What guerrilla tactics did Charlie use to rekt the american soldiers?
Or was it the disorganization and lack of support of the Vietnam war that caused the defeat of the U.S. in the conflict?
Fighting in your backyard helps alot
>>1252976
The USA ended involvement with the Paris Peace Accords. I'm not sure you can cite an actual, sizable confrontation that the USA lost in Vietnam. The body (conservative) body count (not including non-combatants) was 10-1 in USA favor. After the USA left, North re-invaded.
I know it's much more fun to say the USA "lost", but in general it's much more fun to be an idiot in about everything.
>>1252976
When the war broke out there were no real objectives to take from the NVA so Vietnam ended up being a war of attrition wherein the US forces would basically fucking announce themselves to the enemy with their choppers. This meant that the NVA in addition to having the home-field advantage they had the privilege of getting to choose the majority of battles throughout the war. To be completely fair though, if it weren't for the American people lacking any kind of a fucking back bone and sticking through the conflict than the Americans (give a year or two) would have ended up victorious in that war of attrition.
>>1252976
USA won because now the country an ally and basically a slave labor colony for capitalism and the current leadership has shit all over Ho Chi Minh's beliefs.
A popular saying that still rings true is that the Viet Cong didn't win battles, but they won the war.
in all honest, the Viet Cong completely collapsed after the Tet Offensive, with their ranks being refilled by professional North Vietnamese troops. But it was the boldness of the Tet Offensive, along with other operations that caught the US off guard time and time again. A guerrilla force isn't supposed to attack and occupy over 100 cities all at once, and make taking back a large city like Hue a gauntlet to accomplish.
the NVA won out because it was clear that they weren't going to truly give up their goals anytime soon, even signing the peace accord wouldn't stop them. they simply had to wait for the American public to get tired of spending money in lives to defend a jungle in the middle of fucking nowhere.
>Half a day after the Americans rush to claim that they did not lost.
>>1252976
The Tet Offensive (and the massive media coverage thereof) was the turning point for the American public's support for intervention in Vietnam.
Funnily enough it pretty much destroyed the Vietcong as a genuinely South Vietnamese resistance movement - due to the heavy losses suffered the Vietcong had to be supplemented by North Vietnamese infiltrators
>>1253052
>but in general it's much more fun to be an idiot in about everything.
The US basically lost the war. The Paris Peace Accords state, that if North-Korea re-invades, the US will return with full force.
This didn't happen, maybe because the public was already sick of it, maybe because of Watergate, who knows, but one thing is clear: the US fought against Communism along with the South-Vietnamese government since 1955, and after signing a peace treaty assuring the protection of this state, the US refused to do its part.
So, every lost life and resources was for nothing, in the end, the very thing they fought for was destroyed, which, in my definition, is a loss.
>>1253052
Asymmetric conflicts aren't won on the battlefields.
>>1253052
>hurr durr we got a higher score therefore we won even though we lost
>rekt the American soldiers
>>1253052
>10-1 if you include massacring civilians
Very impressive
>>1255077
>implying there are civilians in guerilla warfare
>>1255082
???
>>1253052
What the fuck are you on about?
It was a lot worse than 10:1, about 1.5:1 more like it
>Hurr allies don't count
>>1255087
What don't you understand about that statement? It's true.
>>1252976
>lack of support of the Vietnam war
propping up an unpopular regime
mounting war crimes
internal/external pressures
growing social movements
costing to much $$
>>1255077
If you aren't impressed, the communists killed 165,000 civilians after they "won" the war for shits and giggles, and were doing terrorist attacks on civilians (to be fair, production sites for u.s. weapons were out of the country)
>>1255125
now show us the numbers of civilians killed during the pre war communist pourges
>>1255101
>every child in every village is a member of the resistance
>>1255133
purges*
>>1253052
Every fucking time.
You lose a war if you fail to succeed in your geo-political and strategic aims.
>>1252976
ask uncle Ho
>>1252976
Honestly, the reason for the North Vietnamese success was less about any one thing in particular they or the U.S. did on the battlefield, and more about the extreme frailty and incompetence of the South Vietnamese government.
They didn't have their shit together, and gave no sign of ever getting their shit together. Everyone knew that as soon as you didn't have American troops on the ground, the North Vietnamese would overrun the country. America didn't want to be propping up a worthless ally forever, so, cut its losses (eventually) and went home.
As long as you have that fundamental dynamic, there's no real victory condition for America in Vietnam short of starting WW3 and trying to purge the globe of all communism everywhere, which is clearly going to cost more than south vietnam is worth.
>>1255134
It is when they are utilized as bomb carriers. Although it doesn't justify complete genocide, but just mistrust and suspicion
>>1255115
That monk wasn't making a bold anti-war political statement. He was frustrated and angry over the treatment by the S. Vietnamese of the clergy.
But nice attempt to usurp one of the most iconic deaths ever captured on film to fit your agenda.
>>1255331
>and more about the extreme frailty and incompetence of the South Vietnamese government.
Diem did nothing wrong, it wasn't his fault the US press corps was filled with delusional liberal fuckwits that had ridiculous expectations for his regime and that trusted a literal North Vietnamese intelligence officer
>>1255352
>diem did nuffin wrong
>make your government majority catholic in a majority buddhist nation
>get your insane wife to run shit
>do nothing about the rampant corruption
>be a general nepotic fuck
w e w
>>1255362
>make your government majority catholic in a majority buddhist nation
Because the majority of public servants were Catholic due to the French colonial regime. What was Diem supposed to do, fire them for poorly-trained Buddhists because demographics?
>do nothing about the rampant corruption
See: ridiculous expecations. And to reduce corruption to "acceptable" levels takes decades, because you basically have to change the country's entire culture.
>be a general nepotic fuck
>be asian
Fixed for you anon
>>1255399
And as bad as the Diem regime may have been, no one can seriously argue that the string of generals running South Vietnam after him was an improvement
>>1255399
train buddhists better?
i'm also pretty sure giap or ho never got some crazy bitch to take over parts of the government.
diem did a whole lot of shit wrong, to pin it all on le liberal media is a bit reaching.
>>1253052
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/05/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-never-lost-major-battle-vietn/
>>1254950
>Vietnam
>US slave
They don't trade much with us.
>ally
Lmao
>>1255352
>dindu
Considering he did so poorly he got couped by America, you're wrong.
>>1255415
>train buddhists better?
The point is there wasn't some pool of equally-trained Buddhist potential that Diem was too much of a bigoted Catholic shitlord to tap that the "muh Catholic oppression" meme implies.
Also it's funny how everyone ignores what the North Vietnamese did to Buddhist temples and priests once they occupied South Vietnam.
>>1255503
>everyone who was ever overthrown by foreign interests was really just too incompetent/useless to retain power
>america dindu nuffin, it was all South Vietnam's fault!
>>1255498
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/world/asia/us-eases-embargo-on-arms-to-vietnam.html?_r=0
certainly not an enemy anymore
>>1255569
>>everyone who was ever overthrown by foreign interests was really just too incompetent/useless to retain power
Considering he got couped by his own allies explicitly because they viewed him as incompetent and unpopular, yes.
>>1255593
They haven't been an enemy since 1990 or so.
>>1253052
By this logic, Britain didn't lose the Revolutionary War.
>>1255686
And the Soviets won in Afghanistan.
>>1255331
South Korea didn't have it's shit together during the Korean War either.
Anti-communist regimes always have initial difficulty because most intellectuals support communism. So they are left with corrupt gangsters and religious nutjobs. It's only after a few decades, when rule by anti-communist gangsters proves to be better than rule by communist intellectuals, that things improve.
>>1255767
>Anti-communist regimes always have initial difficulty because most intellectuals support communism. So they are left with corrupt gangsters and religious nutjobs. It's only after a few decades, when rule by anti-communist gangsters proves to be better than rule by communist intellectuals, that things improve.
that post contains so much bullshit you could fertilize the entire Saharah for the next 9000 years.
>>1255779
Prove me wrong.
>>1255780
first day on /his/ ?
the person making a claim has to prove it.
prove your point with sources.
>>1255632
>Considering he got couped by his own allies explicitly because they viewed him as incompetent and unpopular
Of which the US press had a major part to play. The same press that had a fucking North Vietnamese intelligence officer as one of its major sources on what exactly was happening in South Vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%E1%BA%A1m_Xu%C3%A2n_%E1%BA%A8n
>>1255788
You should have said credible sources, I bet my right nut that he is reading some tinfoil blog right now which he will link soon.
>>1255069
>>1255686
Not really.
>>1255767
South Korea wasn't facing endemic revolt and unrest in their own secure territory the way South Vietnam was.
If there was no Communist invasion, South Korea would have been fine and dandy. Maybe not the nicest place in the world to live, but the regime would be in no risk of toppling.
In South Vietnam, even before the Communists were starting to push at things, the regime was already unstable and facing open revolt. There's a huge difference.
>>1255023
Nope
>>1252976
The NVA did most of the heavy lifting, the Vietcong were the annoying distraction that helped distract American and South Vietnamese forces.
The war was to prop up the South Vietnamese regime. The Americans did all they could sans invading the North to help the South but due to the Souths incompetence, nothing came of it.
>>1253052
Will American butthurt and twisting of facts over Vietnam ever cease?
>>1256508
kys
>>1256508
Nope.
>>1255569
The SV army was 90% of why the war was lost. They were utterly inept, plenty of stories of how they'd lose town after town to the Vietcong before the Americans or Australians came in to save their ass for the millionth time.
>>1256536
>they had to fight a war the US forced on them
Oh gee I wonder why they were unmotivated.
>>1256538
>they had to fight a war the US forced on them
Are you retarded? The SVA was fighting for its very survival. The U.S. didn't "force" them, they were just shit at it.
>>1256568
The Strategic Hamlet Program, The failure to take advantage of Operation Linebacker, and everything done by Hoang Xuan Liam highlighted perfectly how shitty the SVA's leadership was.
>>1254950
>USA won because now the country an ally and basically a slave labor colony for capitalism and the current leadership has shit all over Ho Chi Minh's beliefs.
That's like saying China is USA's bitch but you and I both know that isn't the case now, isn't it?
>>1252976
>Or was it the disorganization and lack of support of the Vietnam war that caused the defeat of the U.S. in the conflict?
It was 3 things
>Threat of escalation.
>Threat of escalation.
and
>Threat of escalation.
>>1256628
The SVA LEADERSHIP was fighting for survival, not the actual conscripts who couldn't give more shits who they paid their rice sack tax to.
But sure call me retarded when you can't even get that right.
>>1256646
>ADERSHIP was fighting for survival, >not the actual conscripts who couldn't give more shits who they paid their rice sack tax to.
They very much did give a shit. They heard of the shit that was going on in China and feared that they would become subservient to the Chinese communists. The conscripts were actually noted for being quite brave and fighting valiantly despite having awful commanders who made terrible military decisions.
>>1256662
>this generalization and romantic view to use the SVA as a scapegoat for the US's mistake to start an unwinnable war is what Amerilards actually believe
Enjoy the thread, I think everything has been said already by other anons a few hours before.
Bye!
>>1256679
>I literally don't understand shit about the war and will use buzzwords to defend my ignorance
>Durrr Amerifat, Ameridumb
"Starting in 1969 President Richard Nixon started the process of "Vietnamization", pulling out American forces and rendering the ARVN incapable of fighting an effective war against the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) of the North (Also called NVA for North Vietnamese Army) and the ally, the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong). Slowly, ARVN began to expand from its counter-insurgency role to become the primary ground defense against the NLF and PAVN. From 1969 to 1971 there were about 22,000 ARVN combat deaths per year. Starting in 1968, South Vietnam began calling up every available man for service in the ARVN, reaching a strength of one million soldiers by 1972. In 1970 they performed well in the Cambodian Incursion and were executing three times as many operations as they had during the American war period. However, the ARVN equipment continued to be of lower standards than their American and South Korean allies, even as the U.S. tried to upgrade ARVN technology. However, the officer corps was still the biggest problem. Leaders were too often poorly trained, corrupt, lacking morale and inept."
"However, forced to carry the burden left by the Americans, the South Vietnamese Army actually started to perform rather well, though with continued American air support."
"One notable ARVN unit equipped with M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs), the 3d Armored Cavalry Squadron, used the new tactic so proficiently and with such extraordinary heroism against hostile forces that they earned the United States Presidential Unit Citation.[6][7]"
"Reporter Morley Safer who returned in 1989 and saw the poverty of a former soldier described the ARVN as "that wretched army that was damned by the victors, abandoned by its allies, and royally and continuously screwed by its commanders"."
>>1256628
>>Communist sources show that the strategic hamlet program, despite the relatively limited number of hamlets completed, was already having a substantial effect on the war in much of South Vietnam before the year ended. One of Hanoi's postwar histories credited the Diem government with reducing the Viet Cong's "liberated areas" in Cochinchina, the southern third of Vietnam, by the end of 1962 through the creation of 2,000 strategic hamlets
>Operation Linebacker
>Hoang Xuan Liam
Both happened years after Diem was overthrown and executed, with Lãm given authority due to his political connections.
>>1252976
>lose millions of more Vietcong than Americans
>rekt
>>1256756
I didn't mention Diem though. I just stated that it was the SVA's incompetence via its leadership that decided the war. Both it and the NVA were exhausted and essentially on equal footing by 1974, the SVA had every expectation to defend an invasion from the North had its leaders not been incompetent mongoloids.
>>1256760
>wars are won by the side who lost less soldiers
So Soviets lost WW2?
Try reading a history book, Burger.
They are those things looking like Bibles but have actually valuable information in them.
>>1256760
>muh k/d ratio
lmao americans
>>1256774
And my argument ITT has been that Diem was the only thing holding South Vietnam together.
>the SVA had every expectation to defend an invasion from the North had its leaders not been incompetent mongoloids.
>The SV army was 90% of why the war was lost
???
The SV army were "incompetent mongoloids" but were accurate when they predicted they could hold off the NV army?
>>1256806
They were expected to hold of the North. They had essentially equal amounts of troops and resources at their disposal. It came down to their leaders being garbage and failing their soldiers that decided the war.
Amerifats were cowards and didn't use bayonets to rout the enemy.
>>1256813
This.
As an American, I will be first to admit that we failed big time in our goals in Vietnam.
But we were not "rekt," we won every major battle, literally flattened North Vietnam to the point where 80% of their government and military had to go literally underground, and killed more than 50% of the population taking only minimal losses.
The problem was that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were willing to continue fighting even after the absolute fucking smackdown the US delivered. Once we saw that the North Vietnamese were not going to give up despite being bombed into irrelevance, we decided to cut our losses and go home.
We failed strategically in Vietnam, but we kicked ass so disproportionately in major engagements and in bombing campaigns that Vietnam is STILL recovering nearly 50 years later.
It triggers me when people imply that US forces in Vietnam lost on an engagement to engagement, or tactical, level, when in reality the opposite is true.
Strategic loss =/= tactical loss
>>1252976
>Or was it the disorganization and lack of support of the Vietnam war that caused the defeat of the U.S. in the conflict?
The biggest thing that defeated the U.S. government in Vietnam was their complete unwillingness to support the Republic of Vietnam itself.
I hate it as a latest buzzword, but Cuck is really the only way to describe the RoV. Into the late 60s, Nobody respected them and treated them like they were in charge. Certainly not the Americans, and so certainly not the locals.
We wouldn't even give the RoV army assault rifles. They were still running around with M1 Garands and, I shit you not, Arisakas. Which left them hopeless outgunned even by Vietcong irregulars.
Also, the Vietcong have this reputation of being masters of Jungle Warfare, but the war only went that way because the U.S. had no interest in securing areas other than the Jungle until the very end of the war. There was no interest given towards establishing law and order, the idea was that that would happen once we went out and killed the Vietcong in their jungle hideouts. But we didn't really care about making sure that they couldn't come out of their jungle hideouts to assassinate political opponents, intimidate villagers etc. Except when we had the bright idea for interment villages.
It's really instructive to compare the Vietnam war to the little know "Second Korean War." In a lot of ways, they're very similar conflicts:
Small Asian nation gets divided in two, Northern Half is supported economically by Chinese and Soviets. Unable to face the U.S. in a conventional conflict, the Northern half provides shelter and material support to local insurgents reinforced by deniable special forces detachments sent south.
Except in Vietnam, the losses were in the hundreds of thousands, and in Korea, they were in the dozens. Because we supported Korea in forming a stable, well equipped government capable of handling shit, with U.S. back up.
>>1252976
If you have to change your tactics three times to encourage the enemy to engage you might as well give up
>>1253052
>they won the battles
but they still lost the war you fucking idiot.
>we murdered 1 million civilians with strategic bombing and only lost 60,000 dead and north vietnam only won after we left so we didnt lose
I'm beginning to see a pattern here
>>1256715
>Hey lets train and equip a third world army for a kind of Warfare thats EXTREMLY demanding of a big industrial base to fullfill the extreme need for Material and ammunition. Basically making it useless without my expensive Support.
W E W L A D
>>1252976
America tried to prop up a corrupt regime by force after they weren't able to solve its problems with political/economical means. However we are not ready to go all out and provoke China because of Muh korea so that a totalitarian communist System is able to drag us the liberal democracy in a war of attrition where we aren't able to cut the constant Material Flow they get with our superior firepower.
S H I G G Y
>ITT
>>1256508
Nope
>>1256813
>rekt
Who are you quoting?
>>1257664
>america started the korean war
>>1253052
>Muh kdr
>>1257695
American invaded a united Korea to install a satellite state.
>>1257707
Soviets invaded a united Korea to install a satellite state.
>>1255351
He was making a statement against the regime the US was waging a war for. Do you not understand why we were in Vietnam? I don't understand how so many people can research ways to explain how we didn't lose Vietnam but don't bother to look up the reasons for going there in the first place.
>>1255767
>South Korea didn't have it's shit together during the Korean War either.
Yeah, it's fortunate that Kim was an idiot who didn't grasp no one would stand for armored divisions launching a lightning offensive only 5 years after we stopped Hitler.
If he had tried to policy of subversion in 1950, especially with the Jeju uprising, he'd have a chance.
Also this
>>1255779
It wasn't the fucking communists that killed off intellectuals like Kim Ku.
>>1257999
Looking up the reasons would mean realizing why US of B lost in the first place. They were unable to stabilize South Vietnam and wenn full:
>LELEL lets bomb north Vietnam that will solve the massive internal problems South Vietnam had
>>1257707
>American invaded a united Korea
2/10 bait m8
>>1255686
Britain lost several major strategic battles like Yorktown and Saratoga. In Vietnam, meanwhile, even the most infamous battles, like Khe Sanh and Hue city, still turn out to be US victories. I still agree that America suffered a strategic loss, but it certainly wasn't due to any tactical genius among the north Vietnamese. Vietnam managed to spook the American public into leaving at the cost of the vast majority of their army. They were in a very vulnerable position at the end of the war, and if we had the stomach for it, another American offensive would've crushed them. Fortunately for Vietnam, we didn't have the stomach for it.
>>1256382
Sure, they won the war by scaring the public into demanding an end. Doesn't mean that their soldiers didn't get rekt through the entirety of the war.
>>1258202
Meddling in internal affairs between countries is generally seen as imperialism, which despite claims the the contrary is the image the U.S. wanted to avoid. Had South Vietnam been controlled directly by the U.S. like Japan was, we could have seen a very different ending to the war.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3r-9xWYYX4
