When will Americans accept that they lost?

>US reached strategic goal
>NVA missed strategic goal
>NVA waited years until the US moved on and had no significant military assets
>NVA overruns corrupt ARVN
>"haha US your previous victory never happened now!"

ftfy

You stupid shits are as bad as the wehraboos that assume 1918 never happened because 1940 did.

South Vietnam was just as dictatorial and corrupt as South Korea was yet you decided to protect Korea but abandoned Vietnam.
And if you look at how well SK is doing today you could have done the same to Vietnam if you had any balls

US accomplished its strategic goal with guaranteeing of South Vietnamese independence in Paris Peace Accords. The takeover of south happened long after US left. The fact that Washington accepted clear violation of peace treaty and didn't renew hostilities is a sad one but hardly a defeat.

New to the thread, but are you seriously implying that the Paris Peace Accords were anything but a U.S. withdrawal and a surreptitious green light to the NVA to come in any time they felt ready? Why the fuck did the NVA occupy about a fifth of South Vietnam at the time of the treaty?

What decisive battles did the Americans win in their revolution that pushed the British out? There were still over 30,000 Redcoats in and around New York. I guess the British won the American revolution, huh? No, wait, that logic is utterly retarded.

historynewsnetwork.org/article/150424

Thats one particular way to read it.
The other would be the US fought long and hard to keep Vietnam and south east Asia from turning communist. With the result that all of Vietnam and most of south east Asia turned communist.
US completely failed to reach their goal. NVA on the other hand united Vietnam under a communist rule.
You lost. Deal with it.

>US accomplished its strategic goal with guaranteeing of South Vietnamese independence in Paris Peace Accords.
Thats what we call a "French Goodbye". A sad try to safe face.

You signed the Paris Peace Accords knowing full well that the NVA had the intention to break them. The US failed to achieve its strategic objectives and withdrew, the NVA achieved its strategic objectives. You lost the war.

>and most of south east Asia turned communist
Three out of 10 countries turned communist. That's not even close to most. SEA is much bigger than Indochina.

>What decisive battles did the Americans win in their revolution that pushed the British out?
Yorktown. Saratoga.

Operation Tet was one of the the most successful operations in history of warfare, it absolutely ruined public opinion on Vietnam war in the US, which was its main goal.

>Operation Tet was one of the the most successful operations in history of warfare
??? There is no one on Earth, not even the fucking Vietnamese, that call the Tet Offensive a successful operation, let alone the most successful operation in the history of warfare. It completely fucking ruined NVA logistics for YEARS, completely took the VC out of the picture for the rest of the war, and actually gave SEATO MORE control over the countryside and cities than it had previously. By all rights, the Tet Offensive was a massive fucking failure that set the North's war aims back for years and made them fully realize that they absolutely could not get anything done as long as the U.S. was still in the picture.

>which was it's main goal
Now I know you're fucking larping because that was a happy accident and not the main goal at all. The main goal was to trigger a full uprising in the South which would result in the United States Dien Bien Phu. It didn't result in any uprising and it didn't result in any coup de grace either.

Also just for reference, even after Tet, U.S. public opinion while now majority against the war, didn't have THAT large of a majority. The public opinion went from 60/40 to 40/60. You don't see an actual large majority against the Vietnam War until the "invasion" of Cambodia.

>US lost the war.
>While Vietnam is sucking its (US) economic dick and making jackets for Americans and not their own people.
Really makes you thnk.

>Yorktown. Saratoga.
Neither battle pushed the Brits out. The Brits still had more men in America than the Continental army even after Yorktown.

Try again, idiot.

>Neither battle pushed the Brits out
???
Yorktown directly caused the Treaty of Paris, you triple nigger.

>Vietnam lost the war because its economy is now flourishing

hahaha jesus christ just accept that you lost you loser

Americans won with French intervention. Like with the NVA, they won no major battles that drove their enemy out. They were militarily unsuccessful.

Are you fucking historically illiterate? Fuck outta here.

nuh uh

>they won no major battles that drove their enemy out. They were militarily unsuccessful
Both of these are wrong.

Not an argument.

2 years after the fact, so the "directness" is a bit hard to prove. Regardless, it did NOT remove the British military presence from the U.S., even after Yorktown, the British had enormous forces occupying large segments of the 13 colonies.

I specifically brought it up to demonstrate that removing the enemy from your country is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient for winning a war.

There is no divide between "military" success and failure and overall success and failure. War is political violence. If you get your political aims, you win. If you don't, you lose. Battlefield successes might help, but are not their own separate thing that gets to be judged on its own merit.

>2 years after the fact, so the "directness" is a bit hard to prove
Considering that negotiations began directly after and hostilities between the U.S. and Britain ceased, no it is not hard to prove. The only reason it took so long for the treaty fully go into effect was because of Spain being a cunt and the ratification process of the Continental Congress. You are a fucking ignorant cunt and can fuck off like the other retard.

>exports, an imporatant part of any successful economy is a bad thing
Read a book holy shit

>April 30, 1975
Because the war ended in 1973

>War is political violence. If you get your political aims, you win. If you don't, you lose.

Considering America's political aim was to withdraw from Vietnam, logically then doesn't that mean we won?
:^)

>Considering that negotiations began directly after and hostilities between the U.S. and Britain ceased, no it is not hard to prove
What are you talking about? Negotiations had been going on since well before Yorktown, and in fact almost as soon as the fighting had broken out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#Staten_Island_Peace_Conference

>You are a fucking ignorant cunt and can fuck off like the other retard.
Pot, meet kettle. All I have stated is that even after Yorktown, there were significant British forces in the U.S. Places like Charleston, New York, Savannah, etc. remained occupied until the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Yorktown did not in fact, "push the brits out". The Brits were still there after Yorktown, and to deny that is to simply be wrong.

America did not lose though.
America achieved it's strategic goals and left, then the north invaded again after the US left.
The US was unable to redeploy because the elected officials did not want to commit political suicide to save a tiny corrupt nation.
I know people feel the need to bring the US down a peg and it's pretty funny to watch how they desperately cling to "dirt" farmers beating the US, ignoring the fact the dirt farmers were losing well backed up by all their neighbors, and the USSR. They had massive advantages and were still being beat the fuck down.

...

>ITT burgers brandishing their excuses

Yeah, that Cambodia Campaign, the goal was to destroy VietCong units, who everyone claims were destroyed after Tet offensive. Cambodia Campaign was a failure IMHO. Same Vietcong unit (VC 3rd, 7th, 9th divisions) participated in this campaign, popped up, captured Phuoc Long. It was the very important first battle of 1975 Spring Offensive, which caused the collapse of Republic of Vietnam.

The simple fact that you use divisions goes to show they were NVA units and not VC ones which was the reality after Tet. The VC ceased to exist as an entity after Tet and all operations from that point forward were carried out by the NVA. I don't know why you're trying to dispute that. It's commonly recognized historiography by everyone including the Vietnamese.

>he can't tell the difference between NVA and VC

Grown-ups are talking.

Get back to arguing over whether mayonnaise is white.

Did the French lose wwi because they were invaded in 1940 when Hitler through out the treaty of Versailles?

There's only one country that won WWI and it got its comeuppance in '29.

Read history of the Vietcong, they were always organised in division. These units had long history from 1965, 1966.

>It's commonly recognized historiography by everyone including the Vietnamese.

Not known by me. Please cite Vietnamese source. I can read Vietnamese. NVA added anti-air and and artillery battalions to this unit, for conventional war, but the core infantry battalion are the same. From US source (ex. Peter Brush), they said 1/3 are northern.

>The takeover of south happened long after US left.
Two years.

youtube.com/watch?v=q1cig3PDeQ0

Here you see Vietcong fought in regiment size. Every Vietnamese guys interview in this video are Southern. The interviewed guy at 7:50 still live in the village after all these years next to the battle ground.

War isn't over until both sides say it is.

Leaving while you know that the other side will continue to fight, is giving up.

Most of the Europe was hit harder by the depression than the US tho...

This tbqh, US is quitters.

At least the U.S. fought.Not like any of you Eurofags fight anymore.You probably would have done a shittier job than the U.S.

Nothing more pathetic than the straw grasping of anti-Americans

nice k/d ratio, commies.

>trusting US commanders body """counts"""

Americans are consistently terrible at conducting analyses of enemy casualties, even worse than the Brits and Germans.

those aren't estimates of enemy casualties.

" NVA casualty data was provided by North Vietnam in a press release to Agence France Presse (AFP) on April 3, 1995, on the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. "

rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Except they wouldn't have because countries like the UK or Germany had actual strategies for counter-insurgency operations. Granted, most of them revolved around terrorizing the civilian population into not wanting to support insurgents at all, but at least they had strategies whereas the US went full retard and talked about "hearts and minds" while napalming the fuck out of anything that moved.

The message was just too contradictory. Nazis were like "don't support the commie rebels or we'll fuck you up even harder" while Americans were like "we want to help your country even though we've killed half your family but just trust us on this one guys"

Guys you're forgetting the truly EPIC kill count!

We killed like 10 zipperheads to every 1 US Army soldier who was killed, so we actually won!

>what is CORDS
>what is the VC getting extirpated in between 1969 and 1971

Well then those NVA fucks fucked up, 1 million dead and only 600k wounded? I'm not buying that for a second.

But even based on that figure, the NVA/VC forces inflicted more casualties than they received.

The PAVN/PLAF never won a SINGLE battle against American Forces.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that the Tet offensive in '68 utterly failed and resulted in the complete dissolution of the Viet Cong?

Do you think it was just a coincidence that the PLAF launched a full-scale offensive AFTER the US backed out after signing the peace accords?

>implying the NVA or VC had the infrastructure to treat their wounded

Are you stupid or something?

I think you're doing your math wrong, bud.

Explain and how the NVA managed to be occupying significant chunks of South Vietnam even with the invincible U.S. forces around.

>Ignoring South Vietnamese casualties.

Intelligent Americans do. And we got our revenge for Vietnam when we supplied the mujhadeen in Afghanistan and gave the Soviets a taste of their own medicine.

I fucking love how leftists were silent during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan yet demonized the Big Bad USA for South Vietnam.

That map is fake. Pic related is the actual photo, its a map of corps tactical zones.

Dude, if you go down on that website you can find casualty amounts per year.

NVA/VC, 1966-1972: 655,434 KIA
ARVN/US, 1966-1972: 188,452 KIA

Hippies didn't exist in the 50s, if they did the whole peninsula would belong to fat boy kim.

>American casualty claims
>credible

choose one, my dear burger friend.

Just myth!

Lost Battles of the Vietnam War
g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

The Significance Of Local Communist Forces In Post-Tet Vietnam
msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/pbsignif.html

If attrition losses are important, the USA lost over 3600 fixed-wing aircraft in Vietnam, while the North Vietnamese lost only around 200, so who won the air war?

americans cant handle banter
or win against vietcong

US doctrine is based around air superiority. Half of built F-105 was lost in Vietnam. Attrition warfare sux.

USSR doctrine worked fine, see 1975 spring offensive. Multi corps size mechanized troops with anti-air/artillery support trumped over superior nr of enemy (4x) in 55 days.

>Weise instructed Major Warren, his S3, to remain in Dai Do and take charge of the perimeter manned by the remnants of E and H Companies. Their other decimated company, B/1/ 3, was to remain in An Lac to secure the medevac and resupply points on the Bo Dieu River. The only elements still capable of mounting the assault were F and G Companies, and Weise planned to use both. Weise planned to accompany Golf Company. There were fifty-four Marines left in Golf, and as Weise saddled up with them he noted that, with the exception of grenadiers and machine gunners, almost all were carrying AK-47s. Weise saw only one M16; it was carried by Captain Vargas. The only other functioning M16 was carried by Weise himself.

Really?
Paris peace accords directly oppose your statement
North, South, and the US all signed it.
The north violated it later and the US could not legally intervene due to shifts in the laws and government.
So yes the US won their objective in the war.
Or does this not count as victory or peace to you?

tfw soldiers were too stupid or lazy to clean the M16's

The Viets only had around 200 aircraft to begin with, most of them old MiG-17s and Mig-21s. The 3600 aircraft lost by the US were mostly brought down by SAMs—which the Viets also ran out of by the end of the engagement lol.

>claims Ap Bac as a "lost battle"
>conveniently doesn't mention the only ground troops were ARVN and not US

Give me a fuckin break.

Never ever, in fact it would be ACADEMICALLY CONTRARIAN to claim that the US DID NOT LOSE the Vietnam war

They never run out of SAM.

youtube.com/watch?v=whhbuojuPOI&feature=youtu.be&t=166

Here they even took SAM with them down South at the end of war.

Which AP Bac?

This?

>Battle near Ap Bac - The U.S. Army's 9th Infantry Division operated in the marshy delta region of southern Vietnam, often with Navy river patrol boats. During a routine battalion sweep, Alpha company from the 2nd Brigade crossed an open rice paddy and encountered Viet Cong ready to fight from concrete bunkers. Most of the company was wiped out in the first five minutes, and rest pinned down in the kill zone for hours until other companies arrived. This battle left 40 American dead and 140 wounded.

No, I'm talking about the first one on that website - In January 1963. There were only South Vietnamese forces in that area.

>Legit the south vietnamese people all wanted to join the north anyway
Yeah. They wanted to join the North so badly that everyone that could leave before South Vietnam collapsed did so at their first opportunity.

really gets the noggin joggin'

and the neurons jumpin'

and the electrons flarin'

>outdated weapons
That's a meme that really needs to die

post more of these pls

and the synapses spinnin'

and the brains bubblin'

solid kek, thanks for sharing

oh god, not another board taken over by edgy teens with their shitty history memes

what did the north really gain by taking over the south, aside from clay?

genuinely curious. had the north/south Vietnamese turned into something similar to n/s korea had they decided not to invade? or would north Vietnam end up like it does today

i love this damage control
more please

You didn't know the real leader of North Vietnam, Le Duan, was from the South? He wanted his homeland back at all cost. Other leader from the North wanted diplomacy to build socialism first in the North. "Southerners" fraction wins the power over "Northerners" within politburo.

You probably didn't know many people fleeing South to North in 1954. Many of those people traveled back to South along the trails to join Vietcong/NLF.

It's the same for other side. Many leaders of South Vietnam were from the North. Their mistake was not to push to conquer North Vietnam by force. Else they will get support of millions nationalists. 2 Vietnam's is not acceptable for most Vietnamese.

Alright, you wanna talk turkey and get a definite answer to this shit? The US (of which I am a flag waving citizen) lost the Vietnam War. The goal was to keep the communists out and uphold the policy of containment. We failed that goal and became disillusioned with the whole endeavor, promptly withdrawing when public support soured and the homefront going to hell in a hand basket. Did we kill the enemy? Hell yes we did, but body count is only one facet of a military victory. Vietnam was a debacle, a black mark on my nation's history. Make fun of us all you want, but don't think for a second no country is without faults. For me the war was taught as a failure, a defeat. We lost, but we learned, adapted, and strived to never let it happen again. And don't you dare mock our war dead, these men gave their lives, a sacrifice many aren't willing to make. Learn from our mistake, better yourselves for it, and honor those who serve in defense of YOU.

Fuck your dead, I'm glad they died. They did alot of messed up shit like killing and raping locals. Devegatating and destroying forests and wildlife so they can have an easier shot at the war they were losing, bombing civilian infrastructure, targeting cities and civilians, using terrorizing tactics. I'm glad the Vietcongs and NVA turned alot of them into fertilizers in return of all the agent orange and chemical weapons use.

It's hard to sympathize with people who get out their way and life to fly halfway around the globe toting a gun at someone's turf and killing him over politics.

And don't tell me some draft bullshit. Not all the US army was draftees.

>Soldiers pick the wars
>Soldiers pick where they are deployed
Sure some people join to do that, but if you think it is the majority you are deluded.

>never make it happen again

Say again?