If the United States and South Vietnam had invaded North Vietnam they would have won the Vietnam War.
in a purely military sense? probably, though it would still be very costly, without a staging ground and point to receive supplies from china or russia, the communists would have a much harder time fighting and effective guerilla conflict.
though diplomatically its unthinkable, which is why it never happened
>>884591
McArthur led the US and Allies almost all the way to China at which point he decided it would be impossible to beat the pinkos without bombing Chine. He was removed as a general for threatening to.
it aint me
>>884591
No, China would have invaded and it would have been the Korean War all over again.
>>884591
They would have won if Based Nixon got his way
>>884591
>He doesn't know about the Paris Accords
America did win the war. It just took longer than it should have and the commies broke the treaty after the US left.
>>884591
>If the United States and South Vietnam had invaded North Vietnam they would have won the Vietnam War.
But that wouldn't cost as much as dropping tons of ordnance from relatively defective airplanes to "break the Ho Chi Mihn trail" which was something airforce never managed to achieve.
Vietnam war was the first US war where military-industrial complex dictated the strategy. No wonder they've lost.
>>884855
It ain't me
>>884911
>Paris Accords
An effective surrender from the US.
>America did win the war. It just took longer than it should have
Sure, but not for the reasons you think.
>and the commies broke the treaty after the US left
No shit, what reason did they ever have to uphold it? Everyone knew the US was going to withdraw because continuing to fight was politically unfeasible. The PPA were just a way to admit a (partial) defeat while still saving face.
Nonetheless, I still implied the US won. This is because, despite the war's major cost and length, it still generally benefited American global interests. The US of course is generally interested in as many countries being undeveloped backwaters as possible, and in that sense the destruction of Vietnam was a huge success. There was a real danger for a while there that the country might develop on it's own independent of the US and other local states might even have copied their model. But obviously none of that was going to happen after SEA was flattened into dust. It was another battle of attrition in the Cold War that capitalism could afford more than socialism.
>>884591
....and started Vietnam War 2: Korean Warrening
>>885265
Goal of the war was to 'stop the spread of communism', America failed to stop Vietnam turning into a communist state. How exactly did they win that war again?
>>885614
because they signed a peace treaty that said the north would the south alone, they had the war one but then the political climate shifted in the US, making it possible for the north to break the treaty and attack a south vietnam that had been wounded by those same political shifts without consequence
