Who won the Vietnam war?

.t idiot

There is no differentiation between "military success" and "political success". War, and other forms of military conflict, are political exercises of violence. If you win all the battles but still don't get what you wanted out of the war, YOU LOST THE WAR.

> Like how WW1 is technically a victory for Britain but in all other sense but military it was a failure.

What the fuck are you on? Britain entered the war for the express purpose of preventing Germany from rising as the dominant power on the European continent. After the war, Germany was not the dominant power on the European continent, and never re-gained the threat level they had back in the 1910s.

Please kill yourself.

>It is not a phyrric victory if you win the war, which they did.

Not him, but that's not technically correct. A won war in which the costs of winning are higher than what the policymakers would have considered acceptable to win the war in the first place is usually considered a Pyrrhic victory on a larger scale than just a battle.

That being said, without having a system to measure what a given polity thinks a victory is "worth", you can't really have a framework as to whether or not a victory is Pyrrhic or not

Domestic politics forced the U.S to withdraw from the war.

western liberal countries aren't able to effectively deal with native insurgencies because certain strategies are off the table for moral reasons

Which is why brutal authoritarian regimes have such good track records of dealing with insurgencies, like Saddam's Iraq, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Nazis in Yugoslavia.

>It is not a phyrric victory if you win the war, which they did.
Autismus Maximus

No, a phyrric victory is a costly won battle that will lose you the war. So if you win the war, it is not phyrric.

Better read that up again sonny, because he is right.

The Vatican

No, it isn't.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pyrrhic

Nobody I'd say. maybe FPBP has it right, though indirectly.

For the US of A it marked a quagmire that (temporally) halted their post 2nd world war interventionist boner till the 9/11 events. Not that it kept assholes from the upper strata from trying but they never had as much popular support as before Nam. Plus veterans Wrong side of Heaven yadayadayada.

For indochina all that it left was damaged infrastructure which wouldn't heal for quite some time.

For France, well it's not a Colonialist Empire anymore nuff said.

It was a loss for the western bloc, therefore automagically a win for the communist. A factoid that saw much use in propaganda.

The forces of the glorious Von Habsburg on the behalf of Elohim

lmao, what strategies were off the table? The Americans massacred Vietnamese Innocents by the boatload. They would spray napalm on them and burn them alive. They would line the children up on the edge of a ditch and gun them down. They would bomb indiscriminately and had no problem with "collateral damage". If they were being moral, I would like to see what an amoral war looks like to you.

>implying Nagl got it right
Nagl has been shit all over by academics because his plan completely ignores half the fucking war and imposes conditions on the conflict that were literally impossible. The book is essentially a 300 page strawman argument.

Britain was a colonial empire. WW1 devastated their empire and differently led to decolonization, eventually losing their entire empire. And yet somehow this is a "victory" from the autist's perspective.

>never regained the threat level they had back in the 1910s
>what is WW2

You called me retarded as projection. You're the one with a mental disorder based on all the retarded shit I just read.

>WW1 devastated their empire and differently led to decolonization,

Prove that. Hell, their empire expanded between WW1 and WW2, and you can easily argue that it's only post WW2, with the rise of both the U.S. and USSR on the international stage, both of whom pressed anti-colonialist agendas, that led to the ending of the empire, and a result hardly foreseeable at the time.

>what is WW2
A war in which Germany was far weaker relative to its adversaries than in WW1.

this is the second time Ive seen a retard trying to push his incorrect special snowflake definition of pyrrhic.

pyrrhic has become a word in itself with its own meaning, you are not a special snowflake because you know about a certain greek conquerer.

You mean police action, I'm sure. Nobody would be dumb enough to call it a war.

>For the US of A it marked a quagmire that (temporally) halted their post 2nd world war interventionist boner till the 9/11 events

but this is fucking retarded and you don't know shit about history. The United states participated in literally dozens of interventions between Vietnam and 9/11

Whatever pham, but calling the Vietnam war a phyrric victory is pant on heads retarded. The Us got clearly beaten and Vietnam clearly won. Sure they paid a high price, but they reached their strategic goal, unlike Phyrros.

Let it go, lad. Veeky Forums is a bunch of pseuds that have no actual academic background in what they talk about. Vietnam is literally the lowest tier of /int/ posting meant to trigger burgers. They could give a fuck about reality when there's shitposting to be had.

>far weaker relative to its adversaries
>held back by basically France alone with a paltry british commitment in the north for 4 years and even started pushing back despite the fact that the eastern front failed
>as compared to WW2, where germany fucked up France in record fashion, conquered basically the entire landmass of europe, and was pushing into africa and Russia despite the fact that they couldn't manage this in WW1 despite the fact that they had the ottomans down there AND had already beaten the Russians

you're fucking stupid stop posting

>I can't tell the difference between trying to win a pair of one front wars and a two(really three) front war
>I refuse to look at things like industrial output to examine how Britain alone in WW2 outproduced Germany, nevermind other minor countries like the U.S. and the Soviets, but Germany was the biggest single producer of war material on the European continent
>I will completely ignore the naval arms race, as to how Germany had the second largest fleet in the world at the outset of WW1, and the most modern

Pot, meet kettle.

>I'm gonna look at raw industrial output instead of measurable military victory and conquest
>I'm going to ignore that all that manpower and industry didn't mean shit because WW1 was a transitional period of warfare where nobody knew how to take advantage of victories yet
>ignoring the value of the human element, of tactics and actual tangible gains and losses
>focusing entirely on industry to say that a nation that fundamentally performed worse was actually stronger

The single biggest difference in why it went differently in WW2 is without a doubt Germany and their vast improvement in the art of warfare.

Read a book you fucking retard.

>I'm gonna look at raw industrial output instead of measurable military victory and conquest
No shit sherlock, becuase, and hold on, this is a revolutionary thought IF A STRONGER ARMY COMES THROUGH, YOU CAN'T HOLD ON TO THE TERRITORY YOU GAINED!

That's why, for instance, Germany surrendered in WW1 despite no Entente troops being in Germany, they were not in fact winning the war, despite occupying an enormous amount of turf.

>I'm going to ignore that all that manpower and industry didn't mean shit because WW1 was a transitional period of warfare where nobody knew how to take advantage of victories yet

This is just wrong, but of course you know nothing about WW1, so you being wrong isn't exactly surprising.

>ignoring the value of the human element, of tactics and actual tangible gains and losses

Are you seriously implying that this didn't happen in WW1?

>focusing entirely on industry to say that a nation that fundamentally performed worse was actually stronger

And you didn't actually read my post, did you? Good job.

>Read a book you fucking retard.

Yes, I'll look at authors like Hastings, Bury, Keegan, and Van Creveld, all of whom clearly state that Germany was far closer to winning WW1 than WW2, and come to the conclusion that they're all wrong and I need to read a book.

North Vietnam (China) ((Soviet Union)) won the Vietnam war. All of Vietnam is unified under communist rule and the capital city was changed to the name of the enemy leader. There is no serious debate whatsoever that the United States and South Vietnamese allies lost the Vietnam war.

>It is not a phyrric victory if you win the war, which they did.

>It is not a phyrric victory if you win the war
Second Boer War. Opinion completely discarded for being fucking retarded.

There's a huge BP office building in this city's downtown. It does not make Britain's defeat in the Revolution any less complete. You are stupid.

Nonsense, if the U.S. had slipped the leash off the military, there wouldn't a single Vietnamese alive today.

False equivalence. The Revolutionary War wasn't about completely shutting out Britain and Britain's economic system.

lol

You're saying the presence of Levi or Coca-Cola, decades later, undoes the loss of the war, the destruction of the South Vietnamese government and being politically and militarily ousted from the country?

>There's a huge BP office building in this city's downtown.

Vietnam is economically dependent on the West and in particular, dependent on the U.S. for it's defense from China.

The loss really belongs in America's column, as we spent shit loads of blood and wealth to prevent the Commies from taking over, only for them to be rendered extinct a few years later and Vietnam right back under our wing.

America's approval rating in Vietnam is among the highest in the world.

...

>be communist
>remove capitalist pig under guise of war
>sheepishly allow capitalist invaders back in decades later
>not a Pyrrhic victory

Obviously Vietnam, it's deluded to say otherwise

>US literally retreats and doesn't achieve it's objective
>The North Vietnamese conquer the south and achieve their objectives

It's not even a fucking debate.

It's victory because the enemy lost and surrendered.

The mental loops you Americans go through....

>That's why, for instance, Germany surrendered in WW1 despite no Entente troops being in Germany, they were not in fact winning the war, despite occupying an enormous amount of turf.

"enormous" is a relative term in comparison to what they accomplished the second time around.

>This is just wrong, but of course you know nothing about WW1, so you being wrong isn't exactly surprising.

That's the point you're missing, that the industrial output was less meaningful than it was in WW2, because the war moved more slowly and so an industrially inferior nation like France can hold the line for 4 years despite getting beat up quite a bit, whereas in WW2 a couple weeks of military success led to half a decade of basically uncontested occupation of western europe until US involvement, which is a far superior situation to what they had at the end of WW1, despite having a "relative superior industrial output". The only difference between a defeated germany after WW1 and a defeated Germany after WW2 is a matter of when the ref finally called it. He called it early in WW1 but the Entente forces would have marched their way into German lands eventually considering the German war machine had literally nothing left to give and the allies had just been given a massive pool of resources and men to pull on at the perfect time when Germany couldn't hold back the advance anymore of France and Britain, yet alone the United States

Germany did tangibly better in WW2, occupied more territory for a longer period of time, your argument is some de jure bullshit.

>Are you seriously implying that this didn't happen in WW1?

German military commanders consistently showed an inability to take full advantage of victories in WW1. This is why they got bogged down, and you can't really blame them because the entire conception of warfare was changing before their eyes, but beyond feeling sorry for them they were very clearly less effective than in WW2. You're wrong.

>"enormous" is a relative term in comparison to what they accomplished the second time around.

What exactly did they accomplish? They beat up France, attacked a very disorganized Russia, and then lost it all.

>That's the point you're missing, that the industrial output was less meaningful than it was in WW2, because the war moved more slowly

That's idiotic. A more attritional war requires greater industrial capacity, as shitting out endless waves of artillery, shells, boots, small arms, etc, doesn't exactly come from nowhere.

> whereas in WW2 a couple weeks of military success

So you mean, without enough time for that superior industry to fire up and get to producing. It's the short, sharp wars in which industry matters comparatively little.

> led to half a decade of basically uncontested occupation of western europe until US involvement, which is a far superior situation to what they had at the end of WW1, despite having a "relative superior industrial output"

I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say here. Not to mention that the gap between the surrender of France and the surrender of Italy was 3 years.

1/2

>The only difference between a defeated germany after WW1 and a defeated Germany after WW2 is a matter of when the ref finally called it. He called it early in WW1 but the Entente forces would have marched their way into German lands eventually considering the German war machine had literally nothing left to give and the allies had just been given a massive pool of resources and men to pull on at the perfect time when Germany couldn't hold back the advance anymore of France and Britain, yet alone the United States

You're missing the point. Utterly and completely. WW1 Germany was able to fight England, France, and Russia simultaneously, and in fact advance against all three. WW2 Germany was able to beat France by a finesse, and then proceed to mostly lose the war against Russia, while never even posing a threat to England, something that was not the case in WW1. Germany's strength, vis a vis the rest of Europe, was vastly huger in the first war than the second.

>German military commanders consistently showed an inability to take full advantage of victories in WW1

And they consistently showed problems of similar sort in WW2. That's why Barbarossa did not in fact send the whole Bolshevik state crashing down. Things got more mobile, that's all.

>You're wrong.

And so is every military historian of any repute! Because user the moron doesn't understand how war works!

>So you mean, without enough time for that superior industry to fire up and get to producing.

The French and British and everybody else knew full well that war was coming, they had plenty of time to prepare but not only did they not, they convinced the Czechoslovaks to cease their mobilization in 1938 and tried to get the Poles to do the same in 1939.

And even _after_ the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland, the French and the British sat on their hands and did nothing.

>What exactly did they accomplish? They beat up France, attacked a very disorganized Russia, and then lost it all.

lost it all half a decade later after way more effort had to be put in to put them down. WW1 germany was getting beaten to a pulp by just the western powers without russia, whereas the western powers in WW2 wouldn't even dare enter mainland France until Russia was basically already winning. You have to remember that they had Austria taking the brunt of the hits in WW1 as well, they had more resources to throw into the western front in WW1 and they still did worse.

>That's idiotic. A more attritional war requires greater industrial capacity,
over the long run, but if it doesn't even last a few weeks then the long run takes a lot longer to come about, and it comes after far more struggle. France was never fully occupied in WW1, you cannot say the same about WW2. Furthermore Germany pushed farther East in WW2 than they did in WW1, and so comparatively they did better considering the fact that the "long run" would always favor the side with more resources and the allies were just bigger and had more people, it was inevitable both times.

as shitting out endless waves of artillery, shells, boots, small arms, etc, doesn't exactly come from nowhere.

>So you mean, without enough time for that superior industry to fire up and get to producing. It's the short, sharp wars in which industry matters comparatively little.

no matter how you rationalize it they did better in WW2 for longer, "industrial capacity" be damned. Seems it doesn't matter as much in these relative situations as you want it to, that's the only point I'm trying to make.

>3 years
So a superior occupation then. Hmm

> and in fact advance against all three
when you put it in these generalized terms it sounds better, but they advanced tangibly less in WW1 and did it tangibly slower

>and then proceed to mostly lose the war against Russia

They advanced faster and farther into Russia than they ever did in WW1, the difference here is that Russia was a vastly more effective military force in WW2 compared to their putrid showing in WW1, this is not an argument that can be used to say that they are somehow stronger in a relative sense because they pushed farther and occupied more territory than in WW1 but this time the Russians weren't sabotaged by an internal civil war. German did fucking better in WW2 by every measure, you're delusional. When the US came to WW1 they basically joined in with the winning team. When the US entered WW2 they had to pick up the eviscerated corpse of France and hold our pale, dying mother's hand to cross the street into france where the US proceeded to take the lead in operations, a stark contrast to the relatively submissive and obedient US of WW1 that was willing to follow orders and merely assisting a soon-to-be victorious entente army.

>And they consistently showed problems of similar sort in WW2. That's why Barbarossa did not in fact send the whole Bolshevik state crashing down. Things got more mobile, that's all.

This isn't because Barbarossa was less effective than their advances in WW1, because this is tangibly wrong, you can look at a map and then look at the dates and see that this just isn't true. This is entirely because Russia was a harder nut to crack than it was in WW1.

>And so is every military historian of any repute! Because user the moron doesn't understand how war works!

You think numbers and logistics and grand strategy win wars, and it certainly helps, but it all means nothing if you can't win any battles. In that same vein, if you win all the battles but you can't consolidate power over your holdings, then you also lose, but much more slowly, and after having accomplished far more. I'd rather be a Napoleon than a Wilhelm desu

Because you either go big or you go home. France was easily subdued with "limited" resistance. It depends on the culture and the brutaluty

>lost it all half a decade later after way more effort had to be put in to put them down.

And ensured that such an effort would in fact be made, making all their previous advances meaningless. Germany, in WW2, had 0 chance whatsoever of winning the war, because they couldn't compete long term with their adversaries, and couldn't parlay their initial victories into lasting concessions. WW1 Germany did not have this problem.

> WW1 germany was getting beaten to a pulp by just the western powers without russia,

If by that you mean winning a second front, pouring troops into the first, the French army mutinying, and them staying in French soil being beaten to a pulp, I can only think you're unfamiliar with WW1.

> whereas the western powers in WW2 wouldn't even dare enter mainland France until Russia was basically already winning.

Do you not understand how this hurts your point? Like, at all?

>You have to remember that they had Austria taking the brunt of the hits in WW1 as well, they had more resources to throw into the western front in WW1

HOLY SHIT! MAYBE THATS THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT! What the FUCK do you think "Far weaker relative to its adversaries" means you goddamn mongoloid?

>and they still did worse.

If you consider the entire war to be in France, then your point would only be marginally retarded as opposed to completely retarded.

> France was never fully occupied in WW1, you cannot say the same about WW2.

Yes, now how is that relevant?

>. Furthermore Germany pushed farther East in WW2 than they did in WW1,

Except of course, they knocked out Russia the first time around. Actually had territory ceded to them in perpetuity

> and so comparatively they did better considering the fact that the "long run" would always favor the side with more resources and the allies were just bigger and had more people, it was inevitable both times.

FAR WEAKER RELATIVE TO ITS ADVERSARIES!

>no matter how you rationalize it they did better in WW2 for longer, "industrial capacity" be damned

Muh dirt! None of that advancing actually put them on the path to victory; they had no means of striking decisively at their critical enemies, a weakness they did not share in WW1.

>Seems it doesn't matter as much in these relative situations as you want it to, that's the only point I'm trying to make.

You're missing the point. Again. Yyu utter retard. WW1 Germany could fight three major powers at the same time and be on the advance against all of them. WW2 Germany could not.

>when you put it in these generalized terms it sounds better, but they advanced tangibly less in WW1 and did it tangibly slower

MUH DIRT!

>They advanced faster and farther into Russia than they ever did in WW1, the difference here is that Russia was a vastly more effective military force in WW2 compared to their putrid showing in WW1,

FAR WEAKER RELATIVE TO ITS ADVERSARIES! Is English a second, or maybe third language for you?

> German did fucking better in WW2 by every measure, you're delusional.

I like the measure of getting a victorious treaty on one hand, as opposed to getting my capital occupied on the other.

> When the US came to WW1 they basically joined in with the winning team.

Are you high? When the U.S. joined in 1917, the Russians were out of the fight, the French army was mutinying, and the only theater of success in Europe, the Blockade, was in danger of unraveling because of the new areas the Germans opened up.

>When the US entered WW2 they had to pick up the eviscerated corpse of France and hold our pale, dying mother's hand to cross the street into france where the US proceeded to take the lead in operations, a stark contrast to the relatively submissive and obedient US of WW1 that was willing to follow orders and merely assisting a soon-to-be victorious entente army.

When the U.S. entered WW2 they did jack shit for about a year, and by that time, the Soviets and Brits were both independently advancing against Germany.

>This isn't because Barbarossa was less effective than their advances in WW1,

I don't think you understand what 'effective' means. Have you ever heard of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The advances of Germany led to Russia collapsing internally and bowing out of the war. The advances in Barbarossa didn't.

>This is entirely because Russia was a harder nut to crack than it was in WW1.

FAR WEAKER RELATIVE TO ITS ADVERSARIES!

>You think numbers and logistics and grand strategy win wars, and it certainly helps, but it all means nothing if you can't win any battles.

You do realize Rommel lost in his theater, right? Nor that WW1 Germany somehow couldn't win battles.

>if you win all the battles but you can't consolidate power over your holdings, then you also lose, but much more slowly, and after having accomplished far more

I don't think you understand what accomplishments are in war. Here, have a basic book. clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm

War is about enacting political change through force. Yes, the American military absolutely unequivocally roflstomped the NVA and VC in direct engagements. That point is unarguable. However, thats all for naught, since the actual goal of the conflict was to keep the South from falling to the communists and that utterly failed. Amerifats btfo.

Inb4
American cognitive dissonance: The Thread

Colt's manufacturing company

Comintern objective: unite Vietnam in all its territory, under Soviet friendly government.
NATO objective: reclaim french land, failing that remove Soviet friendly government.

Comintern achieved its objective, NATO failed its, so North Vietnam won.

That's a map of Japan, lass.

hapa population desu

Sweet ad-hominem, amigo.

THIS

I've researched Vietnam between 1945 and 1964's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I'm not gonna whitewash Ho Chi Minh because he was an opportunistic nationalist, he was going to use whatever means to oust colonial rule whether through Soviet backing or anything else.

One of the main reasons why South Vietnam had such shitty leadership was because the Viet Minh wiped out or drove into exile all the promising nationalists who weren't aligned with Communism and the Soviets. All that was left was the dregs.

US policymakers should have had a more nuanced view towards Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam. We helped arm and train the Viet Minh against the Japanese in WW2 and then turned out backs on them to appease the French. What we should've done is treat Vietnam was the Yugoslavia of Asia; a nation that has Communist leanings but nonaligned with the Soviets. In time, Vietnam would've been open to market reforms similar to what Yugoslavia did, but hopefully without the later repercussions.

With Korea, we should've just repelled the NORKs back to the 38th Parallel. MacArthur was too arrogant and dimwitted to truly believe that he could just waltz in North Korea, a key buffer state to the PRC's powerbase of Manchuria without any blowback. The war got dragged on for more than 2.5 years because of this idiocy. Truman deserves as much blame for not heeding China's diplomatic messages via 3rd parties.

The American recording industry.

True
m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7qkQewyubs

the title's wrong m8

the song is It Aint Me, and the group is Fortunate Sons.

None of that is correct. For starters, NATO had nothing to do with Vietnam. Second, the U.S. had no intentions of reclaiming North Vietnam nor intentions of removing Communists from Hanoi.

The USSR.

>That's a map of Japan, lass.

Way to miss the point, honey.

In WWII, the U.S. slipped the lease off the military and let them do what was needed.

In Vietnam, LBJ micromanaged the war from the Oval Office, to the point of literally telling the Air Force and Navy what kinda bombs to drop and where and when.

And when the military informed the White House that they could see Soviet AA missiles being unloaded right on the fucking docks in Haiphong Harbor, LBJ wouldn't let them be bombed....

Soviets

Vietnam is in no way dependent on the US for defense against China.

Furthermore, it is very much independent in its foreign policy.

Finally, although I can tell you are ignorant, The Communist Republic of Vietnam is a communist authoritarian state where the "opinions" of the people don't determine government policy.

The VCP sucks Chinese cock on a daily basis. It's literally the most pro-Chinese organization in Vietnam, and it sells out its own people to the Chinese just like it sold out to the West.
Over 15% of Vietnamese workers have jobs in Chinese-related companies.

>fight war against X
>kick out X for 20 years
>X comes back and wins later

Two separate events you retard

The Jews

>In WWII, the U.S. slipped the lease off the military and let them do what was needed.

lel

Is this supposed to mean anything?

>we let them off the lease
>we lost 300 men
>the enemy took no losses
>this was clearly what needed to happen

>One engagement in WW2 means the US army sucks

>War
>Winning

Back to /pol/ you idiot.

Nobody wins in war.

...

What is a ship hitting a mine.

>being so fat you can't even see the mine

ITT: Amerisharts attempting to save face.

Vietnamese communists always knew that when facing a modern, foreign miltary power (French then later Americans) they would have to play the long game and endure massive casualties in doing so. As Vietnam was their country, and they weren't a democratic nation invading a foreign nation for intangible gains, they were able to successfully wait out America, which was plagued by increasing anti-war sentiments at home. People arguing "well America got this wicked kill ratio blah blah blah" need to stuff a burger in their mouths and stick to playing videogames.

All America managed to do was stall the collapse of the fantastically corrupt and incompetent South Vietnamese government.

We never passed #20, so I call it a success.

Forgot pic

Idiot.

dictionary.com/browse/pyrrhic-victory

dictionary.com/browse/pyrrhic-victory

Shart here, you are correct.

Been seeing a lot of Vietnam denial lately around the internet, maybe part of a trend of revisionist history?

inb4 I get called a revisionist

About 60,000 soldiers and lots of money for no gain. They lost much more, but captured the South which was their goal.

Simply put, got tired of it and gave up. This resulted in North Vietnam uniting with the South as a Communist nation, which was their objective.

>They lost much more, but captured the South which was their goal.
They=The North

This

There was no "winning" this war, it was a game of who could suffer the longest and we gave up first.

youtu.be/edt5lQPNMVc

Actually, we did win.

The United States signed a treated with NVA and Vietcong in Paris which declared us and the ARVN the winners of the conflict. This was after one of the most thorough strategic bombing campaigns against Hanoi and other high value targets.

The problem arose is when we withdrew. We had drawn up a treaty with South Vietnam which was a one for one replacement policy; every bit of ordinance spent, every vehicle destroyed was to be replaced until the South could develop their own domestic arms industry.

Unfortunately, the democrats in congress didn't feel obligated in honoring this contract, and withdrew support from South Vietnam. The North quickly overran Southern defenses, bolstered by supplies from the USSR. This was a clear cut case of betrayal to a nation that 50,000 serviceman died to protect.

Ironically, it the democrats were the ones who started the Police action in Vietnam under Kennedy and subsequently escalated it under Johnson.

It doesn't really matter though. Vietnam now is a communist country in name only. Most Vietnamese actually love Americans. The conflict was mostly about the Vietnamese asserting their independence against colonial powers and enforcing their sovereignty.

Dow Chemical, Boeing, Colt Firearms, Kalashnikov Concern, General Motors, Mikoyan, and Monsanto

The military industrial complex

this desu

The NVA came back when you withdrew and conquered the south.surely now they arent real communists and so on,but at the time you did not come back,you lost.its like if germany would have reconquered europe after the US and UK withdrew from the continent and you would do nothing.Just accept your defeat,jesus christ.

>The United States signed a treated with NVA and Vietcong in Paris which declared us and the ARVN the winners of the conflict.
>The North quickly overran Southern defenses, bolstered by supplies from the USSR.
So they signed a treaty declaring themselves the winners, and then left without fighting ever having completely stopped? Pathetic. I think the USA has lost the right to hate on Japan for their attempts to find a way to end WW2 while "saving face".

When did the nva push the US army out of saigon? Oh right they never did because the US pulled out after getting a cease fire that the nva promptly disregarded once the US was gone.
Is that beating the US?
Seems more like they were afraid of the US.