Why Did America Lose the Vietnam War?

[apdst]

No, you lost the war. How many analogies can I make I wonder. The USA is like Rob Stark in GOT. You won battle after battle but you lost Winterfell and lost the war, and in the end, they won.

In that analogy, the teddy bear is the war victories. The girl is South Vietnam. So while the USA won the teddy bear because it had the most war victories, the vietcong took south vietnam.



If the USA had such little respect for human life, the cold war would have ended on a far different note that it did. The only problem would be that there wouldn't be anyone left to write it.

In the end, the North defeated the South, 2 years after The United States left.

This is reality, not an HBO mini-series. I'm sorry that reality doesn't match the propaganda you've been taught uour whole life, but there it is.

The Viet Cong didn't take anything. The VC ceased to exist in 1968, when Allied forces destroyed them.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

In the end, the North defeated the South, 2 years after The United States left.

It won't even take that long for the tally-bon to regain control of most of Afghanistan after we leave.

 

[polgara]

No, we didn't. The North Vietnamese signed an armistice agreeing to cease all hostilities against South Vietnam. No amount of propaganda will change that fact.

You're at a fair and play that game and when a teddy bear. Soneone cones along and steals the bear. Even though you no longer have the prize, you still won the game.

The United States won every category.

Great post, and an excellent reminder of what's important! :thumbs:

Good morning, apdst. :2wave:

 

[Rainman05]

In the end, the North defeated the South, 2 years after The United States left.

This is reality, not an HBO mini-series. I'm sorry that reality doesn't match the propaganda you've been taught uour whole life, but there it is.

The Viet Cong didn't take anything. The VC ceased to exist in 1968, when Allied forces destroyed them.

Ok, then what was the war in vietnam all about if not to protect the south vietnam?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Seriously, we lost the Vietnam war when we retreated from the Chosin Reservoir
.

 

[apdst]

Ok, then what was the war in vietnam all about if not to protect the south vietnam?

What was WW1 about if not to put Germany baxk within her borders? By your standards, we lost that one too.

 

[ttwtt78640]

To that point, we made millions of Vietnamese die for their country while our deaths numbered in the tens of thousands and yet we still couldn't win. So winning isn't all about body count. And the Vietnamese were actually willing to die for what they considered their country. Americans just viewed it as another Third World ****hole. Stakes were a lot higher for them than for us.

Can you back-up this "fact"? That would mean that, on average, we killed at least 34 NVA for each US death. I have seen some "estimates" that placed the NVA losses in the hundreds of thousands, but not at 2 million or more.

Vietnam War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stakes are always higher for those that live in the war zone, and thus have their home territory and their families also in jeopardy.

 

[Rainman05]

What was WW1 about if not to put Germany baxk within her borders? By your standards, we lost that one too.

Uhm... Germany was put back within their borders in WW1. I mean, they barely managed to push out of the border on the western front and the eastern front was marked by Austrohungarian dominance, russian winter ressilience and the rise of the bolsheviks that messed Russia up. France, the de facto leader of the Entente powers maintained a strong frontier in both Europe and the colonial warfare. And the US joined in the last year, year and a half of war. In WW1, the USA was the fat kid who came late at the birthday party, brought a gift from the gas station then bragging about it all night as if it was the best present ever.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

WW1 was a win for the Entente powers. Vietnam was a loss for the USA. I don't understand, do you have blind patriotism or just ultranationalism?

 

[apdst]

Uhm... Germany was put back within their borders in WW1. I mean, they barely managed to push out of the border on the western front and the eastern front was marked by Austrohungarian dominance, russian winter ressilience and the rise of the bolsheviks that messed Russia up. France, the de facto leader of the Entente powers maintained a strong frontier in both Europe and the colonial warfare. And the US joined in the last year, year and a half of war. In WW1, the USA was the fat kid who came late at the birthday party, brought a gift from the gas station then bragging about it all night as if it was the best present ever.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

WW1 was a win for the Entente powers. Vietnam was a loss for the USA. I don't understand, do you have blind patriotism or just ultranationalism?

They didnt stay. Thats right. Case closed.

 

[Rainman05]

They didnt stay. Thats right. Case closed.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you making a comparison between European style warfare and asian warfare? because they're two different things. The battlefield between European countries was far different than the battlefield of Vietnam. In Europe you had nations fighting by a rulebook. You have nations abiding by a code of warfare, established and written in conventions and treaties through the ages, but especially during the XVIIIth and the XIXth century. In Vietnam, the vietnamesse had no such rulebook.

 

[apdst]

To that point, we made millions of Vietnamese die for their country while our deaths numbered in the tens of thousands and yet we still couldn't win. So winning isn't all about body count. And the Vietnamese were actually willing to die for what they considered their country. Americans just viewed it as another Third World ****hole. Stakes were a lot higher for them than for us.

Most NVA troops were conscripts.

 

[Gathomas88]

If the USA had such little respect for human life, the cold war would have ended on a far different note that it did. The only problem would be that there wouldn't be anyone left to write it.

I frankly kind of doubt it. The odds that an invasion of North Vietnam would have resulted in any kind of nuclear exchange are really pretty slim.

If the history of the Cold War proves anything, it's that basically no one is crazy enough to kick start nuclear Armageddon when push comes to shove.

What is never discussed is that the USA WON in Korea and LOST in Vietnam.

BUT, which one did we REALLY win and lose looking over the last 50 years? Whose more a threat? The united Vietnam, or the partitioned N. Korea?

Half of Korea is currently a well to do First World economic and military power house. The entirety of Vietnam remains an impoverished Third World crap hole.

I'd consider that to be a point in favor of Korea. :shrug:

 

[Rainman05]

I frankly kind of doubt it. The odds that an invasion of North Vietnam would have resulted in any kind of nuclear exchange are really pretty slim.

If the history of the Cold War proves anything, it's that basically no one is crazy enough to kick start nuclear Armageddon when push comes to shove.

Half of Korea is currently a well to do First World economic and military power house. The entirety of Vietnam remains an impoverished Third World crap hole.

I'd consider that to be a point in favor of Korea. :shrug:

No, it wouldn't be vietnam who would return the nuclear exchange, it would have been the USSR and China. China wouldn't like it because it's too close to home... and let's face it, nobody wants nukes flying to your south neighbor. And the USSR, well, because why the heck not.

Anyway. The US, and western nations in general, have a lot more respect for human life than many asian nations. I don't have a doubt that, say, if the India pakistan conflict would escalate, they wouldn't share our fear of using the bomb. After all, they would go to war fueled by religious zealotry.

 

[Gathomas88]

No, it wouldn't be vietnam who would return the nuclear exchange, it would have been the USSR and China. China wouldn't like it because it's too close to home... and let's face it, nobody wants nukes flying to your south neighbor. And the USSR, well, because why the heck not.

Because our return salvo would have turned them all into radioactive dust, perhaps?

If the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and eventual fall of the USSR didn't result in nuclear annihilation, I kind of doubt that an invasion of North Vietnam would have done so either.

We carpet bombed the North for years, after all, without drawing any particular amount of international ire from the USSR or China.

The worst we probably would've wound up with would have been a repeat of the Korean War.

Anyway. The US, and western nations in general, have a lot more respect for human life than many asian nations. I don't have a doubt that, say, if the India pakistan conflict would escalate, they wouldn't share our fear of using the bomb. After all, they would go to war fueled by religious zealotry.

I don't think the Warsaw Pact nations were overtly suicidal.

 

[cpwill]

Vietnam was basically mission impossible, as is Afghanistan.

That is not correct - I would recommend the excellent writings of Jon Nagl and Bing West to you on Vietnam and Afghanistan in particular.


We lost in Vietnam, bluntly, because we were attacking the enemy's ability to fight, while he was attacking our will to fight, and we had less of the latter than he did of the former. By the time we started building on the CAP programs to create an effective counterinsurgency program, it was too late, and the congress had abandoned the fight.

 

[Rainman05]

Because our return salvo would have turned them all into radioactive dust, perhaps?

If the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and eventual fall of the USSR didn't result in nuclear annihilation, I kind of doubt that an invasion of North Vietnam would have done so either.

We carpet bombed the North for years, after all, without drawing any particular amount of international ire from the USSR or China.

The worst we probably would've wound up with would have been a repeat of the Korean War.



I don't think the Warsaw Pact nations were overtly suicidal.

No, but extensive aggression from the USA would have resulted in an increase chance of nuclear warfare. And especially if the US had nuked Vietnam. Big game changer.

 

[Carleen]

Diluting the Vietnam war down to a particular reason it ended the way it did, is impossible.

The reason popular opinion was so bad, was this happened to be the first war that came into our living rooms every night in living color on that little box against the wall, showing the true horrors of war. Before this, all we had were printed accounts with a rare still picture.

I googled the question and apparently there a varying opinions. Which is true one or the sum of all? I don't know.

 

[Gathomas88]

No, but extensive aggression from the USA would have resulted in an increase chance of nuclear warfare. And especially if the US had nuked Vietnam. Big game changer.

True, but I was never suggesting that we nuke the North in the first place.

We would've had plenty of justification to invade North Vietnam using conventional means following the Tet Offensive, for instance, and we were already using aggressive tactics like "Strategic Bombing" well before that.

If we had simply taken the Chinese head-on, instead of going out of our way to skirt around the issue with ultimately ineffective tactics, we might've actually been able to bring the war to a favorable conclusion.

 

[Rainman05]

True, but I was never suggesting that we nuke the North in the first place.

We would've had plenty of justification to invade North Vietnam using conventional means following the Tet Offensive, for instance, and we were already using aggressive tactics like "Strategic Bombing" well before that.

If we had simply taken the Chinese head-on, instead of going out of our way to skirt around the issue with ultimately ineffective tactics, we might've actually been able to bring the war to a favorable conclusion.

Well someone did recommend we go to the border of China and then nuke Vietnam. I was arguing on that premise. I think you are correct in your other statements and agree.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is not correct - I would recommend the excellent writings of Jon Nagl and Bing West to you on Vietnam and Afghanistan in particular.


We lost in Vietnam, bluntly, because we were attacking the enemy's ability to fight, while he was attacking our will to fight, and we had less of the latter than he did of the former. By the time we started building on the CAP programs to create an effective counterinsurgency program, it was too late, and the congress had abandoned the fight.

If the most powerfull military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate, in over a decade, against an enemy that has no air force, no navy and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a very bad battle plan. Afghanistan is already lost, in that we have defined an exit date, independent of any mission based definition of "victory" - this was also the case in Vietnam. Having unrealistic expectations of the outcome of any military action doom it to failure from the start.

 

[Drake McHugh]

In Vietnam,we had not "lost"until the liberals decided not to give funding to South Vietnam. We were out of the fighting,and just needed to give them the support.

 

[APACHERAT]

Seriously, we lost the Vietnam war when we retreated from the Chosin Reservoir
.

"Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction." Maj. Gen, Oliver P. Smith USMC during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.

I sure hope the liberals haven't resorted to revisionism when it comes to the Chosen Resivor.

When the Chinese entered the Korean War, the 1st Mar. Div. found it self surrounded by 10 Chinese divisions.

I believe the Marines destroyed eight of those ten Chinese divisions during their fight to the sea.

 

[shrubnose]

What is never discussed is that the USA WON in Korea and LOST in Vietnam.

BUT, which one did we REALLY win and lose looking over the last 50 years? Whose more a threat? The united Vietnam, or the partitioned N. Korea?

No country on this planet can attack the USA without facing the very credible threat of nuclear destruction.

This, to me makes it extremely unlikely that any nation is likely to attack the USA any time soon because there is nothing to be gained by doing this now or anytime soon.

Could this change in the future?

Yes, but right now it's an ironclad fact.

 

[Risky Thicket]

After you read it, come back and opine on it.

i will.

 

[ecofarm]

The US lost Vietnam because the US put an end to "total war". I, for one, am glad there is no longer the option of "total war".