Why did America get cucked so bad in Vietnam?

Why did America get cucked so bad in Vietnam?

>cucked
You sure for long time?

Guerrilla warfare
Happens to almost every big country.

It was weapons testing not a real war.

public appearance issue. literal loss of the war was due to congress saying we lost.

Because of French colonialism.

>Superior numbers.
>Superior firepower.
>Superior resources.
???
America was like a starving dog in Vietnam while the farmers had national conscription, tons of guns from Communism worldwide and supply lines that consisted of keeping people with food in their bellies and bullets in their guns.
Like Stalin said "Quantity is a quality of it's own". Add this to a lack of support in the home country and the war was a huge farce.

>Be America.
>Spend 100x what everyone else does for a 1% increase in individual combat effectiveness.
>Think they are great because their budget is big.

Hippies

Pretty much because it was guerrilla warfare, the US military up until then only ever really fought true armies.

We would have "won", however the war was extremely unpopular in the US and it forced congress to cease all military occupation of Vietnam.

>this burger damage control

hilarious.

Geneva convention

when you limit yourself in war to never attacking civilians, you will always lose to those that don't

??? Nigga your every single soldier said that you lost the war

Somewhat relevant

ME KEK YOU LONG TIME

umm sweetie have you looked at their casualty numbers?

We won the war stupid ass

Lots of reasons. Ill-prepared for this type of war, waging a war at home with protesters, unable to really bring all their weapons to bear because 'muh innocent chinks'.

It was winnable but we were so scared for our image. And oh look, it damaged our image anyway.

i think you have to be 13 to not understand
it was 50 years ago
there are hundreds of books

>muh K/D ratio
that is completely irrelevant - the US accomplished NOTHING it set out to achieve and was devastated, all because of engaging in a war we had no business being in.

Media coverage of the war shown to the american public, the army not being fully prepared of the type of war being fought and support from china I guess

>We won the war stupid ass

Because instead of steamrolling the North, they fought a pointless defensive war trying to prop up a completely rotten and corrupt South.

>muh K/D ratio

Westmoreland pls go

>vietnam is a commie country
>"we won guys"

holy shit thats epic

OP must be retarded cf

The picture lacks photos of all kinds of the most advanced Soviet AA missile systems at the time, with crews too.

Let's keep a tally of American (and allied) excuses, it's always fun reading, so far we have:

>Nobody ever won against guerillas
>It was weapon testing
>Stab in the back (congress)
>Would have won if we attacked civilians (?)
>Muh K/D-ratio

Basically shitty liberal reporters eroding the public's opinion of it.

Also massive stacks of support from the chinks to the Charlie.

Also cos they couldn't be fucked with it all anymore - it was all political bullshit.

They got flooded with slide threads

Reminder just how corrupt DC is

Simple. America never fully committed to Vietnam.

I highly doubt any other military on the planet would have had an easier time in the same situation.

Fuck even in a joint effort we can't even dislodge terrorists in Mudhuts in the Middle east permanently.

how about a rematch, faggots

>we killed more of them despite achieving nothing therefore we won
nigger logic

Americans will come up with any excuse for Vietnam. It's something that exposes their inferiority complex.

>Nobody ever won against guerillas
>It was weapon testing
>Stab in the back (congress)
>Would have won if we attacked civilians (?)
>Muh K/D-ratio
>We never really tried, really you guys
>If we can't, no one could (which proves what?)

Why did you even go to war with Vietnam?
Do they have oil, or nukes?

Kill yourselves

Trying to defend South Vietnam from their conquerors was deluded to begin with. It was like trying to conquer Turkey by backing the Kurds.

More like the war was lost because the media war at home was lost, with zero support for the war they were forced to pull the troops out.
More than that though Nam gave US special forces a lot of time to perfect their craft. Richard Marcinko really started to prefect the seals during Vietnam.

>they wuz threathning us
>half way across the globe

Good thing South Vietnam got control over the country as a result of the war then. Oh wait.

Something something Communism. I don't remember the exact reason.

The US had won the war, driven the North to peace talks and was set to secure the South. Then the president changed and congress refused to honor the agreement to supply weapons to the South.
US news falsely reported the Tet Offensive as a massive loss for the US and the public turned pressing for a withdraw that lead to the total cutting of funding by 76.
Also the last few former SS units being employed by the French left.

In short the Democrats doomed the south to communist occupation because they didn't want to spend 1 billion a year on supplying US made weapons. Fuck all democrats. If only niggers could be trusted to work in a weapons factory the Dems could make them earn their gibs.

We failed to use nuclear weapons or VX nerve gas. That would have quickly won the war.

Don't worry we had agent orange and napalm, that showed those commie fucks who is in charge

They were a French colony and post WW2 France over extended itself trying to refrain some national pride.

That coupled with America's fear of domino theory regarding communism was enough for us to intervene.

Vietnam was not a military loss by any means. We lost the war at home. People didn’t like it anymore. With waning support at home and possible war with China looming. It wasn’t worth it anymore. Technically, almost every battle we fought the casualties on their side were horrible. If we continued to fight it would have been an attrition war and we might have won. We simply had more people and less losses.

France got BTFO so USA came in for an honour killing to be returned with a black eye and a bloody nose.
Similar to Korea except South Vietnam got annexed the moment the USA looked away.

You do realize that the North only accepted peace talks, which you were DESPERATE for, because you threatened to nuke them (and thus start WW3 over a small, poor jungle-nation), right? And everyone involved knew it was a farce, the southern politicians knew that it signed their doom.

The only purpose for the peace treaty was to allow the US to retreat somewhat honorably ('Peace with honor' is literally an american quote from the time), because your pride did not allow you to just call it quits and leave when you were beaten.

US could have won the war in months:
1. mine Haiphong harbor
2. bomb Hanoi
3. blocking force across the Ho Chi Minh Trial in Laos
4. Phoenix Program in RVN countryside

Probably would have meant the collapse of the Hanoi government too and then a reunified Vietnam which would have become prosperous and a pluralistic govt

But LBJ was a cuck

Laughable coming from swedcuckistan

Containment
You had China and the soviet union backing communists throughout east asia and insurgencies were going on in south vietnam and malaysia
So it was felt that if those countries went communist, so might thailand, and then indonesia, and then the phillipines, etc. Nations become really touchy if their sphere of influence is being threatened.

>Nobody ever won against guerillas
>It was weapon testing
>Stab in the back (congress)
>Would have won if we attacked civilians (?)
>Muh K/D-ratio
>We never really tried, really you guys
>If we can't, no one could (which proves what?)
>Starting WW3 would have equated a win somehow
>Needless mass genocide is winning

>Why did America get cucked so bad in Vietnam?
Liberal crybabies.

We have a enough nukes to win WWIII like 12 times over

They weren't really in a position to do that after the whole 'muh evil genocide empires' post WW2 propaganda.

There's a difference between "winning" and having the whole world nuked including yourselves.

Ya well some men just wanna watch the world burn, better hope I'm never elected president

>Muhammad desperately tries to avoid talking about how his entire region of the world has been CRATERED

Do you even understand what you wrote?

>You do realize that the North only accepted peace talks, which you were DESPERATE for, because you threatened to nuke them (and thus start WW3 over a small, poor jungle-nation), right? And everyone involved knew it was a farce, the southern politicians knew that it signed their doom.

The North accepted the talks after the bombing was stepped up (Linebacker II) and targeted the factories, ports and supplies dumps, and a battleship was moved in to pound the ever loving fuck out of them. The US said that if China moved in to help the US would nuke the soldiers in the field.

>The only purpose for the peace treaty was to allow the US to retreat somewhat honorably ('Peace with honor' is literally an american quote from the time), because your pride did not allow you to just call it quits and leave when you were beaten.

The peace talks were entered because the North was lost and the US didn't want to occupy. However the North regrouped and broke the cease fire after the US had withdrawn as required under the peace agreement.

The US congress controlled by Dems then stopped funding the South.

I wrote that the US government could obliterate this world 12 times over because we have so many nukes, do you understand what I wrote?

It's a myth that there's that many nukes in the world. The truth is humans don't have enough nukes to even come close to covering ALL landmass like propaganda likes to say.

I was being facetious

And still anti-gun fags use the 'muh drone' argument claiming the people can't overthrow tyranical government.

You can build a gun right now that can take a drone out, you won't even need projectiles

>ALL landmass like propaganda likes to say.
You don't need to nuke uninhabited land to kill almost everyone. Between the USA and Russia they have enough to hit even moderately sized towns with a nuke each. No need to nuke the Tibetan plateau for example no one lives there.

>if you nuke your enemies, they win.

Whatever isn't killed by the blasts will die to the fallout thanks to wind currents

>12
Lol? Pretty low number.

The earth was nearly wiped clean of life. A great cleansing, an atomic spark struck by human hands, quickly raged out of control. Spears of nuclear fire rained from the skies. Continents were swallowed in flames and fell beneath the boiling oceans. Humanity was almost extinguished, their spirits becoming part of the background radiation that blanketed the earth.

Celebrities lied to us and betrayed us.

Walter Cronkite in particular basically convinced the American public the Tet offensive was a massive defeat of the US, when it was actually a massive victory for us and would have led to us winning the war.

Popular support at home was significantly weakened by our defeat in Korea half a generation earlier.

U.S. Marines getting BTFO by starving Chinese peasant-conscripts running around in paper shoes with only enough guns for the first wave to carry into battle, and this only half a generation after WW2.

Korea shattered American confidence in our military's invincibility.

I like it, why isn't it happening now

Because Giap and co realised if you can't win on the battlefield you win by using lefty press to subvert the enemies will to fight.

Also the 1yr tour system, by the time a kid had experience he was out, to be replaced by another raw recruit.

>America lost the war
>Walk down the street in Hanoi and you see nothing but Coca Cola and McDonalds and KFC
>People think the communist backed Vietcong "won" in the long term

Can't beat capitalism, friend.

You can never beat capitalism. You can set traps for the soldiers and spend your days crawling in mud, but a few decades go by and before you know it your children are part of a capitalist system. And everything you died for goes to shit.

But war.
War never changes.

Back when not having the internet made it really fucking easy to manipulate the masses. I really feel sorry for the older generations because they had to take what the government shit out to them as fact because they didn't have anywhere else to go for news.

Fracking.

>if we make them lefties we will win because they won't fight
>lose to literal communists

Unfortunately, all the commies are now in your education and govt sectors.
It's like the elite and the pleb went and swapped ideological roles.

Exactly and hiding in the underground tunnels would not protect them from radiation.

Questionable if the USSR or China would start WWIII over Vietnam.

Also widespread use of VX would have been better than napalm and agent orange. We had hundreds of tons of the stuff and multiple delivery methods so could have been done. Civilian losses would be high but we would have devastated the north Vietnamese army with almost zero US losses.

Thats the fucking hippies for you, right into education to inflict themselves on the children and now we see the results.
A generation of mentally ill people who have had their mental illness fed and have convinced the world they are sane.
The radicalized youth walking our streets dressed in all black and waving the anarchist flag, beating people and smashing businesses.
This is the result, they have sowed the seeds of discord and chaos well.

3,000,000 dead cong. 60,000 dead Americans dealing with new rules of engagement and gurrila gooks

>No one lives there
>Who are FInns

We killed like two million of them and it is a nation of prostitutes now, how exactly did we lose

>Soviets lost to the Afghans in the 80 s
>Soviets were losing to Finnish Rebels during WW2
>Great Britain lost to the United States in 1700s
I know being Swedish makes you not understand guerilla warfare because you guys haven't had a war for a long time.
If you don't play you can't lose. Cucks

kek

Cause america was too pussy to take the fight to the people, which is how you fight harambe style warfare.

Instead they tried and failed to do a sort of reversed rome vs hannibal (in rome) by just basically doing the more of same shit they had been doing instead of changing tact.

>fight like enemy has objectives
>they have jack fucking shit
>enemy hits you quickly and runs
>they automatically win
>bomb the fuck out of an area to clear it for helicoptors to land
>enemy hears this and surrounds it
>wonder why we lose
>lol its because clearly americas spending has nothing to do with ww2 retards expecting random farmers to have shit of value
>i dont know history but im gonna pretend i do anyway

Short answer: the North Vietnamese were willing to do literally anything it took to win, the US wasn't.

Long answer:
One of the major lessons of the Korean War for the Communist world was that the casus belli created by an open invasion was simply too strong not to provoke intervention by allies (e.g. American & cronies). North Korea's invasion of the South was a smashing success, and without American intervention the North would have been in complete control of the peninsula within, probably, about three weeks. As much of a clusterfuck as the American effort got at times, it ultimately reversed the gains the North had made and oh by the way, ended up killing fuckloads of Chinese.

Both during and after (mostly during) the North tried to use various subversive and guerrilla programs against the South, but they were ultimately ineffective; the Southern government could basically do whatever they wanted to root out guerrillas and subversives with the full moral and material support of their allies, and in fact the Americans stuck with the South Korean government through some pretty outrageous behavior.

The Americans did, however, very conspicuously refuse to attack China directly and were likewise incredibly careful to avoid antagonizing Russia (who on their part also made absolutely no effort to e.g. challenge American naval superiority).

We def didn't have more people. Gookers multiply like rabbits man, we could never kill them fast enough with a scorched earth policy.

100% Swede as far as records go (1600s)
Your turn Burger.

rip to the soldiers that died in the stupid ass war

russia could do it 14 times over
checkmate yankee boy

The North didn't win the guerilla war. The US and the South won the guerilla war.

After losing the guerilla war, the North won the war by a conventional invasion in 1975 of long columns of Soviet-made tanks, APCs, towed artillery and trucks across the DMZ and down Highway 1. The Soviets spent billions shipping arms into the North.

US airpower would have turned those long exposed columns into a highway of death, but the (((media))) had defeated Nixon and Congress prohibited the US giving aid to the South.

The glorious Australian engagement at Long Tan made it worth it.

Viet Cong didn't even have more than 200,000 soldiers so I don't know where you get 3 million from

Total deaths in Vietnam was 1 million - 3 million so I'm guessing you just assumed Vietnam was one faction

Compare to Vietnam. The subversive/guerrilla tactics came first, with North Vietnam avoiding an all-out invasion for decades. Yes, this did involve propaganda efforts and the South Vietnam government was somewhat inept, but *both* of these factors were *at least* as true in Korea. Instead of a massive intervention on behalf of a victimized ally, the American effort was a largely-directionless "graduated response" to prop up a questionable ally that couldn't keep its own territory under control. Then, when the RVN was totally cut off by the US, the NVA made its decisive invasion (the 1975 Spring Offensive, which by the way took six months to achieve victory despite being heavily mechanized, compared to the much lighter North Korean offensive which probably would have been over in half that time without US intervention). Basically, South Vietnam's allies hung it out to dry *before* it was invaded outright.

Geography played a role too. Just look at a map; without an Indochinese DMZ all the way to Rangoon, it was much easier for the NVA to keep forces in the South supplied. Interestingly though, American (and RVN) forces were so much more tactically mobile than in the 1950s that this may not have made as huge a difference as you might think. Still, such a DMZ might have shut down the initial guerrilla phase of the Northern effort, and forced them to resort to a (doomed) invasion or continue with increasingly ineffective irregular measures (like North Korea)