
Instead of listening to the pleas of a colony wanting freedom, we listened to the cries of the french empire. Us should have ignored the french request of keeping Vietnam under french control. US should have aided Ho Chi Min when he asked for guidance and advice regarding anti-colonialism. Ho Chi Min was pro-America because we were a former colony of the british empire.
When we invaded we invaded under the guise of freedom against communism. We built up a fake country, south vietnam, and put a media mogul (donald trump like) dictator as a president via fake votes. The country's 90% buddhist hated the guy because of buddhist suppression, pro-christian policies, etc.
It was bound to fail no matter what.
lack of a clear and/or achievable military objectives had done the US in
racking up body counts doesn't work if you get up and leave and let those left do what they want
either go war to the max and roll over north - but do you risk the much bigger stakes and the crisis spilling out?
or actually conduct a proper counterisurgency campaign - except you can't do that with traditional forces deployed mostly in traditional ways and trying to achieve traditional objectives
also this anon has it right - vietnam was first and foremost a colonial fight for independence internally, not some zany wicked communist invasion that needed countering by the forces of liberty
1. South Vietnam was an inherently unstable state with an incompetent military. It was ruled by terrible leaders who often killed more Vietnamese than the Communists did.
2. The U.S. never officially declared war, so it was unable to invade the North and instead was forced on the defensive
3. Supply lines running into Cambodia remained untouched throughout the war until Nixon ordered an invasion, which despite its success caused him to lose face among those in Congress.
4. The victory plan consisted of little more than "kill as many Vietcong as we can when they come at us until they surrender or run out of troops". Objectives were gained only to be abandoned the next day.
5. Hanoi had support from the USSR and China, with the Chinese supplying half a million well trained men as well as ammunition. Russian and Chinese pilots also engaged US aircraft in dog fights.
6. The war costed billions of U.S. dollars while it gained the U.S. nearly nothing in return. The longevity of the was influenced Americas political will to abandon the conflict all together.
7. The reports of how brutal the conflict was with both sides commiting atrocities against one another demoralized most Americans.
The U.S. military was never really outmatched by the North at any point in the conflict. The Tet offensive nearly broke the back of the North Vietnamese military. A temporary peace ala Korea was the best either side could hope for at the time, what the U.S. didn't count on South Vietnam being completely overrun the way it was by the North just 3 years later.
Diplomatically, the U.S. really had its hands tied as to how it went about the conflict, which limited how it could conduct the conflict and ultimately failed to do anything at all.
The War Remnants Museum in HCMC (formerly known as the Museum of American War Crimes) makes pretty explicit mention of the importance of the press in winning the war.
This is such a crock of shit. When you have lost the support of the general public for your war you have lost a large part of the war as it was.
We were unwelcome invaders in unfamiliar territory propagating a war that sprang from a lie. We knew it, the Vietnamese sure as shit knew it and besides what Soviet and Chinese sponsorship gave them to fight with, they didn't have a whole hell of a lot.
That forced them to use a style of warfare wildly different than what we traditionally understood as war. We had no idea what to do other than >>614000 >KILL MORE GOOKS.
not by battles
Anyways the objetive of america was the preservation of a Non-communist Vietnam, the momment that the treaty said that the VietCong will only stop if the americans get out of vietnam
The momment that your soldiers left the countries exactly at the third day the north marched against the south and rekt it, so the full vietnam becomes communist
It's a defeat for America interest
In my view the US won militarily but fucked up royally politically.
US forces won literally every engagement, even when outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1 and US military doctrine and tech leaped years ahead of what it had been. The US was also able to prop up the South for a good long time before the troops had to withdraw due to apathy and outright opposition from those at home.
I will give credit to the North Vietnamese for taking one of the biggest smack-downs in the history of warfare and come out winning politically in the end.
The real tragedy in Vietnam was that the US supported the imperialist frogs over Vietnam because
Ho Chi Minh literally did nothing wrong and we should have supported Vietnamese Independence from day 1 and co-opted it from the Soviets.
Use B-52s to bomb North Vietnam into submission until they surrender.
If the North tries to invade again, resume B-52 bombing of North Vietnam.
Do this immediately at the beginning of the war.
And that's it. You win. You cannot lose if you follow this strategy.
Any country that seeks independence from a colonial power should be supported.
I mean, it's literally how the US became a thing (ironically, mostly because of France).
Truth be told, it would have been better to just not get involved in the first damn place.
But in the case of Vietnam, communism actually helped bring the country out of the stone age and they are slowly going Capitalist like every other second world nation.
He was also mostly a Marxist because he saw after WWI how few shits the West gave about colonial oppression. He (rightly) assumed that no Western power would ever support a free Vietnam.
>But in the case of Vietnam, communism actually helped bring the country out of the stone age and they are slowly going Capitalist like every other second world nation.
And? South Korea managed to industrialise quite well without being unified under a Communist government
>He (rightly) assumed that no Western power would ever support a free Vietnam.
South Vietnam wasn't a "free Vietnam"?
>Basing your level of victory on body count is a stupid idea.
Something I find interesting and what remains generally unknown about the 'body count' strategy is its origin in WW2, specifically Okinawa.
>Former lieutenants and captains of the Pacific war, when later promoted to American generals in Korea and Vietnam, assumed again that real estate was not as important as simply killing as many fanatical Asian troops as possible—through bombing, shelling, and frontal assaults. War ended when the enemy was exterminated or faced with certain annihilation. It did not necessarily stop when the Japanese were encircled, outmaneuvered, or shorn of supplies. The caves and night assaults of Okinawa prefigured the tunnels and ambushes of Vietnam—in each case nullifying massive American bombing and artillery barrages. Every Japanese dead or captured, not the fall of the Shuri line, meant a quicker end to the war—just as “body counts” in Vietnam, not the capture of Hanoi, were seen as the key to ending that conflict.
>You should wait until the enemy is already in your town
If it isn't your town, then why bother clearing it? Just bomb it until they surrender.
>Just do exactly what the Linebacker raids did. But don't wait until the end of the war. Do it immediately.
If they had invaded and removed the communist party that's all that would have been needed.
Vietnam's historical animosity with China would mean that early on they would have been staunch anti communists.
Fucking French should have followed the Briggs plan
Can't supply conventional weapons if they don't have the facilities to use them.
US would have taken about the same amount of casualties but in a shorter period of time.
With the country united they could just leave Diem and a few CIA stay behind missions to mop up what was left of the Communist government.
But we're getting into fortune telling at this point
If you wipe out 90% of the civilians, then you don't really have an effective country.
Diem will fall even with 100% military support from America because his government is not a legitimate one.
90% of the buddhist oppose his reign.
>Can't supply conventional weapons if they don't have the facilities to use them.
So you're bombing Southern China's logistics now.
>With the country united they could just leave Diem and a few CIA stay behind missions to mop up what was left of the Communist government.
You do realise that the RVN had an indigenous revolutionary movement which was chiefly caused by Ðiem's catholicism and malrule?
yes, but shifting attention to the reunification and the "resisting elements" would have moved fighting to the north.
the big reason the NLF rose was because Diem never held the elections to unify Vietnam. My assumption is that unification, not democratic elections was more important to the founders of the NLF
doesn't matter so long as the next government isn't communist. Remember when Diem died the US looked the other way when they got intel about the upcoming coup against Diem
>the big reason the NLF rose was because Diem never held the elections to unify Vietnam. My assumption is that unification, not democratic elections was more important to the founders of the NLF
The NFL was controlled by the VWP through their control of the proxy parties that constituted the NFL. The RVN was riddled with VWP members.
Your assumption is pretty crap mate. Read more about the NFL.
>was riddled with VWP members.
there was informal connections, but RVN didn't have much contact with them until Diem cracked down on them more harshly.
Ho was apprehensive to get involved with the NLF at the start. But I agree that by the end they were dominated by the RVN.
Hell, the Tet basically supplanted the NLF with northerners.
Historically the initial group was a mixed bunch with loose but lots of connections to the VWP
>until Diem cracked down on them more harshly
You mean in '56?
>Ho was apprehensive
The NFL was established by southern VWP cadre as a spontaneous initiative against Diem, in '58 or '59 ("officially" 59).
>dominated by the RVN
The US aligned comprador government never managed to dominate the NFL.
>Hell, the Tet basically supplanted the NLF with northerners.
No, that would be the PLAF. The NFL continued within the PRG.
>Historically the initial group was a mixed bunch
It was pretty much all VWP at the core.
Wiki is absolutely crap on the revolution in the south.
Wilfred Burchett is a biased primary source from inside the NFL, who as an Australian wrote in English.
There are some good RAND studies from the era, but I can't for the life of me remember.
And there are some quite good journal articles coming out at the moment, but it has been five years since I was seriously reading in this area.
>The military won.
>The politicians lost
Where have I heard that before?
>>Viet Cong being "indigenous" or "spontaneous"
… you know half the Viet Minh lived in the south?
>>Viet Cong existing in any meaningful way after 1969
The PLAF was rebuilt using Northern "volunteers," except in local forces. The PRG managed the liberated areas as a government with local militia.
You ought to plug the arsehole in the middle of your face with an inflatable butt plug.
The Dolchstosslegende is actually pretty similar to conservative theories about the Vietnam War. Just lots of
>our boys couldn't have lost the fightin' war, it was the Jews/hippies/commies/liberals/blacks/Bolsheviks
>Who's a better ally: A country that always goes out of it's way to decry and criticize anything American, or a former colony we could've helped free
I'm not a big fan of Vietnam or communism, surely you can see how supporting their independence would've been the vastly superior choice
The fact that most of the time they were fighting the ARVN, that the ARVN bore the brunt of the war, and that the PLAF/PAVN were fighting mainly to establish the NFL/PRG's legitimacy rather than to "out wait the Americans."
Which are the best books on the war?
We lost in Vietnam because Vietnam was backed by China, and through them, the USSR.
Nixon was too chickenshit to follow through with the war and risk nuclear exchange even though the US had a clear and decisive advantage in the cold war at that point in history, and instead opened our borders so the US could be flooded with cheap, mass produced chinese goods built using commie slave labor
FUCK YOU IT WASNT A LIE
LOOK at the god damn world today! 2/3's of it is run by petty dictators and communist tyrants hiding behind banana republics.
WE GOT OUR ASSES KICKED and now the whole fucking world is living under tyranny.
We could have established a ONE WORLD ORDER, with america at the head, the whole fucking world would just be one big god damn American town.
You TELL me thats not what we wanted, whats not best for the world? You TELL me our parents chickenshit generation would have had the guts to own up to what we were doing there instead of hiding behind the flag like a bunch of republican cowards
I don't know if this would have won the war or not, but t would have helped to better isolate the north from Chinese and Cambodian help. Also limiting the influence of the American press would have delayed the loss of support back home.
and YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE DROPPED THE BOMB
So fucking what?
Better to blow up a small chunk of the world than watch the whole fucking thing go up in smoke. The world is fucking powder keg and we are trying to pour water on a fucking oil fire.
So yeah, I sure as shit would have dropped the bomb on those zipperheaded faggots.
There is no legitimate justification that would allow you to tell someone what they can and can't do to their own bodies without condoning a type of slavery.
At the same time, you can't simply allow your civilization to get hooked en mass on opium, your society will fall apart.
Even people who get hooked on heroin, morphine and other opiates can't seem to agree on whether or not it should be legal.
That representation of the tunnels at Cu Chi is Vietnamese propaganda. They were not nearly that elaborate, and were not suitable for sustained living in (no kitchens or bedrooms).
They were usually very close the surface, and simply used as a way of quick escape.
>wait in jungle for americans
>shoot at them
>gtfo by tunnels before superior american weapons and tactics can fuck you up
Source: I've been to Cu Chi and this is what the guide told me.
pic related: Pajeet goes VietCong
>to allow freedom and democracy to flourish, we should have banned the press reporting on things we didn't want reporting on and withheld information from a democratically elected congress
Top wew do the stabbed in the back posters actually read what they post?
>we will liberate you from the communist menace!
>we dont want to be liberated thanks
>well then i will burn down this village in the name of freedom
>thanks, where was the next vietcong recruitment office again?
Because the major goal of the war didn't require a victory, just to put the US under so much debt it would abandon the gold standard and to create future slaves out of a completely wrecked country
and it worked
The Dolchstoßlegende has similiar ideological roots. American conservatives invented their own Dolchstoßlegende for Vietnam to sustain the narrative of american exceptionalism. Similiar to german nationalism of the time a defeat didn´t fit the narrative of a exceptional and invincible military fighting for a just cause. So instead of the glorious armed forces the degenerate civilians behind the frontlines must be responsible for defeat. Admitting military defeat in vietnam means to accept that america is confined to the same limits as other great powers in world history. A fact that is not compatible to american exceptionalism. Plain and simple: American conservatives aren´t ready to accept that america isn´t able to form the world according to its wishes but instead is confined to the same boundaries as other imperialist powers. This ideology lead to the second iraq war where the neoconservative school of thought made the same mistakes as in vietnam.
> Muuuh no jungle and no supporting foreign powers in iraq, we can win easily and the war will finance itself.
Well to win the vietnam war several things would have had to happen differntly to OTL.
First and foremost:
The creation of a stable south vietnamese client state with a motivated army that is able to sustain and win offensives.
To achieve this several things are needed:
1. A just landreform after the creation of south vietnam, not favoring the great landowners. In korea great landowners were allowed to keep about 1 hectar of land in vietnam it was about 150 hectar. This fueled the insurgency in south vietnam itself and allowed for a mao-style peasant liberation guerilla war in the mecong-delta.
2.Supporting a coup against diem early on. This man simply was a catastrophy for a stable south vietnamese ally. He deeply divided the country between buddhists and catholics. Wasn´t ready to fully cooperate with the americans while enyoing a lot of unjustified support in america. 1/?
typical american still delusional they won't admit they lost war vs Vietnamese Farmers
Cont: He enjoyed this support just because he was able to beat some river pirate mobsters in saigon who allied with the militias of two sects (google Binh Xuyen, Cao Dai and Hoa Hao if you are interested) while nearly beeing chased out of office. Troups loyal to him were able to beat the opposing militias, this lead the eisenhower adminstration to believe he was able to counter the communists who enjoyed popular support and were higly experienced guerilla fighters.
3. Enable a positive development of the ARVN. It is stunning how corrupt and inefficient the south vietnamese military leadership was. The south vietnamese army constantly payed wages which were way to low to motivate its soldiers. Also the military leadership was highly incompetent, for significant amounts of time new recruits didn´t even recieve a basic training all of this while beeing showered with high tech weapons they were not trained to use. Also the american advisors trained the ARVN for an american style of warfare which south vietnam couldn´t support without immense american aid. The ARVN used 16 times as much ammunition as the north vietnamese forces and was only able to decrease that to 12 times as much. So as soon as american support decreased the army was basically useless, late in the war after the american withdrawal the sitaution became so desperate that artillery units demanded a fee for artillery support.
This in combination with a leadership stuck in a colonial mindset (we won´t commence offensive operations, what are the americans here for?) and rampant corruption made the army useless in a military sense.
The only purpose it had was a social one, it was able to employ the jobless population which were forced to flee to cities due to the warfare. So the south vietnamese army basically was a huge waste of money, never exceeded the status of a colonial militia and was only useful for internal security ( more or less...) and social reasons.
4. Allow for communal self-goverment. The abolishment of communal self-government was higly antithetical to traditional vietnamese values. The officials of the government which were employed to manage the villages had no support whatsoever were highly corrupt and appointed for loyalty instead of skill and experience ( mostly catholics). This allowed the viecong to gain tractory because in the villages they liberated they reinstated self-government. All of this lead to huge resettlements and other measures which agitated the rural population even more. In the end the rural population was either forced to migrate to cities ( were crime, rampant drug use and oppression waited) or to join the insurgency.
The actual war:
1. The war effort the johnson adminstration invested was to little and to hesitant to actually stop the insurgency or damage north vietnam. Also there was no clear military or political agenda the americans tried to fullfill, the rationale the adminstration used to justify the war was:
1. We have to damage north vietnam to support the struggling south vietnam (wrong, a good deal of the instability in south vietnam was homemade).
2. Domino theory ( Actually at the beginning of the cold war south east asia was seen as a peripherial world region, this explains the halfassed support south vietnam recieved after its foundation).
3. American credibility worldwide is endagered if we let south vietnam fail.
These thoughts led to a half-assed war, in which the americans didn´t invest their full potential ( Johnson wasn´t ready to endager his social politics project of great society) and allowed the insurgency to grow and undermine south vietnam even further.
What should have happened differently to win:
1. The air war:
The airforce suggested a bombardement of the north vietnamese dikes to cause a flood catastrophy and in the long run a famine, to effectivly bomb north vietnam into submission. Johnson opposed this due to several reasons. 3/?
Instead mostly industrial and civilian targets were bombed. Not even the logistic hubs the chinese and soviets used were bombed due to the fear of an intervention of which the US was scared due to Korea. The bombardement was useless most of the time, an american study estimated that for 9 dollar invested 1 dollar of damage was done to north vietnam. The bombardment as it was employed couldn´t be successfull because there wasn´t alot of industry to bomb and the asymmetrical warfare the north vietnamese used offered no supply lines the americans were able to bomb. ( The ho chi minh trail wasn´t something the airforce was able to destroy because basically it wasn´t more than jungle paths). The bombardments the nixon adminstration employed were more successfull because the north vietnamese army deployed armored units in a conventional offensive which was reliant on stable supply lines. The airforce was able to interrupt these.
2. The usage of the ARVN:
The south vietnamese army wasn´t able to commence offensive operations due to the flaws listed above. So basically the americans only used them in defensive functions, this made them reliant and worsened the relationship between the US troops and the vietnamese population because the americans started to see all vietnamese as either vietcong or at least indifferent to the american cause.
3. The morale problem:
The leadership conveyed the troops the picture of a quick victory and a righteous cause in saving a friendly nation against communist aggressors. When faced with the true reality of the war the morale took massive hits. This in combination with a feeling of exploitation of the lower classes ( students weren´t affected y the draft) quickly lead to a decrease of morale and fighting spirit. Drug use and attrocities against enemy and ally became rampant.
4. The strategic situation
To not commence an offensive against the north made the war a lost cause. 4/5
The north wasn´t reliant on public support or democratic legislation to lead the war, so basically they were able to funnel unlimited amounts of troops and support in the south, while the americans were limited to operations in the south without a clear strategic goal to reach and end the war. It is questionable though if the guerilla war would have waged on with chinese and soviet support in a occupied north. The basic problem was that the south vietnamese adminstration wasn´t able to govern and secure the country properly, so it is a safe bet to say they would have failed in the integration of a hostile north.
- Support of the wrong horse, south vietnam wasn´t able to survive and the americans missed their window of opportunity to solve this problems
- USA to hesitant in waging the war and no clear victory conditions.
- Even if all of this problems are "fixed" (hyper agrressive USA is not positive for the world) it is questionable if victory is possible against a guerilla supported by SU and China.
When Nixon assumed office it was alraedy to late to commence a fullscale operation against cambodia. They tried a limited operation with no big success. The public oppinion simply didn´t allow for the opening of a new front.
Also: With the Khmer Rouge there would have been a new insurgency to fight. That was simply no possibility due to public oppinion.
North Vietnam could count on support of leftists communists and ALL Vietnamese nationalists since anything America would give them would be informal puppet-dictator.
Then they've lost in asymmetric warfare.
Also - trusting Harris too much. No. Mass bombing doesn't win war, especially war like Vietnam or Afghanistan.
>South Vietnam wasn't a "free Vietnam"?
It was as "free" Vietnam as Cuba was "free" before Castro.
Neither NV nor Cuba is or was some kind of specifically oppressive when compared to Eastern Germany or USSR in certain periods, yet the reason why nobody used the looseness of the regime to take power from it was that they knew that whatever comes to replace it will suck giant cock of American big companies and government effectively selling out the country and making it impoverished post-colonial shithole.
USSR staff was convinced that the remnants of USSR will survive nuclear annihilation and take over the world. Hence why they've spend far bigger part of their nuclear budget on enhancing their defensive capabilities instead of offensive ones(like Americans did, because they thought that they can annihilate USSR before they'll launch their own rockets).
Oh yeah how awful it would have ended up like South Korea instead, so horrible to not have the freedom to be enslaved by a communist party. Brotip Viets in the south still fucking hate the north and its gommunism. It was a military conquest in 1975, not a "revolution".
>Oh yeah how awful it would have ended up like South Korea instead
South Korea had a government that was supported by quite huge part of Koreans though.
They've also enacted certain, characteristic economic policies which US ignored because of strategic importance of the country. By 1960's China wasn't so much of USSR's buddy and there weren't any strategic naval bases here so this country would turn into shithole that makes most of its GDP from prostitution, human trafficking and gambling, kinda like Cuba was once.
Even more so, South Vietnam for a long time had a different culture and racial roots from the north. It used to be a Hindu, southeast Asian kingdom until it was conquered by the Buddhist/Confucian/heavily Chinese-blooded North. To this day southern and northern dialects are different to the point that it's hard for them to understand each other.
>implying South Vietnam would've been anywhere near South Korea
A modern day South Vietnam would just be Thailand 2.0, a sex tourism hotspot for Japanese and Australians. It makes me angry when people think a capitalist economy automatically grants you economic success. Nations like South Korea worked hard to get where they are now.
So what happened in Cuba is good somehow? Going from the Las Vegas of the Caribbean to the miserable place it's become now? My parents (Venezuelans) have been to Cuba quite a bit due to their jobs, Havana is a crumbling shithole where buildings built in the 40s and 50s are packed full of poor Cubans and unmaintained. Prostitution, you honk that stopped? Look up what a "jinetera" is, my dad would always have girls knocking his hotel room door trying to ho themselves out for $10 a day! Cuban women have a reputation as "jineteras" all over the Latin world. The communist party was on the brink of collapse in the 90s until Chavez won in Venezuela and started pumping them full of free oil and worse, directly giving Cuba a part of Venezuela's oil revenue.
And it was the cultural heart of the Caribbean and at least parts of it were nice. Now it's a depressing crumbling hyper slum with more hookers than ever. It's seriously depressing dude, it's the go-to place for Spanish child sex tourists. Source my dad who would give 13 year old girls that were sent up to his state-owned hotel room a dollar to just go away.
My Viet gf has friends who have actually emigrated to be Thailand, because the standard of living is quite better than in Vietnam actually. And as Cuba shows, a socialist economy is also not a guarantee that a country won't end up as a hooker/child sex beach destination.
I think being a unified nation is better than being a trashy sex tourism destination like Thailand living off of foreign subsidies. But that's my opinion and I'm not Vietnamese so I don't have an emotional stake in this.
The thing is though, "reunifying" Vietnam has always been a northern imperative. Southerners didn't give a fuck about being united with the north, they were and are culturally, linguistically, and ethnically different. Look up what Champa was.
Anon, I think your dad might've been lying to you about sending them away. Just saying.
Is there an economic difference between the two regions? Is there some xenophobia if they're more "Chinese" i.e. Cantonese? I always find it weird that there's resentment against Cantonese in Vietnam when Cantonese and Vietnamese are probably closer genetically and culturally than Cantonese and the rest of China, although suppose it makes sense when you consider something like Japan and Korea.
I don´t think so, the south vietnamese state didn´t have the support of the population therefore it wouldn´t have been able to imply meaningful reforms. If we had a capitalist vietnam today my guess is that this anon >>618865
is right. Not all US aligned states are happy and wealthy countries today. This line of thought only helps american conservatives to justify vietnam.
>Use B-52s to bomb North Vietnam into submission until they surrender.
That isn't really going to work.
>Why was America military defeated in Vietnam?
It wasn't. US Civil-Military relations were eviscerated after the Korean war, the civilian leadership was responsible for more or less all of the terrible decisions made during the Vietnam war, unlike the occupation of Iraq.
>What could USA have done differently to win the war?
They could have not elected Kennedy or Johnson.
>Were they allowed to conduct SEAD missions against North Vietnam, I think it would have been effective.
They did conduct lots of SEAD missions, losing almost half of all their thunderchiefs in the process.
>Autism The Thread
What the fuck are you people talking about? Have any of you been to Vietnam? If you haven't don't even fucking responded because anybody who has been there knows it is Las Vegas 2.0 That fucking place is the stereotype of the USA. There is no such thing as a short term war you fucking morons. War always has a lasting affect. Only time can tell if someone won or lost a war.
>b-but we lost Murican lives
Yeah and over 1.4 million congs got fucked up + 800,000 that went fucking missing. Vietnam was nothing more than an experiment. Just look at all the equipment we used and weapons. We got to see what worked and what didn't. Bunch of fucking commies in this thread.
Rocket technology was around way before the nazis even got to power. The allies had jet fighters in development throughout the war. Computers were utlilzed by the allies rather than the axis.
I see a Gremany which is in a predominant position in Europe, dictating what other EU countries do and don't do. That was what the goal was in WW2, not world domination. Ergo, Germany won.
And South Vietnam isn't around. It has no influence. It got subsumed into the north. The rescue mission was a failure.
Ok bullshit. German companies are wildly succesfull. For big companies look at car manufactureres. Otherwise google hidden champions ore german economy in general. We just produce stuff like industrial drills who aren´t commonly known.
>anybody who has been there knows it is Las Vegas 2.0 That fucking place is the stereotype of the USA
What are you talking about? Do they often have water buffalo walking on the street in Vegas?
>anybody who has been there knows it is Las Vegas 2.0 That fucking place is the stereotype of the USA
Do people often wake up at 6am to practice martial arts in the local park in Las Vegas?
>In my view the US won militarily but fucked up royally politically.
Vietnam was one of the first wars/conflicts to be televised daily, into millions of US homes. THe military underestimated the behavior/patriotism of the broadcast media. That was a major finding, when they reviewed what went wrong (in the late 70s). They have never done that since then.
Two primary dynamics. Hochiminh successfully monopolized the perception that the Vietcong represented Vietnamese ethno-nationalism AGAINST the Chinese, so we couldn't cultivate that perception. We were left with a choice once covert power via proxy failed: escalate to war with China, or withdraw. Had we pushed to China the way MacArthur wanted, it would have precluded the entire war decades ahead of time. If we had listened to Patton, the USSR never would have gotten thee bomb. Etc.
The war was unwinnable after LBJ escalated; it stopped being covert, so we never could have won hearts and minds.
We lost the PEACE.
We didn't leave troops behind to watch the borders and deter.
A Democrat congress pulled all support to SVietnam to spite Nixon.
We didn't attack NVietnam after they broke the treaty.
That was by 1968. He was firmly a powerless figurehead forced to dance for Maoists by that point.
Ho Chi Minh was always a devout REMOVE BAGUETTE (and keep out China). For most of the interwar period he had a Soviet hit on him because he was considered too nationalist. Everything came down to an independent Vietnam, Marxism was the only thing that seemed able to do that.
This anon gets it. Read something about it, the vietnamese brand of socialism was very nationalist and was embraced because it was the only ideology deemed capable of ending imperialism. Soviet advisors described the vietnamese as oddly narrow-minded and nationalist. Also it was always a narrow path between China and the Soviets. At this point both had a strong rivalry and when soviet Support started flowing the Chinese decreased their aid.
Also sino-vietnamese war, that proves the point that the vietnamese communists were pretty independent fairly well.
The Combined Action Program was implemented by the USMC in 1965. The idea was that a relatively small unit of marines along with a unit of South Vietnamese soldiers and they would be stationed at a specific village and given the responsibility of holding that area. The SV soldiers would act as interpreters while the Marines provide a degree of firepower.
CAP marines would live amongst the Vietnamese and fight against communist guerillas in a way similar to how gangs in the US might fight over territory in a city. The program was considered a resounding success: CAP units were cheap to set up, had high kill ratios, and improved US/Vietnamese relations. They were easy to support logistically because they only needed basic supplies and rarely called in air support or artillery assets. CAP marines also had higher than average casualty rates, but they were more likely to report having a positive outlook on their experiences in Vietnam.
The program represented the kind of human intelligence that the US should have been doing on a wider scale. Had CAP been implemented on a wider basis, it could have been a much different war. Unfortunately, many higher-ups did not understand the value of the program, so it was chronically under-supplied and eventually canceled altogether.
Ho Chi Minh had a hard-on for America for a long time, even though he was communist, and at one point thought that the best way to ensure Vietnam's future was to make it an American protectorate. He even tried to contact the US government to arrange that when we were fighting the Japanese together during WW2. Unfortunately, our government never really answered back because muh gommunism. Then we allied with France against their revolution and everything went to shit from there.