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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

Then we go total war with China.

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

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

OH WAIT

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

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

Tet Offensive '68. Nixon elected '68.

Read a fucking history book.

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

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

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.

>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.

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

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.

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.

You're welcome.

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

A defoliant.

It defoliates the shit out of people.

We could've sprayed more.

It does indeed.

Jesus fucking christ.

>Agent Orange
Is that his new nickname?

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

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.

I laughed.

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.

>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.

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

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

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.

>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.

>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.

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

Sad uncle Fester

Did nothing wrong

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.

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.

Cept this time china had nukes

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

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.

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.

>this meme again

Vietnam War memes on Veeky Forums 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!

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

>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.

>There are people on Veeky Forums who actually believe that the US lost the Vietnam War.

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

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

...

Number 6 is factual gook

...

>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.

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

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.

>quitting halfway through doesn't equal losing

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.

>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.

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".

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

Yes it does.

>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

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).
Because the lollocaust happened and doing anything remotely similar is the quickest way to kill yourself in the geopolitical sphere.

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.

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.

Even for Veeky Forums you are some heartless bastards

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anyone that's not baiting agrees.

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

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

Fuck you

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

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

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

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

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

>open thread
>It Ain't Me starts playing

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.

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.

>total war
>with the chink blender
Oh user, 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.

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.

This

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.

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.

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

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.

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