Could the US Army have won in Vietnam had there not been public outcry against the war...

Could the US Army have won in Vietnam had there not been public outcry against the war? Or were there strategical issues that prevented this?

Anyone notice how left wing protests always have a disproportionate amount of women? Why are bitches so attracted to that shit?

There was a study done by the U.S. Army on a ground invasion of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. Cost was enormous, several times what was already spent. last year the direct residual cost of U.S. taxpayer was $300,000,000,000. had the invasion taken place that cost would be trillions.

These protester should have been mowed down with machine guns and armored personnel carriers and the surviving communist anti-war traitiors should have been ran over with tanks. What a bunch of ungrateful anti American scum who should have been thrown into a concentration camp and worked to death for their crimes. Actually no don't work them shoot them. These protesters including their children should have been arrested for treason and tried by the military and shot. Mow em down is what i say.

Even if Amerilards were 100% pro-war, it still wont win in Vietnam because American leadership still wouldn't have invaded North Vietnam and ended the communism in the region once and for all.

Its not the US public that lost the war. Its US leadership dead scared of Korean War 2.0 Southeast Asia boogaloo that will be triggered if they invaded North Vietnam.

Yes
Let’s continue a war that killed many men which could have been avoided if America recognised Vietnam’s independence

pro-war people are so rational

They don’t fight, so there’s more women back home to protest than men

It's possible that another two years at peak troop levels could have killed so many more North Vietnamese that the country ran out of fighting age males.

This would, of course, result in tens of thousands of additional American KIA, and might not create a permanent settlement to the war.

In addition, a protracted engagement would further deplete US contributions to NATO in Europe, paving the way for increased Soviet influence over Western Europe.

Honestly, the war was doomed from the beginning, and conservatives should blame the Democrats who started it, not the Democrats who ended it.

The US was not willing to invade north Vietnam. and risk a larger war, and they were not willing to invest the ridiculous about of soldiers and money that would be needed to secure the south.

>Could the US Army have won in Vietnam had there not been public outcry against the war?

Maybe but unlikely.

The NV military would likely be unable to sustain an effective defence against a concentrated two front attack (assuming the US would probably try an amphibious landing to circumvent the fact that the terrain of central Vietnam creates a very narrow front) forever. But any offensive would be costly, as NV was relatively densely populated, and the population to a significant degree was fighting what they saw as a war of national sovereignty (Ho Chi Minh, for example, was genuinely beloved by the people, as they'd just won their freedom from French and Japanese invaders), so the US would likely be opposed by huge militias once they reached the urbanised north.

Ultimately, the problem was not Vietnam, but rather China. China had very little interest in supporting NV, as they were not on friendly terms (they literally tried to invade Vietnam later on in the 70s and got BTFO). But what China absolutely could not tolerate was a direct US military presence on their border, it was a strategic, as well as political and ideological, no-go. They'd already fought one very costly war to prevent it in Korea, and if the US ever began taking serious ground in NV, especially if they captured Hanoi, there would very likely be a PLA intervention.

With the manpower available to the NVA (which was significantly more than was available to the DPRK), and the massed PLA on their side, the US alone (remember that in Korea, the US had UN support, especially in the form of tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers), would be hard pressed to find victory.

Yet another issue is that the USSR was actively supporting the NVA, and a potential PLA intervention could lead to, out of necessity and common enemy, a restoration of relations between the USSR and China, which would be extremely dangerous for the US on a global level.

The army? No. The marines on the other hand? Absolutely

Are you retarded? The army is several times the size of the USMC and are often equipped with better gear. Marine artillery was almost non existent in the war. Marines were also constantly relying on the Navy for transportation and logistics.

The marine corps is an elite organization to which Satan himself fears. There has never been a group of warriors so fierce and disciplined on the face of this planet than that of the United States marine corp.

Do you know the marine corps deadliest weapon is simply a marine and his rifle? you must be an army cuck. Or a pog.

The US and the RoK basically carried the Korean War, with almost no significant involvement from anybody else, I think you'll find.

No. The war was unwinnable even before public opinion changed. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, none of them wanted to go into North Vietnam. As has already been mentioned, nobody wanted Korea 2.0. And the South Vietnamese government was so disorganized and corrupt, the only thing keeping it from collapsing was US presence. The only choices left at that point was keep escalating, but anything short of invasion, or pull out.

>disproportionate amount 'attracted to that shit'
>less than half in picture

I know you're not used to being around girls, user, but they actually make up about half the population

Everybody take another look at this faggot holy shit

I know this is trolling, but i was on joint compound with Marines during a deployment. They did fuck all the whole entire time except go to the gym and watch porn

t.mickey mouse clubhouse member

I love Marineposting

>which could have been avoided if America recognised Vietnam’s independence

Ho Chi was a true believer in Marxist-Leninism, and if he had been recognised by the US he probably would've led a united Vietnam into the Comintern anyway - not to mention that the lack of US action in South Vietnam would've been viewed as a greenlight for Ho Chi to "intervene" in neighboring states

I'm not sure why people read "Ho Chi was a nationalist first, and a communist second" and come to the conclusion that he would've happily allied with the US if they had simply supported independence from the start

It's not about him allying with the USA, it's about him not being as involved in the comintern, think Yugoslavia

i've posted this before
>peak level deployment,total war scale
China and Russia might join the war,or atleast intensify it on their part,much more casualties in part of the American
North Vietnam could be beaten out but still hold out in the deeper jungle parts and neighbouring Laos and Cambodia,NATO weakened in.
Vietnam is now blue but remains a quagmire a la Afghanistan today,America is bankrupted
>US troop level unchanged from 1968
High casualties,border probably change in favor of the south,public opinion at all time low,South administration collapse due to infighting,coups,religious fervor and instability,America hit even harder by oil crisis in 1972
>US adopts a competent and level headed grand strategy,promoting an counter insurgency based present while actually training the South Vietnamese in warfare and cleaning up their government
Border level remain as it was with the DMZ standing, South Vietnam is stable but remains a rut unless a figure like Park rises there,situation remains like current Korea
>America abandons France in 1951 and accept Ho Chi Minh overtures
Indochina war scaled down,Vietnam is in friendlier term with the US,France humbled once more with severe diplomatic hit to the US,some country lose confidence in America ability to protect them from communist insurgency,Sino-US relationship differs from what it is nowadays

Win in the sense of crushing the North and unifying the country under one Pro-US government? Yes although the cost of doing so would likely make such an action prohibitive.

Win in the sense of keeping the south propped up and ensuring that Vietnam is permanently split into two countries like Korea is today? Also Yes, and the cost here would not be nearly so prohibitive. The problem though is that by the time the US was doing this the legislature had really come to hate Richard Nixon and simply refused authorize any further support to the south vietnamese government.

>it's about him not being as involved in the comintern, think Yugoslavia

Why wouldn't he be? The US certainly wouldn't step up to the plate to support him (I wouldn't want to be the presidential candidate arguing that Ho Chi was /ourmarxist/), which would've left either the USSR or Mao's China - and given Vietnam's historical relationship with China (and Mao's geopolitical designs), its most likely Vietnam would've entered the Comintern regardless

>Win in the sense of keeping the south propped up and ensuring that Vietnam is permanently split into two countries like Korea is today? Also Yes

Wouldn't reunification be more likely? I admittedly don't know much about North Vietnam party politics, but I don't think Le Duan (or his successors) had anywhere near the dominance that Il-Sung enjoyed over their country's Party

Uh-huh and when the french decide to leave nato because the US chose to abandon their efforts to help them keep one of their colonies from going communist?

I would assume no, simply because that's what happened with Korea due to cold war politics. Although maybe they would reunify once the cold war ended.

Sorry, I meant after the Cold War ended (like with Germany)

Well again, that's a maybe. Korea didn't reunify afterall, on the other hand the DPRK was then and is now run by nutbags. It is possible that North Vietnam would not be in this hypothetical.

>Could the US Army have won in Vietnam had there not been public outcry against the war?

Yes but this was not the goal. The goal of the US Army always was, and always has been, during the Vietnam War, to protect the state of South Vietnam and support its military as it attempted to defend itself against Northern aggression. Technically they fulfilled their goals in Vietnam and in a way they 'won', it was the political establishment of democracy that did not support helping South Vietnam become more solvent.

Anti war people are so rational

The ROKA was the weakest link in the UN armed forces. Even fucking Ethiopians and Filipinos were more reliable than a bunch of conscripts that ran at the first sign of trouble.

...

No, the weakest links were the minor players who were in Korea in name only, which was basically anybody other than the US and the RoK, who provided +95% of the combat power.