America lost the Vietnam war

>that one time when France started the Vietnam war but everyone forgot
Greatest ally...

user, the separation of losing "on a military level" between other kinds of losing is meaningless.

Again, I could say that "on a military level, the Soviets won in Afghanistan." What the hell does that even mean?

>France lost the 1812 Invasion of Russia

You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because the new administration was trying to distance itself from some dude's policies after the unjust arrest and imprisonment of Paul Dano

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

To be fair the combo worked in the last three wars we fought together. I guess France just got tired of being our cannon fodder

Didnt quite happen like this though
France had its own colonial war in Vietnam and kept asking the US for help, but the US refused
Then, a year after the French lost and left, the US invaded for their own little anti-commie crusade

Don't you dare trying to blame the French or call them shit allies
You were the shit allies and your reason for invading Vietnam certainly wasnt related to helping them
Fuck, you even waited until they lost, thus letting the Viets grow stronger, before getting involved because you hated them so much

>the u.s. refused
We sent more air support than your army even had

You sent some air support yeah
Surely you didnt want to French to win
Just try to compare your contribution during their war to what you sent there after they left

>Russia lost the Great War

You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because the new administration was trying to distance itself from the Tsars policies after the revolution.

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

>implying that's not still losing

>to imply America lost on a military level is false

Actually it's entirely true. Throughout the war the United States was almost totally on the defensive against a Viet Cong which was achieving a large plenty of strategic goals throughout the country. Even though the United States had more overall troops and less casualties they weren't using them effectively. North Vietnam was.

All of our strategic goals were unrealized and all the enemy's goals were realized. In what world does that not count as losing?

In the world of jingoism?

> Sweden lost the Finnish War

You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because the new administration was trying to distance itself from King Gustav IV.

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

>Christians lost the Crusades

You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because the new administration was trying to distance itself from King Richard's policies

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

>Israel lost the 2006 Lebanon War

You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because the new administration was trying to distance itself from Ehud Olmert 's policies

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

This is untrue, the North Vietnamese accomplished very little militarily, that and it is clear that they were on defensive footing throughout the entire conflict as the were unable to make any successful attacks on American positions, or effectively stop the U.S. forces from finding and routing them. They died a lot and achieved very little. The Tet Offensive, their only true major offensive action was their worst failure of the war.

I guess what I'm saying is, American soldiers and tactics performed very well during the war, and no-one could deny that they performed exceedingly at their given task "kill the enemy."

Duh, but we left. No cigar.

For who veitnam or the US? Because in that statment it sounds like people rather be in the US.

Nobody ever doubted of the capacity of the american soldiers, it's what makes the defeat of the USA remarkable.

What is French fleet.

In a one on one engagement it's true that the North Vietnamese didn't stand a chance, but the American mindset of "kill the enemy" while almost completely ignoring the concept of controlled territory rendered all their military strength irrelevant.

You can win as many battles as you like, but if you always let the enemy reoccupy the territory and replenish its numbers, you're just spinning your wheels and wearing yourself down.

If media didn't exist at that time, like televsion for instantance. Would that have effected the outcome? I think it would of since it was the rise of sanational journalism with a lot of those reports and footage going more for shock value than actual news. I mean they even claimed the US lost the Yet offensive.

Search and destroy didn't work. Charlie just ran over the border. So, yeah. You lost.

Random fact: vc soldiers would fight prefer to fight within 15 meters of allied soldiers to encourage friendly fire from artillary and airstrikes

Not entirely.
The enemy will expend more on the attack than you will on the defense, especially if you're winning these defensive engagements as the US was.
The issue came with the fact that the US was simply not allowed to capitalize on this ever for any reason.

Destroy a division, it retreats into North Vietnam and the survivors are regrouped into a new division and back at the front within three months.
Destroy an army, it retreats into North Vietnam and the survivors are regrouped into a new army and it's back at the front within half a year.

The US strategy of kill a fuckton of them was perfectly fine. The strategy of let them escape because if you follow them into North Vietnam it might start WW3 doomed the war to be unwinnable.
Because it was designed to make the war unwinnable. Victory could only be achieved if the North gave up since the US was denied any ability to actually end the war after it achieved sweeping victories.

It'd be like if the Russians hadn't counterattacked at Kursk. The German offensive went poorly and its army's momentum was shattered, but still perfectly capable of fighting.
The two subsequent Russian offensives shattered the German's ability to fight. It was the last major offensive against the Russians the Germans ever launched because afterwards the Russians dogged them all the way to Berlin.

>The Nazis were defeated
You know this is a meme right?

>The strategy of let them escape because if you follow them into North Vietnam it might start WW3 doomed the war to be unwinnable.

So they didn't win militarily. No amount of twisting and turning the facts to fit your perspective can change that.

>win every military engagement involving more than 10 men
>so they didn't win militarily

The US lost Vietnam, but it was not lost of the battlefield. I don't get this strange fascination people have to try to say the US lost the Vietnam War militarily. There are a thousand things you can complain about, poke fun of about what the US did wrong in the Vietnam War, but absolutely none of them involve the US losing any battles or engagements or anything close to a military defeat.
So why try to push this narrative the US lost militarily?

Winning engagements and winning militarily are two totally different things. If the US can't secure its objectives then it has lost militarily.

The "Republic" of Vietnam sucked to be honest and the country is actually better off as a whole.

Not him, but you might want to bone up on your Clausewitz and learn what constitutes winning a military victory.

If you don't destroy your enemy's "center" whatever that critical aspect it is that they need to continue the war, then you haven't won, no matter how many of their soldiers you shoot.

And how many civilians were killed by us troops ?

>kill the ennemy
>orders tell that fleeing civilian is ennemy
>kill civilians
>why do they hate us ?

Thats strategic master genius tier right there

The only US objectives were to kill commies, which they did. And it was wildly effective. Quite unsustainable losses on the North's part which is why they agreed to the ceasefire and "peace treaty" since their army had been so utterly skullfucked at Tet. And then after the US left and they'd spent the better part of a year rebuilding their shattered armies who were no longer being bombed to smithereens, they went and skullfucked the incompetent South.

You're right, this is why the US lost. Political meddling prevented the US from actually destroying the NVA.
Even still, this does not promote, support, hint at, or allude to the US losing militarily. All it shows is that the best military in the world can't do shit if you make it against the rules for them to actually do shit besides defend.
Nobody ever won a war by only defending. You can win battles, you can win every battle, but unless you go on the offensive you will never end the war because the enemy will just rebuild no matter how badly they were destroyed in the last operation.

>this desperate revisionism

If you had been german after 14 18 yoi would have drunk all of hitlers speech about the backstabbing you fucking idiot

>muh Americans killed civilians meme
I mean they did but most of it was definitely collateral. Only one confirmed case of US soldiers actually killing civies on purpose.

Now the South Koreans? Holy shit, those guys were brutal as fuck. I'm pretty sure relative to the numerical involvement of soldiers they had the largest ratio of civilians killed.

Again, read your Clauswitz, what you are saying is quite frankly nonsense. The U.S.'s objectives were not to "just kill commies". Their ojbectives were to create a viable, self-sustaining state in south Vietnam, and prevent Communist advances in SEA. Killing NVA soldiers and Viet Cong was simply an attempt to do this, and one that did not particularly advance their goals.

This divide you're creating between "military losses" and "political losses" is nonsense, BECAUSE WAR IS A POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

And, by the way, "you can't win solely on the defensive" is simply wrong: See, The American Revolution, the 80 years war, the Luchuan wars, and the Winter War.

There was literally no way for South Vietnam to survive without America's help. They were a deeply unpopular regime, even with non-communists. "Winning" the Vietnam war would have meant occupying South Vietnam perpetually.

Well that's just the strategic defeat argument, on the battlefield the U.S. dominated the enemy which was my main point of contention. I was disagreeing with the user who insisted that the U.S. suffered a military defeat, when I would say it didn't, it suffered a political defeat.

It decimated, no OBLITERATED the NVA and VC and by the end of the war it forces the NVA to the table.

>14 18
Huh? You mean 1918? Uh, Hitler wasn't the one who came up with that, that would be Ludendorff, I think I'm spelling that right.
And that's neither here nor there. The Germans lost militarily. They lost tons of military engagements.

The US never lost a military engagement. I don't see how the two are comparable.

>American Revolution
Won by several American and French offensives.
>80 years war
>imfuckingplying there were no offensives over 80 fucking years
Dont know shit about the Luchuan Wars.

The Winter War was lost by the Finnish.

>testimonies of vietnam us veterans telling they had orders of killing any fleeing civilian because if they flee they must be charlies
>many testimonies of veterans telling they didnt even considered viets as humans
>wide use of torture
>gang rapes

>collateral damage

I appreciate your sense of euphemism and propaganda user

>what is the Mai Lai massacre
>South Koreans
Are you ok user?

Should have won doesn't mean you won.

>germans lost militarily

Thats not what a lot of germans said and also hitler said at the time. They were just like you, blaming the society behind them instead of admitting the defeat

>believing democrap propagandas

>what is the Mai Lai massacre
The one confirmed instance of US soldiers killing civilians on purpose?

>thinks he can speak about the Vietnam War without knowing jack shit about who actually fought in it
Type in South Korean massacres and Google will finish typing in the words "in Vietnam" before you even type in "in."

But the Germans actually DID lose militarily.
They lost a lot of battles.
Name one battle the Americans lost, it's a non comparison.

The British suffered major military defeats and it was economically unsustainable. Fun fact: Most people by the 1780s in the empire just wanted the colonies to break free, struggle, and then beg to come back to the crown

>Won by several American and French offensives.

No, it was won by defensive action in the colonies.

>imfuckingplying there were no offensives over 80 fucking years

There weren't. The entirety of land fighting was in the Netherlands. The extent of Dutch "offensives" were to go on piratical raiding at sea, no more than a few hundred at a time, while tens of thousands of soldiers were having it out in the seven provinces.

>The Winter War was lost by the Finnish.

They survived, which was their national goal. The Soviets fialed to establish a communist state in Finland and/or annex Finland, which was their goal. True, the Finnish lost a chunk of the borders for 2 years before re-occupying them, but again, you're missing this whole idea that wars are politics by direct violence.

The soviets got rekt in Afghanistan. They only managed catastrophic Pyrrhic victories

>Germany lost WWI
You know this is a meme right? We only pulled out because Jews and communists.

If we had stayed we would have won. We chose to leave.

Ok youre retarded. Theres no debate anymore. Get out your fucking basement and ask any vets if they won and see what they tell you

>believing the jew and communist meme
>not realizing the entire RN was blockading the german empire
>not realizing that a fatal nitrate shortage meant arms production had stalled
>not realizing that hundreds of thousands of fresh americans were ready to help replenish the entente's men
>not realizing the German people were starving to death by 1918

People already hated the idea of a war in that shithole jungle was "protecting 'Murrica from commies"

Imagine the shitstorm the American public would give at the idea of "Americans dying in Vietnam to protect a corrupt oppressive French colony"

In ten years they suffered about 15,000 dead and 50,000 wounded. The Afghans/Mujahadeen suffered casualties that ran into the hundreds of thousands, possibly even the millions, depending on how you define which people were civilians and which ones were guerillas.

They were "winning militarily" if you're using the same logic to say that the Americans "militarily won" Vietnam.

>no it was won by defensive actions
Defensive actions which were then followed by offensive action to take ground and areas the British had now abandoned. Something the US was not allowed to do in Vietnam.

Do counterattacks not count as attacks anymore?

And on that note, the Finnish only did as well as they did because they did go on the offensive. A lot.
Their preferred strategy was to pretend to have a line collapse, draw in as many Soviets as they could, and then collapse on the pocket and kill everyone inside. That is very offensive action, not defensive.

>Vietcong
>achieving anything

They got blown the fuck out to the point they stopped existing.

>114,000 involved during peak
>15,000 died

Not really because they lost several military engagements.

The whole argument people have to say the US did not lose militarily in Vietnam is based on the fact the US never lost a battle in Vietnam.
This is the only conflict in world history where this seems to be true.
I can't think of any other war or action where one nation won every single battle and still eventually lost. Even the most lopsided fights have had the underdog pull out a handful of wins no matter how minor.

>not getting irony in a ironic thread

Thats how I know youre autistic

>Defensive actions which were then followed by offensive action to take ground and areas the British had now abandoned. Something the US was not allowed to do in Vietnam.

>Do counterattacks not count as attacks anymore?

But by that logic the Americans did embark on offensives in Vietnam, just not offensives into North Vietnamese territory. Ia drang, Cedar Falls, Junction City, and that's just in the first year of American involvement. They took and held ground, they searched and destroyed.

>Their preferred strategy was to pretend to have a line collapse, draw in as many Soviets as they could, and then collapse on the pocket and kill everyone inside. That is very offensive action, not defensive.

And again, if you count that as offensive action, then you can't claim that the U.S. didn't go on the offensive in Vietnam, since the primary mode of U.S. deployment was to hump around in the jungle searching and destroying.

Vietnam was like a little kid throwing crickets into a meat grinder, his mom telling him he should stop it because it's bad for him and then the surviving crickets declaring victory.

The mujahedeen got blown the fuck out as well, Soviets simply withdrew because their country was literally falling apart.

After the Tet Offensive didn't N. Vietnam lose pretty much all of their Vietcong (cells already in S. Vietnam) and had to rely solely on N Vietnamese soldiers for the rest of the war?

The irony in these threads is based off of fact you fucking idiot

>binh tai

no

chill nigger

I'm just shitting on OP like everyone else here.

CORDS and Pheonix also contributed.

But yeah, by 1970, you could drive in a softskin car from Saigon to any of the 12 province capitals, and not die, for the first time since 1961.

No not at all.
The US was not allowed to take North Korean territory, it was not allowed to actually go fight the enemy on its home turf.
The Revolutionaries pursued the British everywhere, surrounded them and crushed the armies entirely instead of letting them rebuild. Yorktown is the best example of this.

The Revolutionaries and Finns were NOT passive. Adopting a defensive posture is not the same thing as only defending. The US in Vietnam was only defending except on the rare occasions they were raiding North Vietnam.

A war cannot be won if you only defend, especially if you do not even hold the ground you defend.

Of course. I'd argue Afghanistan is just one of the reasons for Russia's collapse in the first place. It was an unnecessary attempt to keep the country from imploding after the Afghan commies fucked everything up, followed by the CIA fucking everything up, again followed by the new Afghan commies fucking up everything. A lot of men and money spent to ultimately accomplish nothing and leave the country an even bigger mess than when they entered. Thanks in part to the US of A giving Osama anti tank rockets.

>shitting on op with an even shittier meme

>This is the only conflict in world history where this seems to be true.

You should study up on your history then, especially as decolonialism intensified. Algeria ring any bells? What about the ongoing insurgencies in Chechnya? What do you call the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? You can make a good case for the Gothic war as well, and probably a hell of a lot more I don't know about.

>I'd argue Afghanistan is just one of the reasons for Russia's collapse in the first place
It probably contributed but the main reason for Soviet collapse was the 1986 oil glut.

Algeria and the Soviet-Afghan War also featured this.

>The US was not allowed to take North Korean territory, it was not allowed to actually go fight the enemy on its home turf.

>The Revolutionaries pursued the British everywhere, surrounded them and crushed the armies entirely instead of letting them rebuild. Yorktown is the best example of this.

Yorktown is in the colonies, not the UK. It's not the British's "home turf". And the pursuit of armies is kind of meaningless when the UK can simply raise more manpower secure on its home island and send it over any time it wishes. The surrender of Cornwallis's army wasn't in and of itself decisive, the British still had tens of thousands of troops in the Americas. It was how it sapped the British will to continue that was important.

>The Revolutionaries and Finns were NOT passive. Adopting a defensive posture is not the same thing as only defending. The US in Vietnam was only defending except on the rare occasions they were raiding North Vietnam.

Which was again in Finland, not USSR territory.

You're not drawing any meaningful distinction here, user. In neither case did they go onto the "home turf" of their enemy, and neither did the Meng Yang against the Ming, nor the Dutch against the Spanish.

>when the UK can simply raise more manpower secure on its home island and send it over any time it wishes

Not with the French Navy around.

Actually probably true.

I'm not even op. I'm just bored and feel like playing devil's advocate.

The largest contributing factor, probably. The whole rampant military spending nonexistent private sector, middle class poorer than many low class western countries a

The Soviets lost several battles in Afghanistan.
At Zhawar 530 men were captured and the Soviets never admitted how many were killed and wounded.

I am a bit in the dark on Algeria, however. Are you referring to the Algerian revolts against the French specifically?

The main difference between the Revolution, Winter War and Vietnam is the Revolutionaries and French and Finns all attempted to completely destroy their enemy's armies.

The US was specifically not allowed to do so as doing so would require them to enter North Vietnam. For the British the colonies were their base of operations. Without men holding ground there any armies sent would quickly starve unless they had a supply line through Canada or controlled enough local food producing areas to feed the army and citizenry.
And of course, the French Navy would have made it difficult to get more troops into the colonies in the first place.

The Finns too were very good about completely destroying invading Soviet armies. Pursuing and surrounding them when applicable. Distinctly unlike US strategy which was limited to forcing as decisive a battle as possible and then ceasing pursuit after the NVA broke and ran.

*and all around stagnant economy unable to compete with the West were all pretty damming as well.

>and then ceasing pursuit after the NVA broke and ran

Do you even Search and Destroy

>Not with the French Navy around.

Please, the British held overwhelming naval superiority. Chesapeake sank all of one British ship. They still had 93 more ships of the line to play with, which significantly outnumber the French's 73, not to mention that British ships usually carried more guns. They still held very secure ports up in Canada and around New York, which had coastal batteries to fend off interloping Frenchies.

It fucked Corwnallis over, but the Brits still held the advantage in the Atlantic, which is why they would bounce back to win those Delaware capes battles.

>I am a bit in the dark on Algeria, however. Are you referring to the Algerian revolts against the French specifically?

Yes, the 54-62 Algerine war of independence.

>The main difference between the Revolution, Winter War and Vietnam is the Revolutionaries and French and Finns all attempted to completely destroy their enemy's armies.

So? They didn't completely destroy their enemy's armies at any point. Did a lot of damage, yes, but never complete obliteration, and never pursued their enemy to their home turf. What makes that different from the U.S. battering and chasing NVA forces across south vietnam but not chasing them to their own turf?

America lost. But Vietnam is poor enough that China is losing low-skill jobs to it, and America remains on top of the world. America isn't all-powerful, just the most.

Search and Destroy was limited to smaller pockets of resistance, not entire armies. When an entire army was shattered they just ran behind an invisible line and could regroup back without fear of group troops surrounding them and killing them.

The Revolutionaries completely destroyed Cornwallis's army at Yorktown.
Several dozen divisions were entirely wiped out by the Finns.
The US could not do the same to the NVA as the Revolutionaries did the French and as the Finns did to the Reds. Had the Finns actually been winning the war instead of just losing very slowly you can bet they would have marched into Soviet territory until they got peace terms acceptable to them. The Revolutionaries did not stop their advances until every inch of British soil they wanted was given to them.

And by the by, you keep saying the Colonies weren't British home turf for some reason. The whole reason the Redcoats were there was to subjugate rebellious forces on British land. Was Canada not British soil as well in the War of 1812? Was it not British soil during the Revolutionary War? Were the Colonies not British soil during the Revolution?

>The Revolutionaries completely destroyed Cornwallis's army at Yorktown.

Which wasn't even the majority of British forces in North America, let alone further forces the British could raise.

>Several dozen divisions were entirely wiped out by the Finns.

Which are again, not the entirety of Soviet forces, let alone what they can mobilize.

>The US could not do the same to the NVA as the Revolutionaries did the French and as the Finns did to the Reds

Why not? They fought, they won, they pursued, they inflicted enormous losses. I'm not seeing a meaningful difference.

>And by the by, you keep saying the Colonies weren't British home turf for some reason.

They weren't. They were an overseas possession, not their core territory that they drew the almost entirety of their manpower and funding from. When the U.S. fought Philippine guerillas in the early 20th century, those Flips never got at the U.S. home turf either.

>The whole reason the Redcoats were there was to subjugate rebellious forces on British land.

Yes, but an overseas possesison, not their home.

>Was Canada not British soil as well in the War of 1812? Was it not British soil during the Revolutionary War? Were the Colonies not British soil during the Revolution?

Of course not. British territory, but not their home turf, same as India, Jamaica, Australia, and their other colonial possessions.

Ah, but was it not vitally important that his army was destroyed? You do not have to kill or capture every soldier a country has to defeat it. Killing or capturing even 10% of a country's male fighting age population is disastrous, which wouldn't even be 4% of a country's total population. Yorktown was the last major battle of the war, the British were unwilling to lose any more men as a huge chunk of their overseas force had been entirely lost.

This is the importance of completely destroying an army. If you let them go back home the survivors just come back later.

>Vietnam was like a little kid throwing crickets into a meat grinder, his mom telling him he should stop it because it's bad for him and then the surviving crickets declaring victory.

Vietnam was like a kid trying to clear a roach infestation in part of a room, stomping on a bunch getting tired then just leaving and surrendering the entire room to the roaches and telling himself that he didnt really like that room anyway

>the US never lost a battle in Vietnam.
>fact
w e w

Russia didn't lose, Russia outright stopped existing before the war was over.

Name one they lost :^)

>Amerifats unable to bear the shame of losing to a bunch of commie peasants

US won after South Vietnam was recognized as its own political entity free of Communism and we got the Treaty.

It was only after the US left that S.Vietnam was overtaken by N.Vietnam because Communists are literal savages who do not respects laws, rules, people, items, or life.

>The Italians lost WWII
You know this is a meme, right?