Why did the US drop all military support for South Vietnam after they pulled out, like supplying them?
>>1180223
You got it wrong: the military presence stopped, but not the Assistance.
Look up Vietnamization you noob.
>>1180223
The United States ended the military involvement in Vietnam with a signed cease fire agreement, contrary to public misconception the war was somehow "lost". The US president at the time made a promise if the North didn't follow the agreement, the US would return, but then we all know what happened to Nixon. After that, US foreign policy shifted in a dramatic fashion away from interests in SE Asia, and the north Vietnamese took advantage of the situation and re-invaded. Had the US gov't wanted to return to help, there was no possible way domestic US sentiment would rise to the occasion and it was kind of "let go". The north Vietnamese were successful and the US had no ties with the communist regime.
The thing about Vietnam is that none of it was ever really the "US's fault". France previously controlled the region as a colony, and their abrupt withdrawal created a power vacuum and political upheaval. When I read about it, watch documentaries, I constantly ask myself, "How much of this was really our problem?". I really don't know, because the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete and utter lie from the CIA. Of course, no one but them knew that at the time, but how could we blame tens of thousands at home for being against the military involvement, when images of hurt and killed American men were plastered all over TV and magazines every week, and we were fighting a war that wasn't really "ours" in the first place?
I don't know, I just don't have a real opinion on "what we should have done" after the Paris Peace Accords. The whole thing was just too bad.
>>1180223
Because South Vietnam was utterly incompetent and had absolutely no support. They had three or four coups between 63 and 65 alone. The truth was that there was no way they could exist without the US propping up corrupt regime after regime.
>>1180323
>The thing about Vietnam is that none of it was ever really the "US's fault"
The war was
>France previously controlled the region as a colony, and their abrupt withdrawal created a power vacuum and political upheaval.
Nothing forced the US to invade to prevent the commies from taking over (which happened anyway in the end)
The result would have been the same, but without the millions of dead
>>1180408
It's like saying if I see you about to get attacked, if I do something about it and beat the living shit out of the attacker, make an agreement he'll leave you alone, the moment I turn my back he kills you, and that becomes my fault.
You live in an interesting, insulated world, friend. Have fun with your opinions.
>>1180408
>The war was
The war began before we were even involved. The only way you can MAYBE say it was our fault was the fact that Wilson snubbed Ho Chi Minh who then turned to Lenin.
>>1180408
>Nothing forced the US to invade to prevent the commies from taking over
What is foreign policy during cold war
>>1180980
Their own policy?
Who forced US to hunt commies worldwide? Europe? The Jews? Nazi survivors?
