Did the US really stand a chance of winning in Vietnam? It was

We had plenty idea how to fight them. It's just like with Afghanistan, there's only so much progress you can make without being horrible invaders subjugating the populace. Trying to be the good guys while in a country you don't belong in is next to impossible.

If our country had far less of a conscience we could have easily gone even harder with the mines, bombing, and agent orange, but our own people wanted the troops home.

>>1187154
>It was a war unlike any other they'd fought before
Philippines. 1898-1900. With a Guerilla war that lasted up to 1916.

Lets even throw in The US-Philippine defeat of the communist insurgency there by the 60's.
>Unpredictable and unconventional
Comes with the territory since - I dunno if you know this- it's war.

Also look up Green Berets. They were trained to outguerilla the guerillas.
>How could the American military have won the Vietnam war if not by fighting it by objective based campaigns?
Attack NVA.

Problem however is escalation. But who knows how that will pan out. Probably a repeat of Korea and Vietnam divided into North and South.

The Vietcong got their shit kicked after the Tet offensive. Some believe that the NVA let it happen due to concerns that the VC might pose a threat post-war. I don't know if it would have been possible to really win the war. Both the Chinese and Russians were backing the NVA as much as they could. I think that the best case scenario would have been a Korea style split.

Well, the guerrilla stage of the war only really lasted until about 1970.

In between CORDS, Project Phoenix, and the utter ruination of the Tet Offensive, most operational Viet Cong cells ended up ruined.

The final push that took Saigon was a totally conventional armored offensive with state of the art tanks fresh from Russian factories. There simply wasn't the political will in the US to resist it.

That political will probably would have lasted a little longer if LBJ hadn't turned an advisory mission of 16,000 men into a combat mission of 550,000.

Every time the US deployed combat troops, she spent blood and treasure that the public simply didn't see the need for. And the government in Saigon never got much better.

Counterintuitively, the Vietnam War would likely have been more successful as a more limited Foreign Internal Defense mission like US involvement in Greece or the Philippines, at least until the Viet Cong was dealt with and the conventional forces started pouring in. Unlike guerrillas, strategic bombing can and will keep a conventional military from achieving their objectives.

>>1187154
Total war. We were unwilling to commit to total war, so it dragged out until it lost the will of the people to continue, we left, the south fell.

We killed 3,500,000 gooks and demonstrated to Red China and the USSR that we would put boots on the ground in their backyard.

That lesson saved Yurop.

So, fuck the French for drawing us in; fuck the French for bailing; and fuck Europe for not having the grace to say "thanks".

If they assisted the French against the Viet Minh with full blown carpet bombing it would have ended it.

File: America Fuck Yeah.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>1187194
Holy shit this post. I'm literally howling!

>>1187154
It was about containing communism. Communism ism did not expand.

>>1187194
Murricans never seem able to understand what the war was about. Total war with North Vietnam was out of the question because it had too high of a risk of drawing China in. Total war against South Vietnam is what lots of Murricans wanted which is bizarre considering we were there to protect South Vietnam, not fuck it up beyond repair.

>>1187154
Sure, but that chance was squandered the minute America demonstrated it had no idea how to set up a regime in South Vitnam that was simultaneously stable, friendly, and democratic.

Without an entity that was capable of standing on its own without American military presence, the war was unwinnable.

>>1187194
AFAIK you didn't set foot in neither China nor USSR.

And fear of fighting the two again was what prolonged the Vietnam War since USA cant attack NVA directly due to Chink and Ivan.

>>1187154
>How could the American military have won the Vietnam war if not by fighting it by objective based campaigns?
By engaging in lawfare in support of the RoV.

>>1187206
Because you're fucking retarded. The North has already said that they were waiting for surrender terms after their failed Tet Offensive.

Maybe read a book.

>>1187228
Then we go total war with China.

I don't think you motherfuckers know what time it is.

>>1187256
Which is why the negotiations under the Johnson administration worked and the US didn't need another 4 years of war.

OH WAIT

>>1187244
They sent men to Viet Nam, and we killed them too.

3,500,000 dead gooks are wondering what they "won".

>>1187261
Tet Offensive '68. Nixon elected '68.

Read a fucking history book.

>>1187154

Invading is easy
Occupation of resisting natives is hard

There wasn't a thing the US could do, they acted brutally and with tech superiority, even if they had gone full firebombing it wouldn't have helped due to jungle.

Best way to win woulf have been to never fight and instead ramp up coorporation with friendly states instead of bombing them and basically spreading the narrative of communist rebellion against imperialist gaijin

>>1187256
>>1187273
>read a book
>Read a fucking history book
Yanks are so funny when they're mad.

>>1187256
One NVA general said that just to fluff the Americans up. The Tet Offensive was disastrous for the native South Vietnamese Vietcong forces, not so much for the overall situation when they could send NVA regulars to replace retarded pajamas guerillas.

If the Americans had applied pressure after the failure of the Tet Offensive, the outcome probably still would've been the same.

>>1187316
>send NVA regulars
>NVA regulars don't have the support network
>NVA regulars need to bring supplies south with them
>supplies come from factories and ports and railways
>factories and ports and railways can be bombed

This is incidentally why Linebacker 2 worked and Rolling Thunder didn't.

>>1187194

We have to thank you for genociding 3.5 million gooks? Jesus christ America

>>1187208

Communism most certainly did expand you retard. Ever heard of the Khmer Rouge? The whole country of Vietnam is communist to this day. There are literally hammer and sickle flags flying in the street.

>>1187316
NVA lost every single offensive action they took at Tet. They were done. They blew their wad and lost everywhere, badly.

The dinks in the south? Well, you can't choose what kind of people populate your battlefields, can you.

>>1187331
You're welcome.

File: Cc5SlbVW4AAvBUt.jpg (49KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x375px

>>1187161

>Trying to be the good guys
>What is the agent orange

>>1187444
A defoliant.

It defoliates the shit out of people.

>>1187444
We could've sprayed more.

File: Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-damage-Vietnam.jpg (23KB, 450x358px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 450x358px

>>1187450
It does indeed.

Jesus fucking christ.

>>1187461
>Agent Orange
Is that his new nickname?

>>1187457
Congratulations. You managed not to spray the whole fucking country with a defoliant. Want a nobel prize?

>>1187258

So China can join in a whoop our ass back, just like repeat of Korea? Yeah sounds like a solid tactic. One that's already been tried and failed before.

>>1187467
I laughed.

>>1187472
You fucking idiot, you've completely lost track of what you're arguing.

We left Vietnam without hurting them as much as we could. That's why we weren't as successful as we could've been. We held back, faggot, and our citizens still wanted us home.

While the United States inflicted some heavy damage on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, it wasn't nearly the full extent of our military might. Maybe in terms of logistics, but not actual firepower.

>>1187490
>We could have sprayed more.
Yes. It wouldn´t have been good, but you could have.

Also, I never said that the US left Viet Nam hurting them as much as they could. You could have always nuked the fucking country to dust.

>>1187513
>You could have always nuked the fucking country to dust.

Yep, so we agree against OP >>1187154
Vietnam could absolutely have been taken down.

>>1187525
But I wasn´t talking to OP
I was talking to the guy who said that the U.S tried to be good with the population. They weren´t.

File: 1313346644283.jpg (55KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 550x550px

>>1187208
>Communism did not expand
>South Vietnam got annexed by North Vietnam
>Communism also spread to the rest of former French Indochina.

I think you'll find communism did in fact expand.

>>1187154
>Did the US really stand a chance of winning in Vietnam?
Yes and no. If the war had been escalated into full-scale invasion and pacification of the North, it was certainly winnable. The issue is that this was unfeasible for two reasons. One, direct U.S. intervention into the North would mean direct COMBLOC intervention. Two, the US was stretched thin throughout the Vietnam Era. For example, almost half of U.S. draftees were sent to Europe and much of the new equipment such as the M60 Patton were sent there as well. Another good chunk were sent to Latin America, Africa, or kept home in the U.S. As an example here, Johnson asked his advisors every day if they thought an invasion of Cuba was possible and when they thought it would be. There was never a full involvement in Vietnam simply because there couldn't have been. Precluding these shortcomings, the war was absolutely winnable. The reality is that they couldn't be ignored.

>>1187161
>Trying to be the good guys
That was never the plan at all.

>>1187461
Sad uncle Fester

>>1187444
Did nothing wrong

>>1187475
They can't hide in the jungles if you nuke the jungles

Why didn't they just do what they did in the Philippines? Round up everyone in the country in concentration camps and state that anyone caught outside the camps by a certain date would be shot.

No china was always seen as a threat despite bad relations with vietnam, so US didn't want to antagonize them. US stood a chance of avoiding war of McCarthy didn't indict, fire, and imprison the entire Vietnam and east Asia section of the state department after China went communist. Literally we went into Vietnam blind.

>>1187169
Green berets train locals. You might be thinking of lrrp/rangers, but you may misunderstanding the war.

Straight up nornal divisions like the first infantry would have 400 men just chilling in the middle of fucking nowhere looking to kill nva going through. In addition, theyd amass several thousand men and open battles did take place during vietnam.

>>1190377
Cept this time china had nukes

>>1187161
We weren't trying to be the good guys or fighting in South Vietnam out of the kindness of our heart.

>>1187178
Then again, it also would still have led to South Vietnam's fall.

Instead of a 7 year brutal war, we would have had a 20 year war where South Vietnam still would have lost.

Much like in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.

>>1187194
Considering South Vietnam was neither China nor the Soviets "backyard", and arguably, was our backyard since we supported the 1954 agreement and backed South Vietnam... You are a retard.

>>1187256
>this meme again

Vietnam War memes on /his/ and /k/

1. We never really tried!
2. HCM wasn't even a communist!
3. We could have nuked them!
4. They were about to surrender!
5. We didn't lose! It was the Democrats stopping the funding!
6. We signed the Paris Peace treaty! That proves we won!
7. McDonald's in Hanoi = Victory
8. Muh Kill/Death ratio!
9. We stopped the spread of Communism!
10. Vietnamese people are pro-American so we won in the long-run!

>>1190381
Honestly, free fire zones in Vietnam were similar to that.

>>1187266
>>1187194
>On a visit to Vietnam Senator Hollings from Westmoreland’s home state of South Carolina was told by Westmoreland: “We’re killing these people,” the enemy, “at a ratio of 10 to 1.” Said Hollings, “Westy, the American people don’t care about the ten. They care about the one.”
No wonder our country continues to find itself dragged into drawn out, shitty military occupations. We just don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes. This must be where the "history repeats itself" idea comes from.

>>1187154

>There are people on /his/ who actually believe that the US lost the Vietnam War.

Don't you guys know about the Paris Peace Accords?

>>1194368
More like most people are stupid.
Especially the ones that think they are not.

>>1194499
>>1192269

>>1194515
Number 6 is factual gook

File: Patrick_Star.png (95KB, 345x460px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 345x460px

>>1187461

>>1187154
>Did the US really stand a chance of winning in Vietnam?

yeah....support the North.

If you believe Colonel David Hackworth, then yes the US could've won militarily if they focused on "out-G-ing the G". He led the 4/39 Infantry in Vietnam and in his book "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" he describes turning them from a festering pile of shit into a feared unit among the VC by adopting their methods and going on aggressive patrols & raids to catch them on their asses.

Basically he accused the US leadership (chiefly the Army generals) of not seriously adapting appropriate tactics in order to become more effective and raise morale. He was also very critical of the ARVN and their leadership as well, noting that VC always had the drop on his guys if they tried coordinating with the ARVN. I don't remember how he approached the issue of civilians, so I bet that's a weak point in his argument for the prosecution of the war. Anyways he eventually got fed up and realized there was no way the US would win at that point, so he called for a withdrawal.

imo if we did that from the outset there might've eventually been some tenuous ceasefire a la DPRK & ROK, but otherwise the US was fucked by public opinion on the part of Vietnamese and Americans alike. As bad as the ROK was in the beginning I can't think of a shittier US proxy state than South Vietnam, it almost seemed destined to fail.

>>1194527
Yes and North Vietnam signed it as well.
Did they win also?

>>1192269
It was like a fat kid bootyblasting his opponents in an online game and then quitting because his mom says he spends too much time on the computer, and his opponents declaring victory.

>>1194608
>quitting halfway through doesn't equal losing

>>1194613
It's not just quitting, it's why and how you quit. People at home getting tired of the war is monumentally different from getting bootyblasted on the battlefield.

File: 1432710070385.jpg (23KB, 489x488px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 489x488px

>>1187331
>The whole country of Vietnam is communist to this day. There are literally hammer and sickle flags flying in the street.
Yes, and china is still "communist" too.

>>1190381

Show me a source that that the campaign against the Huks involved concentration camps and genocide.

I've read Ramon Magsaysay's handling of this, and it involved a ton of forgiveness, reeducation and reform of the local police structure and military tactics, with the help of MURRCIAAAAAAAAAAAA, FUCK YEAH, not concentration camps and shit.

It was so good that when one of the top Huks surrendered, they basically said, "fuck the government, I'm surrendering to Magsaysay".

>>1194618

Doesn't that mean that the reason why America pulled out was a political reason and not a military one?

>>1194660
Yes it does.

>>1194618
>quitting isn't losing if you quit on your terms
and I'm sure when you took your ball and went home everyone agreed you were the best footballer of them all

>>1194654
He's referring to the Philippine American War. They did concentration camps there. But in its most literal form (i.e. place where we can watch people).
>>1190381
Because the lollocaust happened and doing anything remotely similar is the quickest way to kill yourself in the geopolitical sphere.

>>1187154

Amerifats didn't lose the war because it was unpredictable or whatever. They lost it because they are amateurs and dropped half the bombs on themselves.

>>1194684
I'm not saying it's not losing, but it's quite a stretch to say they got BTFO by the Vietnamese, because they fucking didn't.

>>1187467
>>1190015
>>1194540
Even for 4chan you are some heartless bastards

>>1187154
>they had no idea how to fight a force as unpredictable and unconventional as the NVA and Vietcong was.
lmao no

>>1194618
it absolutely isn't, economy, diplomacy and politics are as important parts or war as direct combat. It isn't important how many battles you win, only important thing is achieving your objectives.

>>1194625
Vietnam is more communist economically than China.
Also, Communism isn't just economics.

>>1194660
There's no such difference between military and political reasons in war.
The Tet offensive was a tactical failure by the NVA, but a strategic victory because it was a massive propaganda coup for them.

The war affects domestic and international politics. You can't separate out the two. At least in America our politicians are the ones who decide the war, not our military.

>>1187154

Waging a war based around how many you kill instead of taking strategic positions and pushing the war into North Vietnam pretty much killed the chance of victory from the start, especially when the enemy didn't give a flying fuck about their own casualty rates to begin with.

>>1195195
Actually Vietnam just plain followed the China model.

When China pulled that "State Capitalism" bullshit it offered a way out to the world's surviving communists.

>>1194704
Anyone that's not baiting agrees.

Doesn't mean we didn't lose and they didn't win though.

>>1195215
Look at ease of business rankings senpai.

Vietnam may have caught up more recently, but it has always been underperforming and underreforming compared to China.

There's a reason their stockmarket is worth $20 billion compared to China's $7 trillion, and it's not just difference in economic size.

Vietnam doesn't even have "developing nation" investment status with the MSCI. Which is why they don't get as much investment. They are still extremely restrictive, even compared to China.

>the US will never square off with China once and for all to decide who the true ideology in an earth-shaking final world war

>>1195230
Fuck you

If you want to die just kill yourself, why do you want everyone to suffer with you

>>1195235
Millions suffer under Chinas culture and government
Millions suffer under US' culture and government
Let's see whose suffering led to a stronger nation

>>1195230
What true ideology? They're both capitalists mooching off each other.

>>1195273
America is the individualistic ethos and progressivism and China is Han Chauvinism and Confucianism (collectivism)

>>1195273
Commie bastards who decided to stop being commies doesn't stop them from being bastards

>>1187154
>open thread
>It Ain't Me starts playing

>>1195195
Lmao Vietnam has the greatest popular support for markets in the world. Although you are right it's not fully market based ( where markets work best of course). But with the Doi Moi reforms they set on the path to riches through markets and cleared up the worst of the economic failures.

>>1187154
Politically no. The moment we would have invaded northern vietnam would have been the moment china and russia called up and invaded every neighboring capitalist country that was easy pickings in retaliation.

Militarily yes, invade north vietnam.

However with such a small conflict who in their right mind wanted such a retarded amount of escalation?

Let's see. Before the Paris Peace Accords (ceasefire) American KIA 58,307, NVA (low estimate deaths) 500,000. (This doesn't count civilians).

9:1 Kill/Death ratio, then ceasefire.

>buh murca loost

Seems legit.

>>1187258
>total war
>with the chink blender
Oh anon, even if the chinese lined up unarmed in front of the army it would take years to shoot them all dead.

China is so large and has such a huge population its retarded to invade. The best you can do is try to cause civil war and then go nuts when the population is already killing eachother.

That and half of china is unoccupied except for villages, believe it or not.

Total war with china would need to be a full blown nuclear holocaust to be effective. Since invading it is so rediculously difficult.

Or you are retarded and dont know how politics and military logistics work and you wont care what I post.

>>1195952
I think you greatly overestimate Chinese nationalistic enthusiasm. The south hates the north and the west hates both. There would not be some innumerable number of bodies lined up to fight a legitimate aggressor. Half the country would splinter and eat itself.

>>1194660
This

>>1195981
I mentioned nothing of nationalism
In a country so big with such varying terrain with (even factions) that can field a million gooks it would still be utter chaos.

However you raise a point that a conflict would lead to civil war. Which to be honest im not entirely sure of. Knowing chinas history of warlordism and splintering the country every few generations its possible. However I usually assume the worse in that the party may be able to hold the country together.

However if your right then china is surprisingly collapsable, still not the total war invasion the other guy talked about but more of a great power political victory for a side you want to win. Which to be honest would be a better idea than total war anyways.

>>1196008
>>1195952
I don't get the

>MUH MANPOWER MEME

It's pretty useless when you use a superior firepower doctrine like the Shock and Awe doctrine the US generally uses prior to invasion.

>>1196017
>manpower
>useless
This isnt the 1800s. Shock and awe no longer wins wars. Occupation and economic ruin does.

>>1196036
Confirmed for not even understanding what I was talking about or what superior firepower doctrine is. There's a reason the U.S. occupied the entirety of Iraq in two weeks: shock and awe decimated any military resistance to the point where initial occupation saw minimal resistance. Good to see you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about though.

>>1196046
>occupied the entirety of iraq in two weeks
Good thanks for agreeing with me. Occupation won.

>>1196055
>being this much of a strawmanning cunt
Allow me to break this down so you understand:

>Iraq has shit tons of manpower
>US bombs them to shit for three days destroying all key military targets and wiping out much of the manpower
>Invades unresisted

>BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO CHINA AND MUH OCCUPATION ;_;

Faggot

>>1195952
Fuck 'em.

>>1187154
Maybe if US wants to invest couple hundred thousand more soldier's life.

>>1196046
>>1196063
The USA clowned the command and control structure of Iraq in days. The USA never effectively destroyed the command and control of the North Vietnamese Army over the entire conflict.

>>1187154
We won the war we were fighting in Vietnam.

It was a tactical victory when we got the north to sign a peace treaty.

But our ultimate goal was a strategic failure when the north invaded again while we stood by and watched.

>>1196063
So what your saying is that you cant understand that the firepower is the tool while the occupation and economic ruin is the end goal.

And now lets even go back another post.
You just said that the bombing destroyed iraqs manpower. But you said earlier manpower was a meme.
So your not only mad but now going back on your original point.
You are a fantastic debater for your enemies.

>ITT amerifats in denial
>>1192269
underrated post.

>>1196077
The US didn't bomb Hanoi until very late in the war and never invaded North Vietnam. Hard to destroy C&C if you don't bomb the capital or sow any real disarray.

>>1196081
Manpower is a meme because of superior firepower doctrine. It's literally a direct counter. It's not rocket appliances anon. Keep shucking and jiving the actual argument, though. Manpower doctrine is useless in the 21st century. Like you said, it's not the 19th century anymore.

>>1196097
Now find a way to economically destroy key chinese targets.
The big thing is this.
China has a huge military. This comes with a huge air force.
Bombers will need escorts, and the fast fire doctrine with that runs into a wall.
Stealth bombers maybe but you cant win a war off of those alone.

Even if they flood the sky with migs now you have to wade through the mess of metal in the sky.

Lets talk about land invasion.
Sea landings near beijing are difficult, not impossible but with so much manpower they can field a lot of craft. Lets say that you do land. Now you have to land an amount that could occupy beijing and deal with a massive army whose command structure you cannot ensure is destroyed.

Shell them from shore? This isnt sandniggerstan, they will have a way of firing back.

The big thing is the heavy firepower doctrines are nice, but it doesnt automatically win you battles whenever the enemy has so much land and so many people. Because in order to secure a victory you have to occupy everything thats important, and as a country grows that means you need to occupy more.

The best victory we could get from china is destroying their economy. If war breaks out and we can enforce an embargo on chinese money and goods thats what will lead the prc party collapse. Then your doctrine works because the country is fragmented and the command structure isnt there.

You still fail to realize that this isnt a small desert nation with a population density along basically only a river. This is a nation which can comfortably house dozens of nations.

Just killing gooks never works, look at any war in chinese history.

They won those wars through occupation and economic ruin.

Iraq was won through occupation and economic ruin.

Ww2 was won through occupation and economic ruin

Russias conflict with georgia was won with occupation and economic ruin.

And you need manpower to not only resist that but to occupy as well. You still need to hold onto territories you capture

Yeah who the fuck cares about manpower, like look at north korea, they have millions of conscripts, but it won't help during an actual war when they get mowed down by helicopters and cluster bombs. What makes NK a threat is all the artillery massed right next to seoul. This isn't the old days of human wave attacks

>>1196155
>This comes with a huge air force
The US has three airforces larger than China's. The first two more than double the size of the Chinese airforce. Go be a chinkaboo somewhere else.

>>1196220
Despite that you should always assume the worst and prepare for it.
Writing it off as shelling and done is irresponsible

>>1196247
>Have more fighters in the USAF alone than the total of Chinese combat aircraft
>Obviously China wins because you say
I'm gonna go with that other anon and repeat my initial statement: Chinkaboo fuck off

>>1187154
They would have won if they were allowed to actually push into N. Vietnam with ground troops.

>>1196265
Never said they win. I only said that assuming anything but the worst is irresponsible.

Look at my previous posts. They give terms for winning against china without even lifting a finger. Does that mean they win? You had a point for a split second then lost it because you cannot read.

What assuming the worst means is that you can prepare for all eventualities and win no matter what may happen.
If you are shortsighted no matter what advantahe you have you will lose.

I bet you learned military straregy from a civ game.

File: removecommie.jpg (298KB, 773x1033px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 773x1033px

>>1187194
Thanks, now come and save us from Podemos.

>>1187154
Yeah bro, we totally won it. Would've won it in mean. Fucking commies man. The fucking chinks, they cheated. It wasn't fair. I watched this one veteran who said we could've easily won if we didn't make a strategical mistake, so we basically won.

Actually, we are rich and they are poor, so we also won. America #1.

Fucking commies.

>>1197261
You were rich and they were poor before the war m8. You have to look at who had the largest growth after the war.