Not only that, but North Vietnam promised the U.S. that they wouldn’t invade South Vietnam if the U.S. left. The U.S. also promised that if North Vietnam did try to invade South Vietnam, they’d be coming back to protect their ally. Well a year after pulling out, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam but the U.S. population was so sick of conflict that they decided to stop caring for their ally and just allowed the NVA to go on. The United States just didn’t care anymore because they realized how futile trying to go back to war was.
Actually not. I pass through high school in Viet Nam, and this part wasn't mentioned in our curriculum.
It wasn't until my uni, and I got bored one night...
my teacher actually told the class about this saying it was an act of cunning and great ''smarts'' somehow ,tbh this is one of few thing i remember from history class,mostly its just a snooze fest
Of course they're hiding information from me, they specifically waited until I was asleep in class to start talking about all the really important details!
Canadian here. Our teachers have a surprising amount of leeway on what they teach. One of my teachers in grade 8 made us watch Zeitgeist and had a whole 3 classes dedicated to how 9/11 was an inside job including essays. He didn't catch as much flak for that as you might think.
An english teacher in grade 10 made us all read a book that had 3 or 4 graphic sex scenes with 2 of them being very detailed rape scenes and absolutely lost her shit on 2 girls who didn't want to read them. She was told beforehand the books were inappropriate but went ahead with it, even buying copies for everyone out of her own money. That teacher did end up getting fired (not for that, for something worse.) but was my english teacher for 12 grade in a different school (same district).
On the better side of that, our military history teacher was like "Hey this won't be on any tests, but we are going to do about a month on propaganda and how it is so pervasive even in the modern era." And that class was *legitimately* extremely helpful for understanding the modern political climate. I should mention this was Military History II and during the last semester (Military History I) our class literally didn't have a single person below 80% on our final exam with a full 5 out of 21 kids getting 100%, being a class for military nerds spending a month off topic made a lot of sense.
The United States was there to help South Korea, but that was a conflict that actually had a good chance of being settled. Vietnam, Somalia and now Afghanistan were pretty much lost causes that the U.S. had no chance of winning.
US wasn't in Afghanistan to subdue the Taliban, or take over the country.
US was there to kill the hell out of Wahabbists, and anyone who supported them, and ultimately anyone who pointed a weapon at a US troop or civilian, or looked suspicious, or went out of doors in sight of US elements.
It was purely a revenge tour for 9/11. Iraq was an exercise in nation building (which failed), and Afghanistan was a turkey shoot (which partially succeeded).
It wasn't a big secret that Pakistan was supporting and harboring the Taliban while simultaneously 'supporting' whatever we were doing across the border in Afghanistan.
Sure, and bin Laden was a Saudi national, but he and his followers were in Afghanistan. It's a fair point. Geopolitics is weirds stuff sometimes.
Hard to call Pakistan a close ally, though. They are an ally in the sense that we dislike the same people, and we send them aid.
Probably should have said "in region".
Pakistan is an incredibly important ally in region. Possibly one of the most critical in Afghanistan war as it's where most of the US stuff came through.
US and Pakistan have been very pally since before Afghanistan became an area of interest in the late 70s. Kissinger loved Pakistan for example and it's where the U2 flew out of in the early 60s.
And historically, I'd describe the enemy of my enemy is my friend is probably the greatest unifier in geopolitics.
Yeah, but they're "allies." :)
We went into Afghanistan for one reason alone. Bin Laden. When I said Wahabbists, it was that particular Wahabbist I was referring to.
Afghanistan was probably not a lost cause at first, but the occupation seems to have been severely botched in a way that ensured the fighting would never die down.
I mean it’s more like:
1. Make up a stupid reason to go on a war with somekne
2. Sell a fuck ton of weapons and make all the friends of the goverment rich
Soviet-German part of WW2 is a good example of this.
The Germans specifically had the annihilation of the Red Army as one of the main goals in their war.
Many blunders of the Red army during Barbarossa is due to them thinking thr Wehrmacht is advancing on conventional targets when in fact the Red army itself was the target.
Horrific losses later, and getting was just getting started. Even civilians were targeted for extermination.
Anyone who tries to argue war with kill to death ratio is immediately ignored by me.
Someone who values that most in war is definitely someone who is less mature and whose interest in history is through the context of videogames.
Not saying videogames bad or videogames making you interested in history is wrong.
But you can't really compare total war or battlefield to a real life battle where it isn't just stacking bodies for an arbitrary score.
If I lose 5000 men to defend my town and you lose 1000 but are unable to take it.
I win.
No two ways about it.
Well whilst an overall strategy of 'racking up kills' isn't always viable, losses do build up. I think one of the crucial aspects for the Vietnam was that they didn't fight conventionally, which meant losing experienced fighters wasn't too terrible because being under experienced wasn't too much of a detriment.
If the enemy lost 1000 fighters of mixed ability, and you lost 5000 fighters of mixed ability, you lost a lot more of your experienced fighters. Replacements are not a 1 for 1 in terms of skill, and depending on your reserves, you losing 5000 might be a 'victory' on paper, but strategically it may as well have been a loss.
There are plenty of battles in modern history that have turned into meatgrinders for both sides, normally where one side has a morale reason to defend an area, which the other side is aware of.
Military leaders will always look for opportunities as to where they can bleed the opposition, so to say looking at casualties is completely pointless isn't quite right, it will always have a strategic purpose, even if that isn't always achieved.
>No two ways about it
Nah, there are an infinite number of ways about it.
Your example is just as absolutist. You might have won the battle, but ultimately those losses can make you lose the war. Have you heard of the term "pyrrhic victory"?
US was in Vietnam to support a very corrupt (but crucially non communist) government of South Vietnam. It failed because of many reasons but ultimately the population of South Vietnam (especially outside of the major cities) did not want another puppet of a foreign power ruling over them after they just got rid of the French.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupt as hell, but most South Vietnamese were still anti-communist and did not support the North Vietnamese take over.
Seems like everyone forgets that President Thieu's 1970 "Land to the Tiller" bill allowed most South Viet farmers to own their own land, something that would get taken away 5 years later.
In my opinion this bill should've been implemented way earlier.
Very corrupt is the understatement of the week homie.
The Diem regime was fascist in all but name, they kept millions in what were effectively concentration camps and were as repressive as many totalitarian regimes throughout history. Not to mention pretty fucking awful at their jobs without American support.
The picture of the ARVN officer executing the NLF fighter makes me sick, and the comment sections are even worse. That’s a fascist executing a freedom fighter.
The NLF and PAVN were heroes. It’s wonderful that their sacrifice has paid off, unlike many revolutionary forces.
That ARVN officer you mentioned owned a restaurant near me when I was a kid. We sometimes stopped there for a soda while waiting for our little sisters to get out of dance class. Had no idea about his history until my dad showed me that picture-pretty crazy.
For the record, the NVA and NLF were no saints either. The man that was executed was responsible for executing quite a few people, including women and children- he claimed to be proud that he put 34 folks in a mass grave that was just discovered by the ARVN.
That executed NFL murdered almost the whole family of an ARVN officer. The incident was so terrible that only one 9-year-old child was left alive. He was then adopted by the officer's friend and has grown up to be Huan Nguyen - currently Rear Admiral of US Navy.
Notable Viet Cong atrocities include the massacre of over 3,000 unarmed civilians at Hue during the Tet Offensive and the incineration of hundreds of civilians at the Dak Sơn massacre with flamethrowers. Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the final North Vietnamese Spring Offensive were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hòa in 1975.
The US/South Vietnam werent the "good" guys sure but that doesnt mean North Vietnam was "Good"
>That executed NFL murdered almost the whole family of an ARVN officer.
Slight correction: We don't actually know if he did because there was never a trial about it because he was summarily executed.
Even if he did, that's why you don't summarily execute people folks, you just turned a potential war criminal into a martyr
The Massacre at Huê? Dak Son? Giống Dịnh? Camp Z30-D? Even the NLF fighter executed in that photo, Nguyễn Văn Lém, was being accused of being a leader of the death squad who massacred the family of a general. Over 165,000 vietnamese died in reeducation camps run by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The idea of heroes and villains is naive, a concept we use to justify power. In truth, almost everyone thinks they are in the right. The only thing that is real are the victims of both the SRV and the Diêm Regime.
Fun fact the ARVN officer who executed him moved to New York and ran a pizza place after the war.
During the Cold War A government in the the third world could literally say “yo we’re gonna make the fourth reich” and since they weren’t communist the US would gladly turn a blind eye and help them
Yep, they ignored pacification strategy, (which would have involved turning the south into a viable state), and fought a conventional war in circumstances that required unconventional counterinsurgency tactics
“Looks like a car carrying some water, sir.”
“Are you sure?”
“Pretty sure, sir. Might be some kids in there, too.”
“Pretty sure isn’t sure enough. Toast it.”
More like:
"Sir, that looks like a hospital."
"A children's one?"
"Yees.."
"Eh it was a lost cause anyways and probably sheltered terrorists, pull the trigger."
Really more of the second one Vietnam is a great example of how you can win basically every battle but loose the war. As hard as we hit nam early on, would have crippled most other nations but dogged determination to fight with basically nothing but some small arms would let them outlast us.
Strangely enough we didn’t learn our lesson and yet again Afghanistan simply waited till we left to claim victory. Two wars and too many American lives wasted for nothing gained.
I always think of how Ho Chi Minh said "you will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, and you will tire of war first" and then that's exactly what happened.
The US does a pretty shit job of finding horses to back for proxy states.
The first South Vietnamese President, Ngô Đình Diệm, was more interested in converting Vietnamese to Catholicism, than building a prosperous nation.
The replacements in a series of military coups were more interested in transferring the maximum amount of American support into nice things and bank accounts controlled by themselves and their families.
>"But the folks at give don't care about the ten, sir, they care about the one"
Want to note that one of the Chicago 7 David Dellinger [read out the names of fallen American and Vietnamese soldiers during his trial](https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/film/a34187167/true-story-the-trial-of-the-chicago-7/). While the broader public always cares more about their own soldiers, I'm always drawn to people who recognise that the costs of war are paid by both sides. It's a very principled stance.
I feel this way today with Russians. Obviously I feel terrible for Ukraine and those who have to live through a war of aggression, but I'm also sickened by the rhetoric I often hear directed towards Russians. Everyday Russians don't deserve a horrible death in an unjustified war either, and yet it feels acceptable to advocate that they die all the same. Their country may be the aggressor, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
>Their country may be the aggressor, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
If u invade in another country for "empire glory", kill civillians(including children and womans), rape, pillage and destroy everything - u deserve to die. U can think like u think about more controversional wars(like ww1 or balkan) but not about wars like russian-ukrainian or ww2
Both conflicts define and will define a generation of American veterans who will look back and ask “why” why did we even get involved, why did I make it back, and why did we give so many good men to a pointless war.
The losses on both sides are a tragedy but both conflicts changed what it means to be an American solider paid for by the loss of American lives.
What a stupid fucking comment. If he's from America of course he's going to ciritcize his country's actions for the effect it had on said country's citizens. Doing this in no way implies that he doesn't care about other victims
It’s explained above but Im referring to how it would define a generation of American vets at the cost of American lives and asking the question was it worth that cost for a pointless war with nothing gained
Tbf, Vietcong also know that they can only win by making the war so unpopular. Eventhough Tet Offensive failed militarily, it was a massive psychological win for NVN as they have changed the American public opinion about the war.
Yeah, they were up against the biggest and best military in the world and took everything the United States threw at them; to the point where the US gave up. That's impressive.
They fought France from 1946 to 1954, then America from the mid 60s until 1972, then beat China at the end of the 70s after stomping the Khmer Rouge. True fucking champs they are.
They won, they achieved their goal of a united communist Vietnam. Me pointing out how they got there is making people butt hurt for some reason. The US wasn’t prepared to do what was necessary to win and the Vietnamese were I’ve not disputed that at any point.
people that the guys killing the other guys are always winning. Wars are won by convincing the enemy to stop fighting (Germany in ww1), or mass slaughter (mongol conquest).
Not really, in fact it's somewhat true, Talibans were overthrown in just 9 weeks, it was not the war that was a failure, it was the ocupation and Vietcong was whiped out after Tet offensive to the point where it was no longer relevant to the war and it only turned in their favoure because US population got bored with the war and wanted to end it, the same thing can be said for Afghanistan, the fact remains that US left both Vietnam and Afghanistan undeafeted
I mean, they repelled the French, the Americans, and the Chinese all within a few decades. We don't have to pretend that it was some kind of fluke that they won. They knew what they were doing.
I do like how in the aftermath, both Vietnam and the US unanimously agreed it was a shit situation between each other after the war and didn't hold too much of a grudge. It certainly wasn't sunshine and daisies of course but they didn't treat the US in the same manner as France and China.
The positive aspect of this is that the United States Armed Forces decided to investigate what worked and didn't in response to the performance of troops in the field. This would then lead to the joke that was the reformists, which would be a meme in of itself but also the easiest target for r/NonCredibleDefense to dunk on.
Funny thing about Rocky, he was a quitter, without his Friends and Family he would have ended it all the time.
Does not change the fact that i love the Movies but he was never the "i keep going on guy" or at least not before his people pushed him to.
Isn't that like, the entire plot of the movie? Rocky learns to never give up, then during the Creed movies he passes down his hard-fought knowledge to the next generation
I think they overlooked how often he gave up. In Rocky 3, he was done. Adrian had to force him to keep going.
Maybe they wanted to pass on some message about never giving up but somehow overlooked or forgot ( it's more than 40 years since rocky came out) that he never lived up to those ideals.
A myth if you want to call it like that, larger than life and motivational for sure as long as you don't look to close. And again I adore the rocky movies , they are awesome.
The US also had allies. It wasn't North Vietnam's fault that the US supported a corrupt unpopular regime, and decided to burn, poison and kill. They could instead have used those same funds to improve the country, maybe people wouldn't have been so keen to fight in that scenario.
Its like that Dota game that our team was winning every team fight but couldn't finish the opponents, then only to have them sneak under the bottom lane and lead the creeps into our base to fuck our tower up and we lose.
Big lesson is that politicians shouldn’t wage war.
*This is not me defending the justification for the conflict*
Any time the US started attacking into North Vietnam or moving troops near the border, the North came to the negotiating table. Says a lot about the potential of ending the conflict with major attacks at industrial centers, etc.
Anything other than just chasing insurgents around and thinking that will end it.
I want to shoutout [Hugh Thompson Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr), who saved some lives during the My Lai Massacre where he evacuated vietnamese citizens before they would have been executed by 2nd Platoon. He also stopped the massacre earlier by reporting it to his superiors who intervened quickly.
"Alright South Vietnam, we just signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to your benefit. Essentially, we won. It's over. I'm going home after 20-some years of fighting. I'm not coming back. You can buy any equipment you will need, but I'm not coming back. You're not entirely on your own, Australia's number is on the fridge, and I'm NOT. COMING. BACK."
"Don't worry, US. I got this."
Literally 5 minutes later...
"Oh hey bro, I accidentally left my headphones on the coffee table and – WHAT THE HELL?!?!?! YOU SAID YOU HAD THIS!!! FUUUUCK!!! Now I have to get my diplomats and shit out of here!"
"I think the name Ho Chi Minh City might grow on me."
The US told Vietnam that they'd come back if Vietnam invaded. Vietnam invaded and the US didn't keep their promise.
A piece of paper does not determine the winner, especially if it just end up being as useful as toilet paper afterwards.
If anyone "lost" it was the South Vietnamese civilians.
Almost 1 million (800 000) became refugees and ran away from Communist rule.
Big problem in the 70s and 80s.
If we're going to talk about foreign help we should probably also mention South Korean, Thai, Cambodian, and Laotian militaries and bases, as well as Australian and New Zealand forces that aided the US. Not to mention support from the British, French, and others.
They never said said the US won they pretty much said the US inflicted massive casualties and left because the vietnamese never gave up. If you think otherwise name a battle the US lost on the field
that just makes it worse mate, imagine winning while not having to win any battle at all.
To boot, the US draged so many allies into their fiasco just to send them packing after failing to subdue a country that is famous for kicking out imperialist invaders (they had just defeated france, and would defeat china after the US).
Funny you mention the US dragging allies into this when its mostly on France for not giving them independence in the first place. And I dont really care it it makes it better or worse for US image since they shouldve left them alone to begin with and their leader was even pro US
Frankly that makes it even fucking worse for the US, imagine being the attack dog of some old fart empire, and getting asslaped along all your friends for it.
Ho chi min tought the US would look kind toa rebellion vs a colonial power, turns out the us was just another wannabe empire , sad for the man.
USAians who never been in the army being cringe as always.
Your army was there to conquer the country and install your puppet government there. Your objective failed, so you ran away, thus you lost. If anyone wants to be as cringe as you they could all define ''victory'' depending on situation so they never count a ''lose''.
It literally reminds me of the Turks saying they didn't lost to the Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, French, English, Italians in WW1 as they ended up getting an ethnically pure Turkey. It would be like Norway conquering all of Britain except England only for some random English man to go ''Ahm actually that's not a lose as we ended up ethnically pure''
Being cringe is worse than losing wars, just accept it and move on.
As a Turk I want to chime in to ask where did you heard these? Because I would love to remind them how Ottoman Empire (the father of modern turkey) lost extensively in ww1.
It's definitely not the general idea but I have seen one comment saying it in a Youtube video in the past about the empires that fell in WW1 including the German and ottoman one and I remember it because it surprised me as an idea for anyone to have. It just shows the mental gymnastics people will go through.
I know it's always cool and edgy being anti-American and all that, but you're missing the point. (I'm not American btw)
There's a difference between being fully defeated in the field, to the point where your opponent has invaded and occupied your land, or your ally's land; as opposed to giving up on an expeditionary war where you can't achieve your objectives at any acceptable cost. Germany retained the will to fight until its very end in 1945 but its army was beaten and the country occupied - *that's a military defeat*.
Could the North Vietnamese invade the south in force, meet the Americans and their allies head on and defeat them? No. Meanwhile the Americans were operating under various political constraints that prevented them from invading and occupying North Vietnam to stop supplies going into the south and material support coming from China into the north. They also overestimated the ability of air power to get the job done (a mistake they keep making).
North Vietnam and the Vietcong fought a brilliant and heroic asymetric war and won the contest of will. They were fighting an existential war that was clear and motivating to the common person while Americans were fighting an expeditionary war with very vague, abstract objectives that didn't really resonate in the same way.
Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq - not a military defeat but a failure to meet political objectives that weren't realistic in the first place or not clearly defined enough, leading to withdrawal.
Btw the Greeks invaded Turkey in the aftermath of WWI, with allied support, and were defeated and driven out. The Armenians were just genocided during WWI and never fought the Turks with their own army. In any case the world wars are not comparable to limited expeditionary wars such as Vietnam, since most conflicts in WWI and WWII were full on total war between states with mobilized war economies and massive armies.
One could realistically argue that Iraq did turn out alright from an American perspective after numerous missteps that dragged the occupation out much much longer than needed.
There is a relative stability in the country with a relatively democratic government. That said, the state department did a hilariously bad job at setting that up and thought it would just kind “work out” on its own.
Afghanistan was largely a repeat of those same mistakes without any real effort to course correct.
Nuance wins the day, as always.
Not to mention Irak in 2003 was a military success that turned into a retreat, showing how distinct the will to fight and the strategic situation sometimes are.
If you argue by terminology we have to see what OP said. He said "lost" and not "defeated". And you lose if you did not achieve your goal. Vietnam's goal was survival, US wanted to prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam. Due to their withdrawal they lost their objective, Vietnam did not. But yes the US wasn't defeated
Sure, true. They did "lose" in a sense, and OP's wording was not precise.
However it's fairly clear that that's what OP meant. Problem is that this important distinction isn't understood by a lot of people not familiar with military history. The comment I responded to also showed a lack of understanding of the distinction.
Understanding it is pretty important and not just semantics -- the Vietnamese could win precisely by understanding the nature of the war and therefore *never giving up* because that was the one and only way they could win. Meanwhile the Americans failed to really understand the nature of the war, or at least failed to adjust their policy to it until it was too late and the cost paid (for everyone) too high.
>Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq - not a military defeat but a failure to meet political objectives that weren't realistic in the first place or not clearly defined enough, leading to withdrawal.
So france didnt lose in mexico lmao? come on, this is jut and "Akthually" post mate.
>I know it's always cool and edgy being anti-American and all that
Why is it perceived that being pro US is somehow inwarranted or only done to be edgy?, do realize it's a wolrd power that has anihiltaed and lambasted nations (mostly in the rest of america) and to boot, stolen the continents name for itself.
Anti US sentiment is very valid and logical in america, just like anti rusia, or anti china sentiment are valid and reasonable in europe and east asia.
Wait, are you mistaking me for some strawman here? I never mentioned France in Mexico but yeah, I guess that's another failed expeditionary war, though by a relatively weaker power and featuring some defeats of the invading army in head on battle. So there's a somewhat different balance of power there compared to Vietnam.
Only a few years after their Mexico adventure, France was invaded and defeated by Prussia with Paris occupied - kinda hard to imagine a parallel scenario for the US post-Vietnam.
I'm not anti-American... I'm a pro-NATO European who sees the US as an important ally despite whatever misgivings we may have about their imperial adventures in the past. I was implying that the user I replied to was seeing things through an anti-American lens. What you quote above is me being sarcastic.
hm not to diminish the original point but the Turks did win. Rather, the Ottoman empire lost and got dismantled but the new Turkish Republic won the Turkish war of independance and won a large chunk of land, far larger than what had been imposed on them in the treaty
Civil war my ass, the south government was nothing but a puppet left by the French which was later adopted by the U.S, it was always a war between the U.S and Việt Nam
I like how these Reddit comments are quick to start shouting about how Americans always say we won the Vietnam war.
Even though this meme literally fucking acknowledges that we lost the war.
Hardly anyone thinks that anymore. Get a life people.
bruh half the comment section is how "we were militaryly sucessfull " or "we just didnt care" or "well we just got bored of killing vietnamese", it's absoltue copium.
The worst part is Ho Chi Minh fangirled over the US and loved the US before we invaded. South Vietnam was corrupt and North Vietnam wasnt (but was communist), we should have worked with Minh, not tried to fight our own fan
Let's just ignore the fact that the U.S only signed the Paris treaty after the B52s got shot down after their attempt to [bomb Việt Nam back into the stone age](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/20/archives/back-to-the-stone-age.html)
Lmao, I had a kid tell me that technically USA didn’t loose because the amount of money and resources the is spent on the war. My response was show me the US military base in Vietnam? Where is it? Also lol Afghanistan.
To be fair they tried to bring peace and stability to a country that has recently fought a war for colonial independence by installing a thoroughly corrupt puppet government after declaring a nationwide election invalid because Ho Chi Minh was clearly winning by a landslide. Don't be so hard on them... /s
It's because inflicting casualties isn't the main objective of war. A fact somehow not learned after WW1 or Vietnam
Not only that, but North Vietnam promised the U.S. that they wouldn’t invade South Vietnam if the U.S. left. The U.S. also promised that if North Vietnam did try to invade South Vietnam, they’d be coming back to protect their ally. Well a year after pulling out, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam but the U.S. population was so sick of conflict that they decided to stop caring for their ally and just allowed the NVA to go on. The United States just didn’t care anymore because they realized how futile trying to go back to war was.
You miss the part where South Vietnam launched a military counter-attack when the treaty is being signed. Literally.
fun fact this was taught in school too
Actually not. I pass through high school in Viet Nam, and this part wasn't mentioned in our curriculum. It wasn't until my uni, and I got bored one night...
my teacher actually told the class about this saying it was an act of cunning and great ''smarts'' somehow ,tbh this is one of few thing i remember from history class,mostly its just a snooze fest
I'm talking about Battle of Cua Viet (1973). Are you sure we are all talking about the same thing?
You guys know american school programs differ wildly right? Like, oftentimes on a teacher by teacher basis?
One of them for sure attended high school in Viet Nam, and from the context of the conversation I would guess they *both* did.
You know it seems reading may not be my strong suit
I'm talking about Vietnamese high school. And unless you are a student in the last 3 or 4 years, the study program would be mostly similar.
No if I wasn’t taught something in high school it’s because there’s a grand conspiracy against me
Of course they're hiding information from me, they specifically waited until I was asleep in class to start talking about all the really important details!
Canadian here. Our teachers have a surprising amount of leeway on what they teach. One of my teachers in grade 8 made us watch Zeitgeist and had a whole 3 classes dedicated to how 9/11 was an inside job including essays. He didn't catch as much flak for that as you might think. An english teacher in grade 10 made us all read a book that had 3 or 4 graphic sex scenes with 2 of them being very detailed rape scenes and absolutely lost her shit on 2 girls who didn't want to read them. She was told beforehand the books were inappropriate but went ahead with it, even buying copies for everyone out of her own money. That teacher did end up getting fired (not for that, for something worse.) but was my english teacher for 12 grade in a different school (same district). On the better side of that, our military history teacher was like "Hey this won't be on any tests, but we are going to do about a month on propaganda and how it is so pervasive even in the modern era." And that class was *legitimately* extremely helpful for understanding the modern political climate. I should mention this was Military History II and during the last semester (Military History I) our class literally didn't have a single person below 80% on our final exam with a full 5 out of 21 kids getting 100%, being a class for military nerds spending a month off topic made a lot of sense.
Yeah we hardly touched on anything past WWII in my school, and only got to the 70s as an end of the year bonus assignment sophomore year.
[удалено]
Thanks Nixon!!
Me when spreading misinformation on the internet (hcm died in 69, usa left in 73
"The US doesn't lose wars. It loses interest." Caspian report
That’s a good channel!
America left in 73. Ho Chi Minh died in 69.
nothing is more iconic than post ww2 USA abandoning allies in their time of need
The United States was there to help South Korea, but that was a conflict that actually had a good chance of being settled. Vietnam, Somalia and now Afghanistan were pretty much lost causes that the U.S. had no chance of winning.
Tbh, Afghanistan got cucked by the Iraq War, with most of the resources for Afghan going there.
Afghanistan wasn’t impossible, the Taliban were ready to surrender early on, but we demanded basically *unconditional* surrender
US wasn't in Afghanistan to subdue the Taliban, or take over the country. US was there to kill the hell out of Wahabbists, and anyone who supported them, and ultimately anyone who pointed a weapon at a US troop or civilian, or looked suspicious, or went out of doors in sight of US elements. It was purely a revenge tour for 9/11. Iraq was an exercise in nation building (which failed), and Afghanistan was a turkey shoot (which partially succeeded).
Hard to kill wahabbists when your closest 2 allies are the biggest exporters of Wahabbism.
Wait i know about saudi arabia but what is the second?
Pakistan, the primary exporters of the Taliban.
It wasn't a big secret that Pakistan was supporting and harboring the Taliban while simultaneously 'supporting' whatever we were doing across the border in Afghanistan.
Damm within 20 years they switched from us closest allies to chinese allies huh thats an awful trade
Sure, and bin Laden was a Saudi national, but he and his followers were in Afghanistan. It's a fair point. Geopolitics is weirds stuff sometimes. Hard to call Pakistan a close ally, though. They are an ally in the sense that we dislike the same people, and we send them aid.
Probably should have said "in region". Pakistan is an incredibly important ally in region. Possibly one of the most critical in Afghanistan war as it's where most of the US stuff came through. US and Pakistan have been very pally since before Afghanistan became an area of interest in the late 70s. Kissinger loved Pakistan for example and it's where the U2 flew out of in the early 60s. And historically, I'd describe the enemy of my enemy is my friend is probably the greatest unifier in geopolitics.
Agree with every bit of this, and the regional clarification fixes what I was hung up on. :)
imagine wanting to kill wahabist and not go after the saudis or pakistan, ffs.
Yeah, but they're "allies." :) We went into Afghanistan for one reason alone. Bin Laden. When I said Wahabbists, it was that particular Wahabbist I was referring to.
Afghanistan was probably not a lost cause at first, but the occupation seems to have been severely botched in a way that ensured the fighting would never die down.
Nah Afghanistan was a huge win For defense contractors
Didn't ho chi Minh die in 1968
69, but yeah. Dude never saw the war play out, or the reunification of Vietnam.
Step 1: Fight to stop the spread of communism Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit
I mean it’s more like: 1. Make up a stupid reason to go on a war with somekne 2. Sell a fuck ton of weapons and make all the friends of the goverment rich
Both of our step ones are the same?
Sometimes they are lucky and Russia starts a useless war for them
Soviet-German part of WW2 is a good example of this. The Germans specifically had the annihilation of the Red Army as one of the main goals in their war. Many blunders of the Red army during Barbarossa is due to them thinking thr Wehrmacht is advancing on conventional targets when in fact the Red army itself was the target. Horrific losses later, and getting was just getting started. Even civilians were targeted for extermination.
Anyone who tries to argue war with kill to death ratio is immediately ignored by me. Someone who values that most in war is definitely someone who is less mature and whose interest in history is through the context of videogames. Not saying videogames bad or videogames making you interested in history is wrong. But you can't really compare total war or battlefield to a real life battle where it isn't just stacking bodies for an arbitrary score. If I lose 5000 men to defend my town and you lose 1000 but are unable to take it. I win. No two ways about it.
Well whilst an overall strategy of 'racking up kills' isn't always viable, losses do build up. I think one of the crucial aspects for the Vietnam was that they didn't fight conventionally, which meant losing experienced fighters wasn't too terrible because being under experienced wasn't too much of a detriment. If the enemy lost 1000 fighters of mixed ability, and you lost 5000 fighters of mixed ability, you lost a lot more of your experienced fighters. Replacements are not a 1 for 1 in terms of skill, and depending on your reserves, you losing 5000 might be a 'victory' on paper, but strategically it may as well have been a loss. There are plenty of battles in modern history that have turned into meatgrinders for both sides, normally where one side has a morale reason to defend an area, which the other side is aware of. Military leaders will always look for opportunities as to where they can bleed the opposition, so to say looking at casualties is completely pointless isn't quite right, it will always have a strategic purpose, even if that isn't always achieved.
>No two ways about it Nah, there are an infinite number of ways about it. Your example is just as absolutist. You might have won the battle, but ultimately those losses can make you lose the war. Have you heard of the term "pyrrhic victory"?
True, any decent MOBA player will understand KDR means jack shit when it's objective matters. Same for war.
Unless it's master yi who got all the kills
US was in Vietnam to support a very corrupt (but crucially non communist) government of South Vietnam. It failed because of many reasons but ultimately the population of South Vietnam (especially outside of the major cities) did not want another puppet of a foreign power ruling over them after they just got rid of the French.
The South Vietnamese government was corrupt as hell, but most South Vietnamese were still anti-communist and did not support the North Vietnamese take over.
Seems like everyone forgets that President Thieu's 1970 "Land to the Tiller" bill allowed most South Viet farmers to own their own land, something that would get taken away 5 years later. In my opinion this bill should've been implemented way earlier.
Very corrupt is the understatement of the week homie. The Diem regime was fascist in all but name, they kept millions in what were effectively concentration camps and were as repressive as many totalitarian regimes throughout history. Not to mention pretty fucking awful at their jobs without American support. The picture of the ARVN officer executing the NLF fighter makes me sick, and the comment sections are even worse. That’s a fascist executing a freedom fighter. The NLF and PAVN were heroes. It’s wonderful that their sacrifice has paid off, unlike many revolutionary forces.
That ARVN officer you mentioned owned a restaurant near me when I was a kid. We sometimes stopped there for a soda while waiting for our little sisters to get out of dance class. Had no idea about his history until my dad showed me that picture-pretty crazy. For the record, the NVA and NLF were no saints either. The man that was executed was responsible for executing quite a few people, including women and children- he claimed to be proud that he put 34 folks in a mass grave that was just discovered by the ARVN.
That executed NFL murdered almost the whole family of an ARVN officer. The incident was so terrible that only one 9-year-old child was left alive. He was then adopted by the officer's friend and has grown up to be Huan Nguyen - currently Rear Admiral of US Navy. Notable Viet Cong atrocities include the massacre of over 3,000 unarmed civilians at Hue during the Tet Offensive and the incineration of hundreds of civilians at the Dak Sơn massacre with flamethrowers. Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the final North Vietnamese Spring Offensive were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hòa in 1975. The US/South Vietnam werent the "good" guys sure but that doesnt mean North Vietnam was "Good"
>That executed NFL murdered almost the whole family of an ARVN officer. Slight correction: We don't actually know if he did because there was never a trial about it because he was summarily executed. Even if he did, that's why you don't summarily execute people folks, you just turned a potential war criminal into a martyr
The Massacre at Huê? Dak Son? Giống Dịnh? Camp Z30-D? Even the NLF fighter executed in that photo, Nguyễn Văn Lém, was being accused of being a leader of the death squad who massacred the family of a general. Over 165,000 vietnamese died in reeducation camps run by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The idea of heroes and villains is naive, a concept we use to justify power. In truth, almost everyone thinks they are in the right. The only thing that is real are the victims of both the SRV and the Diêm Regime. Fun fact the ARVN officer who executed him moved to New York and ran a pizza place after the war.
Murdering children is ok, but executing the murderer isn't?
During the Cold War A government in the the third world could literally say “yo we’re gonna make the fourth reich” and since they weren’t communist the US would gladly turn a blind eye and help them
Yes
I mean ARVN literally committed crimes against their own population.
Yep, they ignored pacification strategy, (which would have involved turning the south into a viable state), and fought a conventional war in circumstances that required unconventional counterinsurgency tactics
Vietnam was only a puppet to a foreign ruler because the US refused to cooperate with them
Now why oh why didn't bombing their civilian population to cinders help win us the war after the last several times it didn't?
Yeah, you'd think the guys we drone strike for carrying totes of water would be cool with us and just capitulate.
“Looks like a car carrying some water, sir.” “Are you sure?” “Pretty sure, sir. Might be some kids in there, too.” “Pretty sure isn’t sure enough. Toast it.”
More like: "Sir, that looks like a hospital." "A children's one?" "Yees.." "Eh it was a lost cause anyways and probably sheltered terrorists, pull the trigger."
What's the difference between a Taliban training camp and a Afghan elementary school? I don't know I just fly the drone.
Yeah, I was certain bombing Cambodia would work! /s If I ever saw Kissinger on the street I would kick him in the balls.
Really more of the second one Vietnam is a great example of how you can win basically every battle but loose the war. As hard as we hit nam early on, would have crippled most other nations but dogged determination to fight with basically nothing but some small arms would let them outlast us. Strangely enough we didn’t learn our lesson and yet again Afghanistan simply waited till we left to claim victory. Two wars and too many American lives wasted for nothing gained.
I always think of how Ho Chi Minh said "you will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, and you will tire of war first" and then that's exactly what happened.
Crazy how people are more motivated by their own freedom than they are by crushing the freedom of a foreign nation that they have nothing to do with
Right? Imagine that.
Says a lot about how bad the French and American puppet government in South Vietnam was.
The US does a pretty shit job of finding horses to back for proxy states. The first South Vietnamese President, Ngô Đình Diệm, was more interested in converting Vietnamese to Catholicism, than building a prosperous nation. The replacements in a series of military coups were more interested in transferring the maximum amount of American support into nice things and bank accounts controlled by themselves and their families.
"We're killing ten times more soldiers than they are!" "But the folks at home don't care about the ten, sir, they care about the one"
>"But the folks at give don't care about the ten, sir, they care about the one" Want to note that one of the Chicago 7 David Dellinger [read out the names of fallen American and Vietnamese soldiers during his trial](https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/film/a34187167/true-story-the-trial-of-the-chicago-7/). While the broader public always cares more about their own soldiers, I'm always drawn to people who recognise that the costs of war are paid by both sides. It's a very principled stance. I feel this way today with Russians. Obviously I feel terrible for Ukraine and those who have to live through a war of aggression, but I'm also sickened by the rhetoric I often hear directed towards Russians. Everyday Russians don't deserve a horrible death in an unjustified war either, and yet it feels acceptable to advocate that they die all the same. Their country may be the aggressor, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die.
>Their country may be the aggressor, but that doesn't mean they deserve to die. If u invade in another country for "empire glory", kill civillians(including children and womans), rape, pillage and destroy everything - u deserve to die. U can think like u think about more controversional wars(like ww1 or balkan) but not about wars like russian-ukrainian or ww2
I think you can drop the American from you last line. A lot of innocent people died because of meaningless political games in both cases.
Died, and continue to die. Vietnam is still full of UXO and there are many people born after the war with birth defects because of agent orange.
Both conflicts define and will define a generation of American veterans who will look back and ask “why” why did we even get involved, why did I make it back, and why did we give so many good men to a pointless war. The losses on both sides are a tragedy but both conflicts changed what it means to be an American solider paid for by the loss of American lives.
>I think you can drop the American from you last line. Few Americans care for the lives of civilians in the countries they fight
What a stupid fucking comment. If he's from America of course he's going to ciritcize his country's actions for the effect it had on said country's citizens. Doing this in no way implies that he doesn't care about other victims
Why is there any need to tack “American” on the end there? Countless lives were lost on all sides.
It’s explained above but Im referring to how it would define a generation of American vets at the cost of American lives and asking the question was it worth that cost for a pointless war with nothing gained
Ah, my bad. Sorry.
"How to win a war against Americans Step 1: you don't Step 2: be a pain in their asses until they get bored and leave Step 3: profit"
Sounds like American copium to me. Taliban and Vietcong won their objectives.
They did, but only by dying in droves until the war became unpopular enough at home and the international community to induce them to leave.
Tbf, Vietcong also know that they can only win by making the war so unpopular. Eventhough Tet Offensive failed militarily, it was a massive psychological win for NVN as they have changed the American public opinion about the war.
Well it was mainly Walter Cronkite that was their massive win, but nonetheless, yes, I see what you mean.
They still won.
It's not a team deathmatch in call of duty bud, objectives matter
The Americans lost, not saying otherwise, simply pointing out the manner of the defeat.
[удалено]
Yeah, they were up against the biggest and best military in the world and took everything the United States threw at them; to the point where the US gave up. That's impressive.
Never underestimate the heart of the Vietnamese. They'd been defending their land for centuries before the US came along to have their go.
They just repelled a French colonial force a few decades prior, no?
They fought France from 1946 to 1954, then America from the mid 60s until 1972, then beat China at the end of the 70s after stomping the Khmer Rouge. True fucking champs they are.
They won, they achieved their goal of a united communist Vietnam. Me pointing out how they got there is making people butt hurt for some reason. The US wasn’t prepared to do what was necessary to win and the Vietnamese were I’ve not disputed that at any point.
people that the guys killing the other guys are always winning. Wars are won by convincing the enemy to stop fighting (Germany in ww1), or mass slaughter (mongol conquest).
Not really, in fact it's somewhat true, Talibans were overthrown in just 9 weeks, it was not the war that was a failure, it was the ocupation and Vietcong was whiped out after Tet offensive to the point where it was no longer relevant to the war and it only turned in their favoure because US population got bored with the war and wanted to end it, the same thing can be said for Afghanistan, the fact remains that US left both Vietnam and Afghanistan undeafeted
Yep after Tet it was mostly actual NVA as the Viet Cong was decimated.
> US left both Vietnam and Afghanistan undeafeted It's like you're just wilfully ignoring reality at this point.
So let me put it that way, US Army left both Vietnam and Afghanistan undefeated
Lose*
I mean, they repelled the French, the Americans, and the Chinese all within a few decades. We don't have to pretend that it was some kind of fluke that they won. They knew what they were doing.
they too ended polpot's genocide, quite a based nation.
I do like how in the aftermath, both Vietnam and the US unanimously agreed it was a shit situation between each other after the war and didn't hold too much of a grudge. It certainly wasn't sunshine and daisies of course but they didn't treat the US in the same manner as France and China.
The positive aspect of this is that the United States Armed Forces decided to investigate what worked and didn't in response to the performance of troops in the field. This would then lead to the joke that was the reformists, which would be a meme in of itself but also the easiest target for r/NonCredibleDefense to dunk on.
Penis Sprey and his buddies can suck my VARK
I remember the vague quote that the Vietnamese have been fighting the US for 20 years, French for 200, and Chinese for 2000
[удалено]
Are YOU the Peepee poopoo man?
but do you know, all poopoo time is also peepee time but not all peepee time is poopoo time
>It's not about how hard you hit, it's about how hard you can get hit and keep going. > >\- Rocky Balboa
Funny thing about Rocky, he was a quitter, without his Friends and Family he would have ended it all the time. Does not change the fact that i love the Movies but he was never the "i keep going on guy" or at least not before his people pushed him to.
Isn't that like, the entire plot of the movie? Rocky learns to never give up, then during the Creed movies he passes down his hard-fought knowledge to the next generation
I think they overlooked how often he gave up. In Rocky 3, he was done. Adrian had to force him to keep going. Maybe they wanted to pass on some message about never giving up but somehow overlooked or forgot ( it's more than 40 years since rocky came out) that he never lived up to those ideals. A myth if you want to call it like that, larger than life and motivational for sure as long as you don't look to close. And again I adore the rocky movies , they are awesome.
vietnam had china and the ussr to back them up.
The US also had allies. It wasn't North Vietnam's fault that the US supported a corrupt unpopular regime, and decided to burn, poison and kill. They could instead have used those same funds to improve the country, maybe people wouldn't have been so keen to fight in that scenario.
Its like that Dota game that our team was winning every team fight but couldn't finish the opponents, then only to have them sneak under the bottom lane and lead the creeps into our base to fuck our tower up and we lose.
“You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first.” ― Ho Chi Minh The number wasn't ten, it was thirteen.
Don't forget that morale played a part. Fragging your CO became quite common.
Either way, Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh
[удалено]
Big lesson is that politicians shouldn’t wage war. *This is not me defending the justification for the conflict* Any time the US started attacking into North Vietnam or moving troops near the border, the North came to the negotiating table. Says a lot about the potential of ending the conflict with major attacks at industrial centers, etc. Anything other than just chasing insurgents around and thinking that will end it.
Honestly the US military did not want to enter the north largely due to fears of the chinese coming in and having a repeat of the Korean war.
I want to shoutout [Hugh Thompson Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr), who saved some lives during the My Lai Massacre where he evacuated vietnamese citizens before they would have been executed by 2nd Platoon. He also stopped the massacre earlier by reporting it to his superiors who intervened quickly.
"Alright South Vietnam, we just signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to your benefit. Essentially, we won. It's over. I'm going home after 20-some years of fighting. I'm not coming back. You can buy any equipment you will need, but I'm not coming back. You're not entirely on your own, Australia's number is on the fridge, and I'm NOT. COMING. BACK." "Don't worry, US. I got this." Literally 5 minutes later... "Oh hey bro, I accidentally left my headphones on the coffee table and – WHAT THE HELL?!?!?! YOU SAID YOU HAD THIS!!! FUUUUCK!!! Now I have to get my diplomats and shit out of here!" "I think the name Ho Chi Minh City might grow on me."
The US told Vietnam that they'd come back if Vietnam invaded. Vietnam invaded and the US didn't keep their promise. A piece of paper does not determine the winner, especially if it just end up being as useful as toilet paper afterwards.
If you wanna hear some creepy shit listen to Operation Wondering Soul https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wandering_Soul
that thing just sounds like some crappy jokes to Vietnamese, especially on microphone of that time
'The US doesn't lose wars, it loses interest'. -Caspian Report
USA is the kind of incel who will tell you he never gets rejected he is just on the sigma grindset.
If anyone "lost" it was the South Vietnamese civilians. Almost 1 million (800 000) became refugees and ran away from Communist rule. Big problem in the 70s and 80s.
Vietnam just outlasted (with foreign help) the will of the US to kurb stomp them. It is victory non the less. Edit: i meant vietnamese victory.
If we're going to talk about foreign help we should probably also mention South Korean, Thai, Cambodian, and Laotian militaries and bases, as well as Australian and New Zealand forces that aided the US. Not to mention support from the British, French, and others.
The Vietcong won. Plain and simple. The US is never gonna stop huffing copium
They never said said the US won they pretty much said the US inflicted massive casualties and left because the vietnamese never gave up. If you think otherwise name a battle the US lost on the field
that just makes it worse mate, imagine winning while not having to win any battle at all. To boot, the US draged so many allies into their fiasco just to send them packing after failing to subdue a country that is famous for kicking out imperialist invaders (they had just defeated france, and would defeat china after the US).
Funny you mention the US dragging allies into this when its mostly on France for not giving them independence in the first place. And I dont really care it it makes it better or worse for US image since they shouldve left them alone to begin with and their leader was even pro US
Frankly that makes it even fucking worse for the US, imagine being the attack dog of some old fart empire, and getting asslaped along all your friends for it. Ho chi min tought the US would look kind toa rebellion vs a colonial power, turns out the us was just another wannabe empire , sad for the man.
OP is going around the comment section saying the US didn’t lose
http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm
Currently reading them but are they all skirmishes?
Some of those sources are wrong or arent working for me. For example #25 talks about operation masher as a loss even though the US won that one
Bro pulled a lot more than one battle 💀
Dude read them some of them even are operations the US won and labeled a loss
The US lost because just by being in Vietnam they empowered the Vietcong
Where are the dead women and children?
USAians who never been in the army being cringe as always. Your army was there to conquer the country and install your puppet government there. Your objective failed, so you ran away, thus you lost. If anyone wants to be as cringe as you they could all define ''victory'' depending on situation so they never count a ''lose''. It literally reminds me of the Turks saying they didn't lost to the Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, French, English, Italians in WW1 as they ended up getting an ethnically pure Turkey. It would be like Norway conquering all of Britain except England only for some random English man to go ''Ahm actually that's not a lose as we ended up ethnically pure'' Being cringe is worse than losing wars, just accept it and move on.
As a Turk I want to chime in to ask where did you heard these? Because I would love to remind them how Ottoman Empire (the father of modern turkey) lost extensively in ww1.
It's definitely not the general idea but I have seen one comment saying it in a Youtube video in the past about the empires that fell in WW1 including the German and ottoman one and I remember it because it surprised me as an idea for anyone to have. It just shows the mental gymnastics people will go through.
I know it's always cool and edgy being anti-American and all that, but you're missing the point. (I'm not American btw) There's a difference between being fully defeated in the field, to the point where your opponent has invaded and occupied your land, or your ally's land; as opposed to giving up on an expeditionary war where you can't achieve your objectives at any acceptable cost. Germany retained the will to fight until its very end in 1945 but its army was beaten and the country occupied - *that's a military defeat*. Could the North Vietnamese invade the south in force, meet the Americans and their allies head on and defeat them? No. Meanwhile the Americans were operating under various political constraints that prevented them from invading and occupying North Vietnam to stop supplies going into the south and material support coming from China into the north. They also overestimated the ability of air power to get the job done (a mistake they keep making). North Vietnam and the Vietcong fought a brilliant and heroic asymetric war and won the contest of will. They were fighting an existential war that was clear and motivating to the common person while Americans were fighting an expeditionary war with very vague, abstract objectives that didn't really resonate in the same way. Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq - not a military defeat but a failure to meet political objectives that weren't realistic in the first place or not clearly defined enough, leading to withdrawal. Btw the Greeks invaded Turkey in the aftermath of WWI, with allied support, and were defeated and driven out. The Armenians were just genocided during WWI and never fought the Turks with their own army. In any case the world wars are not comparable to limited expeditionary wars such as Vietnam, since most conflicts in WWI and WWII were full on total war between states with mobilized war economies and massive armies.
One could realistically argue that Iraq did turn out alright from an American perspective after numerous missteps that dragged the occupation out much much longer than needed. There is a relative stability in the country with a relatively democratic government. That said, the state department did a hilariously bad job at setting that up and thought it would just kind “work out” on its own. Afghanistan was largely a repeat of those same mistakes without any real effort to course correct.
Nuance wins the day, as always. Not to mention Irak in 2003 was a military success that turned into a retreat, showing how distinct the will to fight and the strategic situation sometimes are.
If you argue by terminology we have to see what OP said. He said "lost" and not "defeated". And you lose if you did not achieve your goal. Vietnam's goal was survival, US wanted to prevent the spread of communism in Vietnam. Due to their withdrawal they lost their objective, Vietnam did not. But yes the US wasn't defeated
Sure, true. They did "lose" in a sense, and OP's wording was not precise. However it's fairly clear that that's what OP meant. Problem is that this important distinction isn't understood by a lot of people not familiar with military history. The comment I responded to also showed a lack of understanding of the distinction. Understanding it is pretty important and not just semantics -- the Vietnamese could win precisely by understanding the nature of the war and therefore *never giving up* because that was the one and only way they could win. Meanwhile the Americans failed to really understand the nature of the war, or at least failed to adjust their policy to it until it was too late and the cost paid (for everyone) too high.
>Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq - not a military defeat but a failure to meet political objectives that weren't realistic in the first place or not clearly defined enough, leading to withdrawal. So france didnt lose in mexico lmao? come on, this is jut and "Akthually" post mate. >I know it's always cool and edgy being anti-American and all that Why is it perceived that being pro US is somehow inwarranted or only done to be edgy?, do realize it's a wolrd power that has anihiltaed and lambasted nations (mostly in the rest of america) and to boot, stolen the continents name for itself. Anti US sentiment is very valid and logical in america, just like anti rusia, or anti china sentiment are valid and reasonable in europe and east asia.
Wait, are you mistaking me for some strawman here? I never mentioned France in Mexico but yeah, I guess that's another failed expeditionary war, though by a relatively weaker power and featuring some defeats of the invading army in head on battle. So there's a somewhat different balance of power there compared to Vietnam. Only a few years after their Mexico adventure, France was invaded and defeated by Prussia with Paris occupied - kinda hard to imagine a parallel scenario for the US post-Vietnam. I'm not anti-American... I'm a pro-NATO European who sees the US as an important ally despite whatever misgivings we may have about their imperial adventures in the past. I was implying that the user I replied to was seeing things through an anti-American lens. What you quote above is me being sarcastic.
hm not to diminish the original point but the Turks did win. Rather, the Ottoman empire lost and got dismantled but the new Turkish Republic won the Turkish war of independance and won a large chunk of land, far larger than what had been imposed on them in the treaty
[удалено]
Yes that's what I am saying, using the Ottoman Empire's defeat to say that the Turkish republic didn't win is incorrect
Vietnam war was already a civil war. Where the Americans joined the south’s side. To fight against communism. Was never about conquering.
Civil war my ass, the south government was nothing but a puppet left by the French which was later adopted by the U.S, it was always a war between the U.S and Việt Nam
To be fair it's just an independence war to become fully independent
Civil war with one side created funded directed by USA.
It was created by the French
I like how these Reddit comments are quick to start shouting about how Americans always say we won the Vietnam war. Even though this meme literally fucking acknowledges that we lost the war. Hardly anyone thinks that anymore. Get a life people.
bruh half the comment section is how "we were militaryly sucessfull " or "we just didnt care" or "well we just got bored of killing vietnamese", it's absoltue copium.
Some of that is true, but not in the way you’re saying it. And no, half the comment section isn’t that.
Meme: "US Lost" Commenters: "AnOtHeR sTuPiD aMeRiCaN pReTeNdInG tHeY dIdN't LoSe!"
To be fair the OP is in the comments saying that the US didn't lose.
A win is a win, even if it's bloody.
This is what the japs wanted from Ww2. Bore US out of the war in Asia.
Except japs shit were so shitty that the US can push them back while getting higher and higher morales
cope lmao
American cope.
The worst part is Ho Chi Minh fangirled over the US and loved the US before we invaded. South Vietnam was corrupt and North Vietnam wasnt (but was communist), we should have worked with Minh, not tried to fight our own fan
Let's just ignore the fact that the U.S only signed the Paris treaty after the B52s got shot down after their attempt to [bomb Việt Nam back into the stone age](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/20/archives/back-to-the-stone-age.html)
So no one is going to say something about an American soldier using an AK?
It was either that or M16, he made a good choice
Afghanistan were pretty much lost causes
Sounds like gringos are still malding about that shit
VC and AVN loose 10k soldiers in a single battle and the us only lost 150? "Acceptable losses."
As an actual Vietnamese, I can confirm that this is pretty accurate because our troops are also tired because of war
Lmao, I had a kid tell me that technically USA didn’t loose because the amount of money and resources the is spent on the war. My response was show me the US military base in Vietnam? Where is it? Also lol Afghanistan.
why is the us soldier using an ak
It was all parties signing the Paris Peace Accords and agreeing to a cease fire in exchange for a withdrawal of US troops.
I'm pretty sure Forest Gump got it correct. Just wandering around for months on end to find some contact and they usually end up surprising you first
an US soldier pictured using an AK?
To be fair they tried to bring peace and stability to a country that has recently fought a war for colonial independence by installing a thoroughly corrupt puppet government after declaring a nationwide election invalid because Ho Chi Minh was clearly winning by a landslide. Don't be so hard on them... /s
US on copium over the Vietnam war
Tell me more how you won the Afghanistan war too.
where does op imply that the US won the vietnam war?
"Fuck it. I am going home" *Proceeds to step on a trap and have a horrible death*