[Discussion] Why do people think America lost in Vietnam?
- Thread starter UchiGod Itachi
- Start date
HiddenSound
Active member
Vietnamese had the homefield advantage.
American troops couldn't fire unless fired upon.
Vietnamese had more will to fight, more morale.
The South Vietnamese government was a fat, corrupt, tyrannical, joke of a free government.
North Vietnam had an icon in Ho Chi Minh.
And the war was the most unpopular war in American history. The American media liked reported on the horrors and atrocities committed by some American soldiers, and the whole military was blamed. Brave soldiers who had nothing to do with any atrocity came back and were spat upon and no one wanted to go to Vietnam.
Also, no president wanted to end the war and be "the one who lost Vietnam", so the war was passed from president to president.
American troops couldn't fire unless fired upon.
Vietnamese had more will to fight, more morale.
The South Vietnamese government was a fat, corrupt, tyrannical, joke of a free government.
North Vietnam had an icon in Ho Chi Minh.
And the war was the most unpopular war in American history. The American media liked reported on the horrors and atrocities committed by some American soldiers, and the whole military was blamed. Brave soldiers who had nothing to do with any atrocity came back and were spat upon and no one wanted to go to Vietnam.
Also, no president wanted to end the war and be "the one who lost Vietnam", so the war was passed from president to president.
Last edited:
SusanooKyuubi
Active member
Wrong war.
And if that were true, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan shouldn't be an Afghan victory. And technically, American Revolution shouldn't considered a victory either, even if the US won independence. Numbers are not the only thing that change the outcome. Politics, the general populace, and the morale of the troops have just as much of an influence.
Also, the Vietnam war is technically a Pyrrhic victory. (look it up)
Retro Chaos
Member
Gyakusetsu
Active member
Scooby Doo
Active member
Awards
SailorMoonLover
Active member
You guys need to do your homework this wasn't America's fight they were dragged in this fight , the reason that they jumped into the war is because 2 reason North Vietnam ,North Korean, China,Soviet Union,cuba etc. North Korea just recently had a war for the same reason
You must be registered for see links
North Korea allied with North Vietnam after the defeat for natural resources they didn't want North Korea back on there communist shit they joined because of them.
For Kyuubi Britain lost more soliders because a majority of soilders that sailed the sea got lost and never made it to America fact but they weren't considered KIA 42,000 sailors l
Scooby Doo
Active member
Awards
Congrats, you lost thousands of men and killed thousands of innocents as well.
Universal Enlightenment
Active member
Awards
American never lost that war president Nixon wanted to end the war with a peace treaty but north Vietnam refused until they seen they couldn't keep up with America air strike so they went to go sign a treaty in paris were North Vietnam ,South Vietnam & America had a Cease-fire America was the only one who kept word to there contract and stopped.
Newly elected President Richard M. Nixon declared in 1969 that he would continue the American involvement in the Vietnam war in order to end the conflict and secure "peace with honor" for the United States and for its ally, South Vietnam. Unfortunately, communist North Vietnam's leaders, believing that time was on their side, steadfastly refused to negotiate seriously. Indeed, in March 1972 they attempted to bypass negotiations altogether with a fullscale invasion of the South. Called the Easter Offensive by the United States, the invasion at first appeared to succeed. By late summer, however, Nixon's massive application of American air power blunted the offensive. At this point, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate in earnest. In early October, American and North Vietnamese representatives met in Paris. By October 11, they had hammered out a peace agreement. Its key elements were: all parties would initiate a cease-fire in place 24 hours after signing the agreement; U.S. forces and all foreign troops would withdraw from South Vietnam no later than 60 days after signing the agreement; American prisoners would be released simultaneously with the withdrawal of American and foreign forces; and a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord would be created to organize and oversee free and democratic elections to determine the political future of the South.
The agreement represented a victory for the North Vietnamese but also it seemed to provide an honorable way out for the Americans. Nixon quickly approved the terms. On October 22, however, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu stopped the process in its tracks. Especially infuriating to him was the cease-fire in place. It left thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam (estimates ranged from 140,000 to 300,000) well-positioned to continue the war when the Americans departed. To gain Thieu's support, the Americans reopened negotiations with the North Vietnamese based on his objections. This so offended the North Vietnamese that they, too, insisted on renegotiating several settled issues. By mid-December the talks had collapsed.
Diplomacy had failed, and a greatly frustrated Nixon concluded that only force could persuade Hanoi that negotiating with the United States was preferable to continuing the war. The President ordered his military commanders to mine Haiphong Harbor and to initiate a sustained air campaign in the Hanoi-Haiphong region. Beginning on December 18 and continuing for 11 days, American bombing attacked all significant military targets in the region. Even though the targets were military, the aim was psychological--to shock the North Vietnamese back to the negotiations in a frame of mind to end the war. On December 26, the North Vietnamese signaled their willingness to be agreeable and to meet in early January. After 3 more days of bombing, Nixon ended the air campaign. Nixon also believed that the bombing would remind the South Vietnamese that American air power was the most powerful weapon against the North Vietnamese, and that its continued availability was contingent upon South Vietnamese support of the agreement.
Nixon's plan worked, and in early January 1973, the Americans and North Vietnamese ironed out the last details of the settlement. All parties to the conflict, including South Vietnam, signed the final agreement in Paris on January 27. As it turned out, only America honored the cease-fire. Furthermore, the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord was stillborn. The North wanted to destroy South Vietnam while the South wanted to defeat the Northern forces. The inevitable solution, therefore, was to fight until one side won. Military facts on the ground, not words on paper, would determine South Vietnam's future. Additionally, within 24 hours of the cease-fire coming into effect, the return of the almost 600 American prisoners began, as did the redeployment home of the remaining American and South Korean troops in South Vietnam. The January accords, titled the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation. By that time, the Paris Accords seemed memorable only as the vehicle on which the United States rode out of Southeast Asia. on
Newly elected President Richard M. Nixon declared in 1969 that he would continue the American involvement in the Vietnam war in order to end the conflict and secure "peace with honor" for the United States and for its ally, South Vietnam. Unfortunately, communist North Vietnam's leaders, believing that time was on their side, steadfastly refused to negotiate seriously. Indeed, in March 1972 they attempted to bypass negotiations altogether with a fullscale invasion of the South. Called the Easter Offensive by the United States, the invasion at first appeared to succeed. By late summer, however, Nixon's massive application of American air power blunted the offensive. At this point, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate in earnest. In early October, American and North Vietnamese representatives met in Paris. By October 11, they had hammered out a peace agreement. Its key elements were: all parties would initiate a cease-fire in place 24 hours after signing the agreement; U.S. forces and all foreign troops would withdraw from South Vietnam no later than 60 days after signing the agreement; American prisoners would be released simultaneously with the withdrawal of American and foreign forces; and a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord would be created to organize and oversee free and democratic elections to determine the political future of the South.
The agreement represented a victory for the North Vietnamese but also it seemed to provide an honorable way out for the Americans. Nixon quickly approved the terms. On October 22, however, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu stopped the process in its tracks. Especially infuriating to him was the cease-fire in place. It left thousands of North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam (estimates ranged from 140,000 to 300,000) well-positioned to continue the war when the Americans departed. To gain Thieu's support, the Americans reopened negotiations with the North Vietnamese based on his objections. This so offended the North Vietnamese that they, too, insisted on renegotiating several settled issues. By mid-December the talks had collapsed.
Diplomacy had failed, and a greatly frustrated Nixon concluded that only force could persuade Hanoi that negotiating with the United States was preferable to continuing the war. The President ordered his military commanders to mine Haiphong Harbor and to initiate a sustained air campaign in the Hanoi-Haiphong region. Beginning on December 18 and continuing for 11 days, American bombing attacked all significant military targets in the region. Even though the targets were military, the aim was psychological--to shock the North Vietnamese back to the negotiations in a frame of mind to end the war. On December 26, the North Vietnamese signaled their willingness to be agreeable and to meet in early January. After 3 more days of bombing, Nixon ended the air campaign. Nixon also believed that the bombing would remind the South Vietnamese that American air power was the most powerful weapon against the North Vietnamese, and that its continued availability was contingent upon South Vietnamese support of the agreement.
Nixon's plan worked, and in early January 1973, the Americans and North Vietnamese ironed out the last details of the settlement. All parties to the conflict, including South Vietnam, signed the final agreement in Paris on January 27. As it turned out, only America honored the cease-fire. Furthermore, the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord was stillborn. The North wanted to destroy South Vietnam while the South wanted to defeat the Northern forces. The inevitable solution, therefore, was to fight until one side won. Military facts on the ground, not words on paper, would determine South Vietnam's future. Additionally, within 24 hours of the cease-fire coming into effect, the return of the almost 600 American prisoners began, as did the redeployment home of the remaining American and South Korean troops in South Vietnam. The January accords, titled the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam," neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation. By that time, the Paris Accords seemed memorable only as the vehicle on which the United States rode out of Southeast Asia. on
riley freeman
Active member
Universal Enlightenment
Active member
Awards
59k to 1.2 million body counts yeah sure buddy they got cleared out like a roach bomb lmao
UchiGod Itachi
Active member
This really depends upon what you consider to be your victory/defeat conditions.
On a cost comparison - the U.S. dumped massive amounts of resources into that war compared to a rather negligent commitment of resources (aside from human lives) from the NVA and their proxy supplier.
In that regard - we were 'losing' the war of economic attrition. Operation "Rolling Thunder" was not nearly as successful as was hoped - shutting down supply lines that revolve around humans with backpacks is a monumental challenge. You can blast the Ho Chi Minh trail to Kingdom Come and they'll just crawl right over the charred tree stumps and walk right through the craters.
We were spending far more on the war than any of the other parties involved and seeing relatively little gain out of it (granted, that was mostly because the politicians wouldn't -allow- gains to be made).
The objective of Vietnam was to maintain the sovereignty of South Vietnam against the invasion of North Vietnam. Ultimately, this goal was not accomplished.
That isn't to say it -couldn't- be accomplished, but that gets into a more detailed analysis of -why- we failed that key campaign objective and isn't so much a contest of the idea that we did fail that objective.
If you define success/defeat in war according to relative economic loss and/or campaign objectives... then, yes, we lost the Vietnam war.
If you break it down to kill/death ratio, then we came out with the greater K/D ratio and were therefor 'winners' - but the same could be said for the Spartans.
If you look at who employed superior strategy/tactics - it's a bit of a mixed bag. The U.S. military was fairly quick to adapt to the challenges they faced, but the VC were a particularly challenging threat to deal with. People who worked on the bases or with the soldiers would leave behind traps, assist in infiltrations, etc. In that sense, the very notion of a standard army didn't work too well against threats like the VC. The U.S. was also very restricted, politically. Politicians involved themselves at every level of the war and attempted to impose ... honestly - they didn't even know what the hell they were doing (any better than they know what the hell they are doing in Iraq, now). They just insisted they were necessary to end the war and someone was dumb enough to go along with the idea that talking to bullets was educated wisdom.
It didn't work when they tried it in Sarajevo, either.
It didn't work in Iraq. When people start shooting at each other, they -really- aren't interested in what the other has to say. They've come to the conclusion that people need to die and aren't going to listen to calls for 'restraint' when they've essentially decided to go for broke. The only time they'll consider listening is when they are on the verge of getting a giant **** shoved up their ass. Then they'll whimper and plead.
But when people have decided to 'go for broke' in wars - the only 'side' that is really interested in 'talking' is the side that is currently losing the shooting. There are a few rare exceptions to this.
Had the U.S. been able to go in and take territory - there really wouldn't have been much of a war. We would have roflstomped straight to China's doorstep and told them to stop supplying the NVA with soldiers (quite a few Chinese were found amongst the NVA...) - since the NVA didn't exist anymore, all future shipments of bodies could be halted.
Of course - if we would have put Vietnam in charge of Vietnam - rather than trying to put an American playing the role of a Vietnamese President - things would have been a lot better, too. Part of the reason the VC was able to gain the influence it was is due to the fact that the Vietnamese really didn't see 'their leader' as 'theirs' - he was 'ours.'
Which would have been fine if they were an occupied state (such as Japan or Germany following World War II) - but following the end of World War II, South Vietnam was closer to the Philippines in terms of how they should have been handled.
Vietnam was mostly a massive political failure.
The war was simply politicians trying to salvage their **** up without admitting the military knew how to resolve the whole thing.
Scooby Doo
Active member
Awards
Randomness
Banned
They simply lost, any kind of explanation you give does not change that fact. You can go on and on about how much more people they killed and whatever treaties they signed, however those are all petty excuses to deny the reality.
Vietnam became completely communistic. The USA lost countless of soldiers for nothing, they killed many people for nothing. Even today many dark events of the Vietnam war tend to pop up. The Vietnam war dragged the America's reputation through the mud, everywhere around the world there were protests against this war, including in America itself. Tell that you're a veteran of WW II and you will be seen as a hero, tell them you are veteran of the Vietnam war and you are more likely to get a defensive reaction of people being afraid you're going to go into an irrational rage. Many American soldiers came back mentally broken from that war, this is even a research field in itself: the influence of that war on the soldiers and their reintegration in American society. That in many series Vietnam veterans are portrayed as homeless, poor bums with unstable minds isn't something they made up.
You can write books full about all the bureaucratic and diplomatic stuff that happened, give hundreds of statistics of how many people they lost killed and cite the contents from treaties for days, you can give dozens of reasons as why America got involved and why they had to retreat, but it doesn't change anything as the wide public doesn't care about things like these. In the end it's very simple to understand: a superpower like America was not able to get a country like Vietnam under its influence while having used direct military intervention and lost the country to communism while at the same time even the American people themselves was against the war. Even if you give an entire list of reasons to say that America somehow obtained a political, economical or moral victory, it will never change that they failed to do what the broad public would have expected them to do.
Vietnam became completely communistic. The USA lost countless of soldiers for nothing, they killed many people for nothing. Even today many dark events of the Vietnam war tend to pop up. The Vietnam war dragged the America's reputation through the mud, everywhere around the world there were protests against this war, including in America itself. Tell that you're a veteran of WW II and you will be seen as a hero, tell them you are veteran of the Vietnam war and you are more likely to get a defensive reaction of people being afraid you're going to go into an irrational rage. Many American soldiers came back mentally broken from that war, this is even a research field in itself: the influence of that war on the soldiers and their reintegration in American society. That in many series Vietnam veterans are portrayed as homeless, poor bums with unstable minds isn't something they made up.
You can write books full about all the bureaucratic and diplomatic stuff that happened, give hundreds of statistics of how many people they lost killed and cite the contents from treaties for days, you can give dozens of reasons as why America got involved and why they had to retreat, but it doesn't change anything as the wide public doesn't care about things like these. In the end it's very simple to understand: a superpower like America was not able to get a country like Vietnam under its influence while having used direct military intervention and lost the country to communism while at the same time even the American people themselves was against the war. Even if you give an entire list of reasons to say that America somehow obtained a political, economical or moral victory, it will never change that they failed to do what the broad public would have expected them to do.
Funky Tiger
Active member
Awards
Their main loss was in terms of Governing Intellect. Like seriously, pumping in endless troops and funds just so they can tell people "Hurr durr we did something lol we wiped out evil comoonists" is dumb af. Even more dumber than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, imo. (the whole Japan attack, sans the 2 nuclear bombs was heroic imo) If there's anything that's more powerful than nuclear weapons, it has to be a former colony fighting for its very existence as an independent state and not for their former rulers. The fact that the "evil commies" fought on after losing more than a million, albeit guerilla, soldiers show that the victory belonged to them. More importantly, America was criticized left, right and center, and not to mention is the US itself. Shouldn't that be enough to tell their loss?
Last edited: