MERICCA LOST DA VIETKNAM WAR

>America fails to halt the spread of gommunism
>we support an even shittier gommunist hellhole to stop the Vietnagooks
>Vietngooks then turn around and start fighting the Chinagooks and their friends
>our communist adversaries end up doing our work in halting the spread of gommunism
>somehow, everything goes better than expected
>completely against our intentions
God has a weird sense of humor man

>muh body count
excellent soldiering on our men's parts means that they can hold their heads high, not that they won

.

Basically thisThe guerrilla worn out US so much that they got out... MAYBE they could have won, but we never will now.

After all Vietnam belongs to China, they just don´t enforce it.

>killed millions of gooks
>completely failed stated goals regardless
Yes. Lost.

bugs... easy on the body count

>implying anyone else could have done better without going full nazi

Why does the Vietnam War triggers americans so much?

>Lose South Vietnam
>Lose Cambodia
>Lose Laos
>Lose 60.000 lives
>Lose untold billions of dollars
>WE WON DA WAR GIUZ
>American education

It shattered their mythology.

they can't make this shit up

Eurpoors like to post this shit daily. Pretend like communism is a good thing. Try to say the US failed to stop the spread. Ignores Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India etc.

>probably the highest k/d of any war in history
>STILL fail to prevent communism from taking over the country, not only that but they actually make it worse by bombing Cambodia and allowing the Khmer Rouge to take over
JUST

>Implying the Nazis were any good at counterinsurgency.

Even a broken clock and so on.

>Pretend like communism is a good thing
And imperialism is?
The good guys won.

I'm not American but why do people on here act like they're on /int/? Can't talk about that war without being called a butthurt American or a butthurt commie.

Because we have lots of shitty spillover from /int/. They're even worse than the /pol/tards IMO.

>AMERIGA WON DA VIETNAM WAR DURR
>Can't point Vietnam on the map
>Can't point America on the map

Indeed. See right here:

We could have won if we hadn't been such pussies. If we had knuckled down and went full on war of attrition, we would have slaughtered them.

Nobody wanted to lose 16 million Americans over some shitty French colony they barely cared about in the first place

>w-we didn't even care!

loving every laugh

America could've just slapped down France and accepted or atleast barely recognized Vietnam overtures for independence and they would be better off,sure they would take a slight prestige blow but its much better than ignoramuses yapping about 'winning'

They did in the one they fought and died in a major war for years over. You assume when people point that out it's because communism is good. It's actually anger at your failure against it and refusal to own up to it. It doesn't invalidate those successes, but those don't invalidate your big failure either. Face it.

Except he's saying they did care, you moron. The reason they lost is because they had to pull out. There were endless internal obstacles to the war.

I'm not an Ameritard and even I know this.

>There were endless internal obstacles to the war

This is a nice way of saying "we didn't want to have a nuclear exchange"

>if only they had just been allowed to keep fighting there forever they would never lose

I hope you're b8ting, mate.

Everyone was scared shitless of a nuclear exchange.

Poor strawman.

Okay, sorry, not stay forever. I mean go full Einsatzgruppen on the population. Then they might have won.

Yeah, killing all the South Vietnamese would have granted America victory.

That's what I'm saying.

The limits on US forces in Vietnam weren't dictated by muh feels, they were dictated by the possibility of the conflict escalating into a conflict with China, which could escalate into a nuclear exchange with China, which could escalate into a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

Because the Germans never faced continual partisan resistance after the Einsatzgruppen swept through!

Yeah lots of good historical analysis going on here.

>no vietnmaese ever called me a racial slurr while i raped their daughters and slaughtered their families

Yeah. okay.

That's part of the joke if you're gonna make me say it. Seems to be the only other solution anyone has to actually win besides YOU CAN'T LOSE IF YOU FIGHT IN THE JUNGLE FOREVER

The US won the counterinsurgency though.

People forget this fact. The Viet Cong got fucked so badly in the two years after the Tet Offensive that even in the Spring 1975 offensive, seven years after Tet and two years after the last American troops left, the Viet Cong still didn't participate.

The Thieu government wasn't destroyed by insurgents, it was destroyed by a 22 division conventional armored push.

*sigh* Creating a false dichotomy. The U.S. had plenty of options. In the end they abandoned South Vietnam to its fate.

How did it win exactly?

Well, no, there's a shitton of scholarship on how to fight and win counterinsurgency. I mean, if you take American tactics and doctrine and political alliances as a given instead of something subject to review, yeah, America can't win, because ultimately, the state they were trying to prop up was non-viable, couldn't survive without America militarily supporting it, and pretty much collapsed the second America stopped.

If you can actually focus on more than killing NVA and VC dudes, and try to create a functional South Vietnamese state that can fight on its own, you can win. The spring of 75 offensive theoretically had the Sotuh Vietnamese outnumbering thier NVA counterparts over 3:1, but they were still unable to effectively fight. That's what you need to change, not burning more villages or staying on the ground forever.

>invest everything in the war
>gets more political instability in America
>more men dying in the jungle
>sours relationship with China and the Soviet Union furthermore
>have to start diverting troops from Europe to Asia,threatening the theatre
>allocate a huge budget that will eventually get hit by the oil crisis in 73 in a much more disastrous way
>still have to put troops around to secure the recent conquest

a-atleast we won Vietnam!

i genuinely want to know what options they had that didn't amount to one of those. i don't want to be uncivil anymore, i really want to know what you think. of course they had "options", but what price is worth it for you?

>The Soviet Union was permanently kept from getting a foothold in South East Asia
>America did not achieve its strategic goals
Pick one

Asia was secondary for geopolticial concern than Europe for Soviets
they already have a huge hurdle after the Sino-Soviet split

The jungle warfare wasn't even that relevant in Vietnam war, stop watching so many movies brainlet faggot.

that's great, but a cop out. that's just bypassing the actual war with a proxy one that you have utmost faith in. this argument assumes america is already down and dirty in the shit.

You're a moron if you think America was "beaten." We were then and are now the most capable military force to ever exist. American leadership saw that there was no way of achieving our strategic interests in southeast Asia without taking the entire country/region and basically holding it as a colony. You can't really claim to lead the free world while you permanently occupy and ..."pacify" a less than welcoming population and then expect to be taken seriously. No matter, that's already behind us. The Vietnamese always said "they have to go home some day." The fucking idiots apparently have yet to realize that we are always home, like we are in Okinawa, Korea, the Philippines, Germany, Italy, Jordan, need I go on and name every country with a permanent US military presence in the world? I couldn't fit all the bases in this post.

Our tactics were stupid, given that Saigon didn't want us to use strategic bombing on cities that they thought they were just going to acquire through a bush war by getting a high enough body count. Kill enough commies and that's that, right? No, it was a fucking slaughter of over a million or so but that was only sending thousands more to the jungle to avenge their loved ones every day.
So instead strategic bombing, burning, and herbicide sorties were carried out along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the fucking jungle. We dropped more weight in firepower in the fucking jungle than we did in all of the second world war. These stupid tactics lead to nothing but a meat grinder without any benefit toward the actual strategic goal of stopping communism in the region, and the social climate (cont)

(Cont)
ack state side was very unhappy with this. Did we fail to achieve our objective by deciding to cut our losses in blood and treasure with the Paris peace treaty. Absofuckinglutely. Did we get beaten in any battle? Never. The only battles we lost were the malicious battles the government was engaged in with its own population over the draft, civil rights, and peaceful protests. I'm not one that sides with hippies, yuppies, or hipsters on about anything, however, the government really fucked it's strategic objectives by not indulging the public their given rights as citizens and humans. Perhaps if they had, today all of southeast Asia could be as wealthy as the other highly developed Asian nations like Japan, Korea, Singapore etc

The fact that the United States doesn't still have military bases in Vietnam is proof that they lost. Anywhere the US fights, it leaves soldiers behind. America still has many bases in Japan and Korea and Germany. If America had won in Vietnam, there would be American bases in Vietnam to this day.

No it isn't. The "actual war" was an attempt to create a self-sustaining South Vietnamese state. Fighting the North Vietnamese forces is only half the battle. Actually creating the institutions to enable South Vietnam to stand on its own is the other half, and America never really bothered with that part.

Now yes, if you take that as a given, since that was what America's level of operations was at, they cannot win. But that's what you need to change to make a victory. You need to focus on clearing and holding areas (instead of body counts) long enough for the South Vietnamese to create effective control over said areas and leave them capable of defending themselves and providing material and moral support to a government in Saigon. But that means that said institutions need to be able to create themselves, which was not the case historically, which in turn means you need a drastically different government, one that isn't viewed as a western stooge. (You want them to be a western stooge, just not perceived as such, especially if they say, are of a religion that is a tiny minority in Vietnam and oppressing the majority faith).

>The only battles we lost were the malicious battles the government was engaged in with its own population over the draft, civil rights, and peaceful protests

That and the battle to create a South Vietnamese government that was capable of fighting for itself.

Or the battle to articulate a coherent strategy or rationale for the conflict.

Or the battle to force a settlement from North Vietnam.

>creating the institutions to enable South Vietnam to stand on its own is the other half, and America never really bothered with that part

What do you think Vietnamization was supposed to do?

Old Dicky's policies? They were intended to pull America out of the war with a minimum of face lost, and transfer more of the burden of the war to Vietnamese troops. They sure as shit weren't intended to actually create effective South Vietnamese institutions that could effectively fight said war, and Nixon knew that damn well.

If I'm honest, I think the thought process was more like

>well, if we're going to pull out, we may as well give the dumb slopes one last chance to get it right

I don't think America could have done much more to bolster the South Vietnamese government, short of outright taking it over and becoming a new colonial overlord.

this
all this talk about making SV into an autonomous muscleman sounds great on paper, but fucking how?

Sure they could have. Not allowing the 63 coup would be a massive step in the right direction. As disliked as Diem was, Thieu was even worse, and military administration was not particularly liked or respected, and somehow managed to not be effective either, since they tried to bolster support by including a minimum of brass and a maximum of overhead in the government. Making sure that whatever government in Saigon actually gave a shit about the villages throughout the country would also help, two way loyalty is definitely a thing, and one you'd think the ARVN would understand, but apparently didn't.

K/D is stupid in any war, it's like saying the allies lost ww2 because so many people from the USSR and China died.

This is just my own personal guess, but I bet Diem would have lost just as badly, it just wouldn't have been as embarrassing a loss for the US.

top fucking kek

Eh. Maybe if they had magic internet hindsight from the 21st century like us.

Communism isn't by any means clean of its own problems, but Ho was by all means a badass who stood up for his people.

i remembered that Ho tried to court the Americans by using ideals and rhetoric from the French and American revolution,but was denied because Murrica was looking out for the frogs

I need to take this moment to remind everyone that the French are cancer.

>have colony
>rule it with an iron fist and reject any sort of self rule despite your country having a massive fetish for egalite, liberte and fraternite
>get your ass kicked by Germans despite the Germans having lost a war only two decades earlier and being banned by treaty from having a military
>by the time you get back, the de facto government of your colony is a communist leading bloc, because those were the only people protecting your colonial subjects from the depredations of your enemies
>call their leader to Paris for negotiations and then jerk him around for several months while massacring his friends back east
>demand that the Americans fund and support this venture, or else you'll throw a temper tantrum and refuse to help protect yourself against the communists (you didn't learn anything from the last time they refused to protect themselves)
>spend the war killing any credible native leadership, and then leave without accomplishing any of your goals, leaving the entire country in communist hands
>once you're done milking the people who saved your country for you, pull out of NATO anyway
>spend the next twenty years accusing the Americans of being savages while they bleed in the war that you created

>After all Vietnam belongs to China
>they just don´t enforce it.
Because they're scared about losing to the Vietnamese. Again.

More proof that modern day Militaries are nothing more than welfare for poor whites and Minorities too lazy to get a job in the most free market

The military makes those free market, boy. Those retards join so you don't have to. When a country is running out of poor people and minorities, then you should be worried.

Those retards join because either too poor or too ignorant. The military doesn't create shit except $300 toilet seats and dead niggers

So Germans won WW2?

Yeah. They proved their point about German Supremacy by doing all of this to the allies.

Fucking pathetic, man

Repeat after me: War is the continuation of politics by other means.

In other words, America failed its political objective of keeping Communism from taking over Vietnam, so it lost the war. Period. End of discussion.

When you're prevented from using nukes.

What the fuck am i reading

proof besides kill count and McDonalds in Vietnam?