Why do some societies have more tolerance for casualties in war

Because the United States public saw no clear benefit to continued military engagement and the North Vietnamese public did.

Remember, America suffered 400,000 KIA in WW2, and most Americans remember that as one of the greatest moments in their nations history.

If anything, its astonishing that the American public would allow thirty thousand people to be killed for no appreciable reason before the first troop withdrawals began.

People back then had a lot more faith in their leaders.

Because the USA was invading whilst vietnam was defending themselves from imperialistic invaders?

America tolerated casualties better in WWII because they felt they had something greater to fight for, Vietnam just felt like a useless imperialistic war taken over from France. This was also at a point where Americans were placing high value on individuality rather than any sort of collective. Collectivist societies are generally more willing to accept that someone died 'for the greater good' than societies that are skeptical of anything that impinges on individual liberties.

>>2901319
>invading
They were invited.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 995x1081px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 995x1081px

because the americans are weak

>>2901303
The United States withstood 240,000 casualties including 60,000 dead in that war before withdrawing despite having literally no reason for its population to be interested in being in Vietnam at all. If anything that shows an abnormally high tolerance for casualties.

American war in Vietnam is one of ideological difference.


Vietnam war against America was one of independence.

Difference is the cost/gain ratio. America gained literally nothing from pursuing this war in Vietnam and only losses mounting up. Vietnam gained independence and losses were more than worth it.