How the fuck the USA managed to lose a war to Vietnam?

>>2224412
Stabbed in the back by (((internationalist)))

>1.1 million dead screamin' gooks
>lose

File: 1423801117939.jpg (39KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 436x436px

>>2224416
I seem to recall the official name of the country is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

File: 1416825913636.cached[1].jpg (610KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 2000x1333px

>>2224412
War is dependent on material and human resources yes, but war also a battle of wills.

What is the importance of Vietnam to the US?
Very small. It was never even particularly important to the general plan of containing communism in Asia, but they thought they had to stop it because >muh domino effect
Given that, how much were americans willing to sacrifice to win this war?
A few thousands of deaths were too much.

What about Vietnam? This was their war of independence, the war that would win them their freedom to decide their own destiny.
A million casualties was a fair price.

Of course better equipment and technology make a difference. Of course the Soviets and Chinese supplying the Vietnamese was important. But the difference between the two was still too huge, and that's why the American defeat is explained by the difference in will to fight.
The US thought material superiority would be enough to force their will upon a weaker enemy despite their own unwillingness to make sacrifices.
They got blown the fuck out.

>>2224416
By that reasoning the Germans kicked America's ass in WWII.

>>2224467
yes

>>2224416
This, basically.

>>2224467
America actually had a positive K/D though.

That would be a valid point if you said Soviets, but America had the money to smother every sign of resistance with artillery fire.

>>2224412
Same way Soviet union lost the war with afganistan.

>>2224496
stinger missiles?

>>2224416
>>2224491
>>2224495
>they thinks K/D matter

America didn't lose the war in Vietnam

>>2224412
US Media > US Armed Forces > Commie Gook Collection of Armed Forces

>>2224465
>They got blown the fuck out
No, they didn't. The NVA was on the ropes, the VC ceased to exist as an entity, Hanoi and Haiphong were smoldering craters (thanks Nixon for actually doing what the Air Force and Navy had been asking to do for 8 fucking years) and the physical effects of the war are still felt in Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia) TO THIS DAY. The U.S. wasn't BTFO in any measure and the Paris Peace Accords being forced onto North Vietnam is pretty good proof of that. It was hamstrung by politicians in the highest offices, anti-war civilians, and a biased media coverage of the war and unwillingness to support South Vietnam in any way when the conflict resurfaced despite being under treaty obligation to do so.

>>2224547
Please let's not start the semantics HURR IT WAS SOUTH VIETNAM THAT LOST! NURR HURR IT WAS ACTUALLY THE UNITED STATES! The US backed side lost. That's what matters.

>>2224416
War isn't Call of Duty.

>>2224557

>The US backed side lost.

No, the US signed a peace accord with North Vietnam and pulled out of the south. After they pulled out the North Invaded the South again.

It's not like the US decided to take its toys away after they couldn't subdue North Vietnam. The North was happy to go to the bargaining table as soon as the US started bombing Northern infrastructure.

File: CIGS-no-YT-2.jpg (310KB, 887x589px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 887x589px

Have you ever been to the jungle?

I've been to that shit. I saw a centipede so big i could hear it walking, even today i can never walk around grass without having PTSD with flashbacks from that abyss monster.

The jungle is fucked up, man.

>>2224557
The US completely failed to achieve it's political objectives.
The Paris Peace accords were a farce to save face.

>but muh bombs
Didn't achieve any political goal.

They went in there mocking their small weewees. But they forgot about the sweetcunts that also live there. #thenamxxx#veterantraumacounsellors

>>2224412

Balance of commitment outweighing material advantage. It wasn't the first time such had happened, and would hardly be the last. Hell, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan is basically the same thing.

>>2224495

The Soviets actually employed more artillery than the Americans did in WW2. Not as effectively on a per shell basis, but on volume of fire, they had us beat out.

>>2224576
>After they pulled out the North Invaded the South again
Two years after.

>It's not like the US decided to take its toys away after they couldn't subdue North Vietnam
Clarify. If you mean that the U.S. didn't pull almost everything out of South Vietnam and stopped supplying them because of people like Al Gore, sr., you're wrong.

>>2224584
>The Paris Peace accords were a farce to save face
No, they were not.

>Didn't achieve any political goal
Achieved the goal of bringing North Vietnam back to the table they had walked away from, which was the whole purpose of the Linebacker II campaign. Do you actually know anything about the Vietnam War or do you just spout the usual myths?

>>2224586
Can you imagine (me) how fn hrny they were, all on acid at the landing, then those sweet bitches all crawling forth... #vetman

>>2224529
Well weapons in general. Soviets gave vietnam plenty of AKs themselves.

>>2224412
we didnt lose we killed the most chinks

>>2224594

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150424

>This was no mere passing doubt. On his first full day in office, he'd asked military, diplomatic and intelligence officials how soon the South would be able to handle the Communists on its own. The answer was unanimous: never. The Joint Chiefs, CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and the U.S. military commander in Vietnam, General Creighton W. Abrams, all agreed that Saigon, "even when fully modernized," would not survive "without U.S. combat support in the form of air, helicopters, artillery, logistics and major ground forces." (Emphasis added.)

>>2224412
Everyone who fought the NVA lost. France, South Vietnam, Cambodia, China, the anti-Commie insurgents, the US-led alliance. They were simply very good at leveraging their strengths and exploiting enemy weakness. In this case, the US government being beholden to public opinion.

The Americans and their Allies at least killed 1 million Commie troops and did way better than the French or Chinese, who were flat-out routed from the country in setpiece battles.

>>2224594
>Achieved the goal of bringing North Vietnam back to the table they had walked away from
Which ultimately makes no political difference. It just allowed the US to walk away less humiliated.

The same way the British managed to lose a war to the American colonists.

File: 1484141739059.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

Not nuking hanoi

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!

>>2224576
When the US pulled out, North Vietnam and the VC controlled 40% of South Vietnam in clear violation of the peace treaty.

>>2224607
>or Chinese, who were flat-out routed from the country in setpiece battles.
Chinese controlled about 5% of Vietnam at the end of their operation.

>>2224412
Vietnam lost that war. The real (Southern) Vietnam that is.

>>2226068
>we
What about us non-Americans who think USA didn't really lose?

>>2226093
I don't see the issue with what I posted.

We goes for everyone

>>2226092
South Vietnam was a US puppet state. Not even sovereign or internationally recognized.

Simple we had no home/public support for the war so our moral dropped

We severely underestimated the enemies ability to wage a guerrilla war thus turning into a surprising bloody conflict

And 90% of our tactics were "let's just try and bomb them till they surrender", which all edge aside, wouldn't have worked unless we did drop the nuke

And if you really want to be that assholes yes we never officially declared war on Vietnam, but that doesn't change why we lost (muh tactical retreat)

The Soviets went ahead and did the same shit in Afghanistan

File: 16486799162_efc3c0564a_b[1].jpg (101KB, 944x650px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 944x650px

>defeated and broken by the American war machine, Vietnamese soldiers go for a ride around Ho Chi Minh City, former Saigon

>>2226173
>that guy with the phone
"No, this is patrick"

itt: american damage control

>>2226134
>South Vietnam was a US puppet
>implying North Vietnam wasn't a Soviet puppet
Might as well say it was a war between the US and the USSR and the Russians won

>>2226175
Epic meme, bro. Kill yourself.

>>2226182
That was the american perception, which was proved more or less wrong as the vietnamese had their own regional ambitions and remained relevant even after the soviet collapse while being at odds with China since much earlier.

>>2226221
So what? Cuba was also a Soviet puppet that outlived the USSR?

>>2226225
Cuba wasn't a puppet state either.

>>2226235
Yeah it pretty much was.

we won at one point (paris peace accords) but then we changed our mind i am not sure

>>2224416
>>2224602

>B-BUT MUH K/D RATIO

lmoa

>>2226240
Castro set that shit up all on his own.
Sure he aligned with the Soviets, but his position was not thanks to them, nor did it depend on them.

>>2226262
His foreign policy at least was 100% directed by Moscow.

>>2226262
Not the other poster, but you can make a more convincing argument that Cuba was a Soviet puppet as comapred to Vietnam.

But distance matters. The Soviets never had a serious blue water navy that could match the USN, so the fact that Cuba was an ocean away, and that Vietnam was seperated from the USSR by an increasingly hostile former ally matters. Compare that to North Korea, which was a puppet in almost every way.

China had no reason to stop sending troops over the border, american public didnt support the war.

>>2224576
>No, the US signed a peace accord with North Vietnam and pulled out of the south. After they pulled out the North Invaded the South again.
They knew this would happen

>>2224547
Germany didn't lose WW2

>>2224557
DOLCHSTOSS!

>>2224557
>The NVA was on the ropes, the VC ceased to exist as an entity
if this was true then why could the fighting be heard from Saigon for months before the US departure?

>>2224557
US was BTFO in classic way.
Try to hold till the end, until heat came to embassy itself.

>>2226451
Well he was right about VC. They factually ceased to exist by '69 because they were eradicated, after that NVA was responsible for all of the action.

File: Marten's_Poltava.jpg (17KB, 300x190px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x190px

>>2224557
yes, they were blown the fuck out. the anihilation of entire wings of b-52s by SAMs on operation linebacker II were as costly as the battles on the mig alley back in the korean war.

as clausewitz-anon pointed out, it was a battle of wills. the paris peace accords is a proof that vietnam was on the brink of extinction as well as the incapacity of the us of using its air power to force anything unto anyone.

how did france and china?

>>2224600

Random fact - i read on a survivalist forum years ago from a Vietnam vet that AK's were pretty rare and that Mosin Nagants and SKS's were (the former) way more common

I was pretty surprised. Always think of the m16 vs AK meme

>>2226092
North: ruled by Ho Chi Minh and his successors, incredibly popular amongst the peasant masses
South: ruled by whatever foreign backed general is most favourable to France/America, only popular with the rich and (sometimes) catholics

>>2224541
lmao this. real life isn't fcking call of duty

>>2226844
>>2224541
This. Honestly while I understand a lot of the points Vietnam war apologists bring up, the K/D argument is inexcusably retarded for several reasons:

1. Many cultures flat out don't value human life as much as Americans do. Americans do elaborate rescue missions for every retarded soldier while the Russians outright didn't give a shit and had a batallion clear a minefield by walking through it.
2. Overall, nothing matters more than achieving the objective and outfragging your opponent in casualties like it's a videogame is hardly ever the objective.

For the same reason they failed in Iraq. Because of the rise of visual media and instantaneous reporting, generals, at the behest of politicians, were forced to adopt strategies that minimize casualties. Soldiers are at their most vulnerable when they're stationary and guarding things or territory, so this meant that forces needed to always be on the move and always be on the offensive. The problem with this is you never actually make progress in a war unless you can hold territory, the troops come in, clear out the area and then move on leaving nobody to hold the hard won objective. All the enemy needs to do is run away and wait for the Americans to leave and then retake whatever town they were fighting over. This has huge morale implications both for the troops who never feel like they're winning anything and for the enemy civilian populations that Americans are trying to win over, because why would you cooperate with the Americans when they're not going to guarantee safety and you just know they're going to leave and let the enemy retake the town?

The only way to really rectify this is to heavily censor wartime reporting like they did in every other war before Vietnam because then the politicians wouldn't be so worried about elections and civilian backlash, which enables them to loosen the reign on the generals.

>>2224416
t. American lindybbeige

>our druggies got an extended trip abroad

>>2226890
Well, Iraq was objectively conquered, Saddam was deposed and executed, and an US-approved government was installed. The fact they pulled out years later is irrelevant. So it's a completely different situation than Vietnam.

>>2226383
>China had no reason to stop sending troops over the border
Is it true that Chink sent troops to participate in the war?

>>2226245
Great meme!

The second term of the Paris Peace Accords is that the NVA and Viet Cong must withdraw from South Vietnam.
And yet the day the US began withdrawing in accord with the treaty, 40% of South Vietnam was in NVA/Viet Cong hands

>>2226383
Wrong

>>2227654
It's obviously incorrect. May have happened once or twice on accident, but the Chinese only provided arms/aid support.

>>2224412

Vietnam was a real Dolchstoß

The army was undefeated,the pople lost the will to fight.

>>2228086
>>2226383
>>2227654
>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/46743/CHINA-ADMITS-IT-SENT-TROOPS-TO-FIGHT-THE-US-IN-VIETNAM.html

They sent over 300K soldiers, mainly to bolster the number of North Vietnam. They ofcourse dismissed the claims when US wanted to know if China was involved. However the US intelligence were well aware of their involvement. If they hadn't then America would've easily taken the entirety of Vietnam without much issue.

However, China wasn't there entirely to help the North Vietnam. They were also there to keep Vietnam in check in case they became too powerful. They also were there to keep Soviet Union from building too much relation with Vietnam.

This can be attested with the China invading Vietnam shortly after to prove their point.

>>2228158
>desertetnews

Not a fucking credible source. Kill yourself retard

>Keep Vietnam in check in case they got too powerful
Wow you are so retarded

>>2226495
They were FACTUALLY active until 1975. Kill yourselves you stupid /his/ shitposters

God I fucking hate this crappy board.

>>2226900
Did you forget the whole April 2003-March 2011 part?

Such a success!

File: Battle of Bach Dang 1288.jpg (55KB, 500x324px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x324px

>>2224412
>How the fuck did the Mongolian Empire managed to lose a war to Vietnam?

>>2228217
No they weren't. It existed only on paper to give the communists an additional signatory during the negotiations, they got absolutely crushed years before the war ended.

The Americans lost because it wasn't our homeland and most of the war was through guerrilla warfare, giving the vietnamese an advantage, another reason and the most important reason is because they had more will to win, they lost more men but still won because they cared more than we did, it was their home and they would practically all die if it meant gaining liberation from the french.

The US never lost a battle in the Vietnam war. Even the Te Offensive--where scumbag Walter cronkite infamously said that he "did not see how the war was winnable" after that, was actually a resounding victory for the US. The VC.NVA were turned back everywhere. There was, briefly, a hole made in the fence of the US Embassy, and both intruders were killed quickly.

The battle of Khe Sanh which followed was also a complete route by the US forces. As William Westmoreland famously said, the NYT was "the equivalent of a 5th column" and "worth as much as 100 enemy divisions on the field."

Do you know something very interesting? The US has now been at war for 12 years, and there has been no peace movement at all among the public or media or in academia.

Now, why would you supposed that is? I have my own theory, but I'll let people figure out out for themselves.

addendum: Once the press managed to force Nixon from office over nothing (he won by one of he greatest landslides in US history) in began to embolden the NVA, because they were literally terrified of Nixon and saw it as their opportunity to make their move as soon as the concerted case of press harassment managed to push him out of office.

But, the festoon still remains. Why do you think it is that one group in the Usually noted for their cynicism and irreverence suddenly takes their hat hat, begins singing the star-pangled banner and glares at anyone who isn't singing loudly enough? No huge, communist demonstrations for peace in DC, NYC...NOTHING...strange. Almost as if, when the interests on one particular group in the middle east are threatened and Us military action is seen as useful to the ultimate goals of that group, they can call off their dogs.

Very strange.

>>2228258
[Credible citation needed]

>>2228411
Not my problem you're uneducated

>>2228316
>The US never lost a battle in the Vietnam war.

Factually wrong and inaccurate

>>2228414
>ad hominem

>>2228205
Chinese don't want a powerful Vietnam that's aligned with Soviet Union.

This was the during the breakup of China/Russia relations.

>>2228419
No spoonfeeding.

>>2228205
Wait how is Deseret News not credible?

t. not that anon

File: family tree.png (428KB, 1597x963px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1597x963px

>>2224496
t. idiot who underestimates the Afghan

Look at this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brydon

Reagan played a small part, thanks to our strong Aryan blood we are basically the best fighters on the planet.

Note: fuck islam and fuck the radicals who got rid of the soviets. Fuck communism too, Afghanistan was best as a kingdom and a republic

It did its purpose of securing support for Johnson in office for the first 4 years of his presidency, what a shitty president.

>>2228415
>Factually wrong and inaccurate
OK, please give the name of a single battle the US lost. an actual "military battle," not an ambush were 2-3 people were killed. You won't find one. Nothing is funnier to me than people who come on here and speak didactically without knowing ass from elbow. Very basic study-- don't speak didactically unless you know something. And you are quite simply wrong.

The first actual "battle" of the Vietnam was was Operation Starlight (originally named "Satellite,"it was mistyped due to a blackout 2 nights before).

I repeat, the US never lost a battle in Vietnam in the military sense of the word where an opposing army stood and fought.

>>2228715
The US never lost a battle in Iraq either.

>hurr durr the guerillas don't count because they make us lose

But they're the reason why you lost the war. You can't just cherrypick the parts of the war where you were successful and ignore the fact that YOU LOST.

Yes, that's right! You lost a war, American! Cry. Cry harder! You lost another one in Iraq too! Cry harder over that.

>>2228751
>Baghdad government still in place

America lost the War on Terror, but won the war on Iraq.

Similar to how America won the Cold War, but lost the Vietnam War.

>>2226093
change the pronoun or substitute with the word faggots

>>2224412
It wasn't exactly a loss. It was possibly even more humiliating. The US got BTFO by a bunch of Southeast Asian guerrilla fighters who were at every disadvantage, aside from being in their home court and being supported by the USSR. The US didn't lose, as much as it kept losing and finally wiped it's hands in humiliation.

>>2228158
>IF they hadn't, then America would've easily taken the entirety of Vietnam without much issue
The Americans never tried to take the entirety of Vietnam, they literally didn't attempt operation too far north as to not be seen as invaders. If the US wanted to occupy all of Vietnam, they could have done it, whether China was sending troops or not.

>>2229162
>The Americans never tried to take the entirety of Vietnam, they literally didn't attempt operation too far north as to not be seen as invaders. If the US wanted to occupy all of Vietnam, they could have done it, whether China was sending troops or not.
The US didn't send troops to North Vietnam because they didn't want a second Korean War, allowing VC and NVA to retreat back into North Vietnam and attack the South Vietnamese border with impunity.

>>2224467
Same with the British, Confederates, and Germans in WWI. By this logic the U.S. is actually pretty bad at fighting symmetrically.

>thinking America lost in Vietnam
easiest way to tell somebody has zero education

>>2228238
Insurgency is impossible to stamp out unless you're willing to cross the line into massacring entire towns, which the US isn't. Iraq's military was destroyed in a matter of days. Longterm occupation of the country was never the goal but that's how it ended up because the situation was so unstable that the country would've collapsed completely if the US pulled out.

>>2224594
So Linebacker II gave them a great opportunity to wipe their hands of it.

The fact remains that the SRV is the nation we deal with today, the nation that put down the Khmer Rouge, the nation that along with South Korea and Japan serves as pretty much THE local economic check against China. Not the RoV.

The failure of South Vietnam is a failure of U.S. policy. Not the minor resolution of it, which of course was accelerated by hippies and fucked-up veterans coming home (or not), as well as the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. It was the failure of three decades of trying to counter Domino theory with outright aggression and propped-up, oppressive regimes.

>>2229323
>Insurgency is impossible to stamp out

No it isn't.

The NVA was annilihated in between 1969 and 1971.

The surge in Iraq suppressed the insurgents to the point where it took them three years after the US withdrawal to pull anything major.

The British BTFO insurgents in Malaya and Kenya.

>>2229333
>The NVA was annilihated in between 1969 and 1971
And yet they still ended up reconquering the country after the US left.
>The surge in Iraq suppressed the insurgents to the point where it took them three years after the US withdrawal to pull anything major.
In other words: they're impossible to stamp out. They just keep coming back. You absolutely cannot rid the country of them without wholesale slaughter.

>>2229338
>And yet they still ended up reconquering the country after the US left

derp

VC, not NVA.

The VC got raped, the NVA rolled in with T-72s fresh from Soviet factories after the US left.

Insurgencies only work if the country fighting them is unwilling to commit the resources to outlast them.

Already explained in the numerous posts above in greater detail let me chime in for a minute.

But id like to link this short excerpt on the Tet offensive: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/tet

Which many believe to be oone of the bigger factors for the de-escalation and eventual withdrawal of American troops in vietnam.

>>2229328
>>2224621
>>2224606
All of these completely fail to recognize the treaty stipulations of the Paris Peace Accords that stated the U.S. would support South Vietnam in case of renewed invasion. Linebacker II was a success. PPA was a success. Democrats completely defunding South Vietnam under Ford is what lost the war. I don't even know why this is a dispute, it's common historiography under both the military revisionist and liberal realist schools.

>>2228961
>The US got BTFO by a bunch of Southeast Asian guerrilla fighters who were at every disadvantage
This meme needs to die. The NVA, a fucking army (very little of the war was fought by actual VC, and none of it was after Tet), had up to date equipment for the entire conflict. If anything, the U.S. ground forces were the ones using outdated equipment as most of the new equipment was being sent to Europe as Soviets were stacking the border during this period due to unrest in the Eastern Bloc.

>>2229416
And the Democrats defunding it is a direct failure of U.S. policy. That is the civilian government directly voicing dissatisfaction with the course of events. The causes are irrelevant. It is a failure of U.S. policy.

>>2229453
>The causes are irrelevant
Confirmed not a historian.

>>2229468
>>2229453
Also the OP asked specifically HOW as in THE CAUSES.

>>2228316
>Being this autistic

One minor point, there were massive protests against the Iraq War.

>>2228316
>Once the press managed to force Nixon from office over nothing

>>2229416
>All of these completely fail to recognize the treaty stipulations of the Paris Peace Accords that stated the U.S. would support South Vietnam in case of renewed invasion.

Know how I can tell you didn't read the article I posted?

Why does everyone seem to forget it was the frenchie's war

>>2224432
How's that working out for them?

I actually don't know, I never really hear about them.

>>2230090
Not too badly, but they are very concerned abut Duterte and Trump.

>>2230121
That's fairly sensible, they have a lotta trade with the US and Philippines that could potentially be fucked up by protectionist policies, even if they're solely directed at China.

File: 1480804668793.jpg (259KB, 1500x1175px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1500x1175px

>>2224467
But the Americans took fuck-all casualties in WW2 in Europe compared to the Germans and Soviets

>>2224594
Really? The U.S. budget for assistance to the Republic of Vietnam for 1975 was $400,000,000. Population was, what 20,000,000? Sounds like a lot of aid to me.

>>2224594
Also, linebacker II is why the U.S. lost the war. Prior to this the DRV-N had to go begging to the PRC and USSR for aid. Once the US decided to offer up B-52's for target practice, that whole dynamic changed. Now it was the Russians and Chinese begging the Vietnamese for the opportunity to practice destroying B-52's, which were designed specifically to destroy Russian cities.

The flyable FB-111 (along with the flight crew) that the Vietnamese captured during Linebacker was traded to the Russians for 18 months worth of supplies.

>>2224600
Most of them actually came from a U.S. company called International Armaments Company, which bought them from the Israelis.

>>2230027
Know how I can tell you didn't read my post? Either way, two things: One, that is not a reputable source. Second, liberal realist school has been debunked for decades now. Even Marxist historians like Johnathan Neale have a better grasp of the conflict.

>>2230170
The treaty stipulated the US would fork up cash, a bullet for a bullet, a tank for a tank and in the event of serious invasion, the U.S. would get involved again. When the North invaded the South, the U.S. reneged on both.

>>2230193
What? Absolutely none of that is correct. The Soviets in Vietnam had shot down multiple B-52s well before Linebacker II during Operation Arc Light and Operation Rolling Thunder. Linebacker II gave no incentive for continued cooperation and actually hampered Chinese and Soviet involvement with the combined operations of Operation Pocket Money out of fear that their own troops and ships would be in danger.

>>2224416
god I fucking hate Americans ALLAHU AKBAR

>>2230886
>Either way, two things: One, that is not a reputable source.


What exactly is not reputable about it?


> Second, liberal realist school has been debunked for decades now.

[citation needed]

>Even Marxist historians like Johnathan Neale have a better grasp of the conflict.

[citation needed]


Incidentally, do you think that the Soviets won the war in Afghanistan?

>>2230121
>but they are very concerned abut Duterte
How so? is it just because of sea territory claims? Because they're both commies.

>>2234074
No, it's just because Duterte is unpredictable and nearby.

File: vitt.png (308KB, 646x728px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 646x728px

>>2230030
Because it wasnt, you uneducated faggot
Vietnam started an independence war against France, that had nothing to do with the later American anti-commie crusade
America purpotedly waited until the French had lost and invaded Vietnam a year after they left, exactly because they didnt want to help them

American sore losers who try to blame their shitty failed war on France are pathetic