Wasn't the South doomed from the start of the civil war since the Northern states had so much more industry...

South was funded by brits and the french, your point?

>Southern USA is flat and dry

Nigga what?

Attached: Photo_of_the_Week_-_Great_Dismal_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge_(VA)_(4578425529).jpg (600x399, 48K)

>Southern USA is flat and dry
>and dry
Confirmed never been to the south.

In the eastern theater.

In the western theater Grant was smacking around Confederates all up and down the Mississippi

Nigga, compared to Vietnam it is and secondly there were practically zero battles in the swampy shitholes of the south

It was even a withdrawal mandated by international treaty.

The Confederacy could never have rolled its way up to Maine, but they could have crippled the Union into accepting defeat if things had played differently.

the CSA wasn't getting imports of rifles and artillery from a foreign nation though.

Daily Reminder that the US Civil War was the Democrats in the South and North v the Republicans in the North.

>W-we could have won if we wanted to
The absolute state of americans.

>compared to Vietnam it is

Attached: louisiana-cypress-swamp-scum.jpg (800x542, 278K)

This. Their only other means of securing victory would have been European recognition of statehood, which just wasn’t in the cards after Antietam and the Emancipation proclamation.

Unfortunately for Cletus, the only thing that a yankee is better at than being methodical and relentless is their skill in diplomacy

And your point is?

Attached: designated shitting republican.jpg (864x576, 240K)

The longer the war lasted, the less chance they had. Had they somehow won hard enough early on, they might have been recognized by Britain and / or France and survived the war.

Attached: usa humidity.jpg (502x346, 38K)

Vietnam was a proxy war that America personally stepped into, and it was on the other side of the globe, and it was between peoples of different races

The parallels just don’t add up.

Yes but where they fighting in the swamps of Louisiana? No. Because they're is literally no need to. In Vietnam the whole war was in jungly shit holes.

Everything south of Ohio is humid as fuck, not just Louisiana. Deep South was basically unlivable before the invention of air conditioning. Have you ever been to America?

Daily reminder that Democrats had rigged the political apparatus of the south to make it so that whigs or Republicans never had a chance of winning

Not him, but I went to college in South Carolina and I can tell you that the south is mostly sub-tropic temperate, which means that yes, it’s hot as balls, but not covered in mile after endless mile of dense rain forest and swampland

>what is a naval blockade

desu, the loss of Vietnam was more down to the burgers hamstringing themselves than any brilliant moves by the NVA

Not to mention mountains for days, the south is never dry and only flat when you get closer to coastal areas / Mississippi.

It was a political defeat, not a military one.

There’s also the matter of the U.S not touching North Vietnam for fear of triggering the Chinese to get involved and have another repeat of Korea, so the communists had a safe space to go regroup at.

A guerrilla warfare campaign wouldn’t have been practical for the south. Union soldiers would have strolled right on to the plantations to free and arm the slaves and completely fucked the foundations of the southern economy

The Confederate Navy only existed because of help from England

Stupid faggot said the south is dry though which is the exact opposite of truth.

This

Thanks for the boats England btw

Attached: CSS Alabama Battle of Cherbourg.jpg (1215x872, 376K)

This is true. I don't know why Giap gets praised so much, all he ever did was zergrushing troops into the meat grinder and never actually gaining anything. His only actual successes were against the French, not against USA.

Basically but it does miss some depth. The Democrats and Whigs were a lot more fractured than the Republicans. The secession issue divided the party not to mention northern Democrats and southern Democrats didn't always see eye to eye. Why in the 1860 election there were two Democratic Parties plus a party made up of Whigs and Democrats. Funny enough though in the south many of the unionist Democrats and Whigs did end up becoming Republicans during or after the war.

You're welcome. Also you're welcome for the uniforms.

If the US did what they did to the South during the civil war, they would've won.

Why did the Brits love the South so much?

Vietnam merely outlasted US domestic political battles. There was no Lincoln to lock up the presses during Vietnam

They had a policy to keep every country they could unstable.

>had
Its a time honored Anglo tradition that's continued by their mutt sons to this day.

You either divide and conquer your enemies or you don’t, and let them divide and conquer you.

That’s the gritty realpolitik underneath the noise of ideology

Attached: 1D5CCB22-364E-48BC-82AB-AF683F4978B4.gif (240x178, 643K)

War is about achieving war aims.
Vietnam achieved exactly what they wanted.

>war is about achieving aims
Great. This is a thread discussing military power and industry
Moreover, domestic politicians did more to achieve those “aims” than any vietnamese.

yes
only feasible way of them winning would be getting joint french-anglo recognition
this would never happen as jeff davis was a retard and his diplomats were as well.

also at sea the confederates were getting BTFO from the word go

if the CSA wins at gettysburg how does anything change? Vicksburg fell on the very same day which means the USA has total control of the Mississippi, and the march to the sea is still going to happen.

It puts a large Confederate field army within striking distance of Washington D.C. with nothing but a bunch of forts manned by bandbox soldiers to stop them.

Even if the forts did manage to prevent a direct Confederate assault on the capital, their mere presence would be enough to stir up one helluva panic.

Attached: FortStevensWashington1864.jpg (1200x1033, 728K)

>its another "europoor makes hyperbole of the Vietnam War to try and insinuate that America is weak"

Fuck off

>The army of the Potomac magically & completely disappears after a Gettysburg defeat
Lmao

>didnt the south btfo the north for the first 2 years of the war
In the sense that they didn't completely lose, yes.
Meanwhile the Union army camped out in Virginia kinda hanging around unmolested for those 1st 2 years.

Army of the potomac still exists and the Union moves the capitol to New York and the Mississippi is still in Union control and at the rear flank of the Virginian army. Enjoy the swampy siege though

A guerilla war was fought in both sides. It was largely abandoned by the south after the north did exactly what you said as retaliation turning the pop against the guerrilla fighters

Always remember that the South was immensely arrogant and considered Northerners soft weaklings.

It was their shit civil leadership being too egotistical (similar to what happened with Hitler). Read Alexander Stephens prison diary or The Lost Cause (not the revisionist lost cause) by Edward Pollard and they explain.

Well, no, they were getting (increasingly irregular thanks to the tightening Union blockade) imports of Enfields and Whitworths and the like. Granted, they had to actually pay for them and their ability to keep importing them slowly dried up, but they were getting imports.

haha wow looks like democrats are the real racists my magapedes!

Attached: 1520654447991.jpg (800x668, 238K)

gettysburg was the civil war equivalent of the battle of the bulge. it wouldnt matter whatever the outcome of the battle unless crushing and perfect victory because the other fronts was in complete free fall

t. 80 IQ

No, this is a shockingly common misconception. The south could have won very quickly had they captured Washington. Had they won at either Antietam or Gettysburg, or been better prepared at Bull Run, the south would've won.

The South was hopelessly outmatched in terms of industry and production; in things like railroad mileage, equipment and even shoes the North was vastly superior. The South didn't even necessarily have the agricultural advantage thanks to their buying wholesale into the King Cotton meme. Basically the only reasons behind their early successes were due to a combination of the South having some excellent generals and the North having some truly awful ones, as well as the South fighting a defensive war which naturally favors the defenders (even though the South would never win a war of attrition).

The only real way that I could see the South winning is if they manage to make some lightning-fast breakthroughs at the start of the war and manage to march on Washington, and/or manage to get a European power like England on their side (which is by itself highly unlikely), and manage to force the North to sue for an armistice.

The Vietnam war was a foreign war on another continent, and the North Vietnamese were receiving arms and aid from the Soviets so they hardly had no technology. That being said, the Americans probably could've "won" the war if they had stayed long enough but the entire war being a huge clusterfuck destroyed public opinion on it causing America to withdraw. (That's not to say that America didn't lose the Vietnam War; by any sane standard it was a total loss).

>Had they won at either Antietam or Gettysburg, the south would've won.
Lol, no; see: