How did the US lose to the vietcong?

How did the US lose to the vietcong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ow5-f6XCTOg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Communist subversion in US academia circles

Capitalism always loses to communism. It's like rock paper scissors except there are only two moves and one of them always loses.

completely irreverent.

Guerrilla warfare is almost unbeatable when done right
Same reason no one can really win in Afghanistan

Lack of support from America probably added to it

so they didn't win?

faggot politicians lacking the will to kill so many of the enemy population that they surrender unconditionally

worked very well on germans and japs though

Russia invented the art of disinformation. The Soviets didn't want the US in Vietnam. Invent a few false stories of war crimes and you have yourself a ruined war effort. tl;dr baby boomers fell for soviet propaganda and subversion

When did the VC occupy D.C.?

Oh never?

Guess they didn't really win now did they.

Leftist's were in charge. They treated the war as a nation-building, welfare mission plus shoot commies. Basically US socialism vs. Chinese communism. The US have up after we won the Tet Offensive because Walter Cronkite lied to the people by claiming we lost it. After that broadcast, Pres Johnson pulled out thinking he'd lose reelection.

The whole war was about stopping communism and we lost in that regard. Besides that we killed a metric fuckton more of them so it actually is the most relative thing Ahmed.

Three words britbong

Johnson and Nixon

Well, the vietcong had nott only support from the people in vietnam, but allies from russia as well, that helped fund their cause against the us. For the U.S., it was difficult for them, as most of the soldiers and officers weren't used to jungle warfare. Also, at the time, the U.S. had very few to none bases in Asia, and the only resupplies and restocking on weapons, ammo, and other stuff had to be done at bases over 3,000 miles from the vietcong bases. Also, the vietcong were really good at conducting guerilla warfare, where as the U.S. were used to more stratigical approaches to combat strategies.

you invaded Vietnam and then pulled back before conquering

So?

Is the US under Vietnamese domination or something?

Hubris

>How did the US lose to the vietcong?

Tunnels and drugs.

How did GBR lose to colonists?

Jokes on Vietnam.

They had to suck Chinas cock in order to win.

And they've been under the Chinese boot ever since an are extremely upset about that, to the point they even tried shaking off the boot by force several times.

They could be like South Korea, a regional industrial powerhouse with 1st world healthcare and schools.

But nope.

They decided against that.

Sucks to be them.

The USA failed to win the support of the population which was in itself harder than killing them all due to decades of oppression under colonialist forces.
France was pretty brutal, same with the Japanese. They hated foreign powers and the communist party of the north was the only force offering them true independence from foreign powers.
The USA never properly tackled this issue and mainly focused on crushing the Vietcong and northern guerrillas crossing into the south which eventually led to the American population growing demoralised of a conflict that seemed to be going nowhere.

After a string of events in which the USA army lost hundreds to take worthless mountains which were later occupied only to be taken again and so on and so on, it was easy for the American academia to convince the American population the war was aimless when in reality the American strategy was to engage the enemy and cause as many deaths as possible in order to force them to capitulate.

America was winning. Congress just couldn't keep up the military funding for a drawn out anti-insurgency war because eventually the Democrats regained their majority.

The US didn't commit to invading North Vietnam because they were afraid of the Chinese joining in (who now had nuclear weapons) and the whole thing descending into a second Korean War stalemate.

Plus, the Vietnamese have been fighting since forever to be independent. The mongols, Japanese, Chinese, French, etc. Americans were just another foe on the list they were not going to just roll over for

because she have spirit

We didn't. We killed the shit out of them and left their children with all kinds of fucked up diseases.

Would you have preferred we stayed there and wiped the whole country out?

I read a book by a former navy seal in Vietnam.

He led a team to sneak into a Vietcong base on a small river island and kill everyone. After bypassing the boobytraps on the perimeter, he did: six twiggy little men in black pajamas eating rice around a fire.

Another time he was leading two boats down a river and started taking MG fire from an island. His boats fired every shot they had: machine guns, rockets, mortars. Finally he called in an airstrike on the island. The enemy machinegun stopped shooting.

These were both considered extremely succesful operations.

...

>set objectives to invade a country
>fail to complete those objectives
>what is losing

gooks don't value human life; a political framework for rebellion, undergirded by a larger state (ussr), ensured the rebellion's continuation despite practical inferiority

Did we lose or just stop caring?
I mean, maybe we lost in that we didn't complete our objective, sure. But we could have won the war if we wanted.

Simple
All of the pre-SJWs

Reminds me of when the colonists occupied London and declared the independence of America

oh wait

Not liberal enough with the napalm.

Okay, let's say I decide to beat a leaf to death. Like pound his faggot leaf face into a curb but I stop short of killing him. I merely leave that dog fucking leaf with a broken face and paralyzed.

So you're telling me the leaf won because I didn't kill him?

>if you kill your enemies they win

they underestimated the power of gook nationalism.

How did the British lose to the American colonists?

subduing a foreign nation from across the ocean when they have support from other nations is really hard.

because we didn't help them

The Viet Cong were actually all but defeated after the Tet Offensive. It was the NVA that carried on. And after the Tet Offensive the US and ARVN were in even better position to win the war, but the Tet Offensive rattled the US civilian public which began calling for it to be over. Military the US and ARVN would've won if politicians didn't capitulate to the public who had no real knowledge of the situation on the ground.

Is that John "May Crack Under Pressure" McCain?

>Guerrilla warfare is almost unbeatable when done right
Explain

we should have used chlorine trifluoride

Got bored from kicking too much ass and winning all the time so we left.
Also our children were turning into hippies and we needed to bring the men home to spank some ass since the National Guard is just a bunch of pansies that just so happened to shoot a couple people once.

>what is a leppo

Damn hippies and SJWs. The Left always manages to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory when it comes to War.

reminds me a lot of the sniper girl in FMJ

Dispite Hollywood depiction leadership didn't have the will to do what was necessary to defeat a guerrilla force.

Kill or imprison the supporting civilian populations.

No cyka give me clear details beyond appealing to intuition and muh geography on how guerilla warfare has a superiority against an invading force

Russia probably has the most experience with urban counter insurgency in the entire world.

And also, Russia is the only country with the balls to handle urban counter insurgency in a way that results in victory.

Not controlling the media.

Shitloads of different correspondents from different political angles. Hippie-loving pinkos trying to show dead bodies to prove their point.

That gave people like Jane Fonda the iconic power to inject the leftist cancer into the boomers even more.

^^^
The problem with all these answers is that they only look at Vietnam in the context of the war, completely ignoring all the cultural and social issues leading up to it that made the Viet Cong such a popular and pervasive force in South Vietnam.

In the first Indochina war, the liberating force was the Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh. The now-free state attempted to hold a referendum to unify, but the USSR, US, and other foreign powers intervened and resulted in the split- South and North Vietnam. The North, led by the liberator of the Vietnamese, had the momentum of nationalism/tribalism behind him: he had saved the Vietnamese from the French, and now was seeking to unify all Vietnamese people under one flag. Meanwhile, the South was plagued with beaurecratic issues. President Diem was heavily influenced by his siblings, who deepened divisions between Catholics (a religion brought in by the French) and the Buddhists (Vietnam's main religion). Things got so bad the Buddhists began to self-immolate in protest (remember the famous picture of the monk setting himself on fire in the street?), and one of wives of one of the siblings influencing Diem literally made a BBQ joke out of it. The climate was so tense that the Viet Cong were able to capitalize upon the anger of the South people, inspiring them to fight for what they saw as the liberation of all Vietnamese people. Shit only got even worse when JFK had Diem assassinated.

Shit is always more complex than it always seems, and it pisses me off that people on pol/int/k only talk about KD ratios and nukes. It was a lot bigger than that

Americans went up against a superior nation and lost, end of story

I think their objectives were to destroy the traditional Vietnamese culture and turn it into a cesspool of Degeneracy and minefields, whilst also murdering a fuckton of American and Vietnamese alpha males.
These objectives were fulfilled.

*it ain't me starts playing in the back ground*

You weren't there, man.

Guerilla warfare. Small arms and tunnels. It was said that a Vietcong could survive for a week on a single bowl of rice. A fight is not about how big your dick is. It's about how bad you want to win the fight. Doesn't mean a big dick won't help just not guaranteed.

>off by one
the horror...the horror

LBJ handicapping the offense from the start. We fought an almost entirely defensive war apart from bombing. More aggressive posture, especially in how the north made use of bases in Cambodia, would have made the war untenable for the north.We'd have had peace talks that stuck much earlier.

The democratic party was in charge or the war most of the time.
Instead of bombing north Vietnam cities and infrastructure, they bombed empty jungle, which they called the 'ho chi minh trail.'

Once Nixon came to power, he bombed the north, and the war promptly ended, for a little while at least.

When the north staged a surprise invasion of the south, the democrats refused to authorize help for the south, and so we evacuated.

basically the biggest problem is noncombatants and the mainstream meteor whining about dead pregnant kittens

in big cities with thick houses its impossible to use armour without heavy losses

the cities are fucking mined and ruines are very hard to storm

The rural guerilla is rather different (the soviet one during ww2 for example)

Basically it became a war of attrition which the U.S. would of have won but, with the nightly news showing the body bags being unloaded every night it demoralized the nation.

By 1970 the war was winding down because of loss of political support at home. The soldiers and commanders started acting less aggressively because they didn't want to be the last casualties of a conflict that was winding down. We were already on the way out, so to speak, because we lacked a clear purpose in being there.

US didn't want to risk entering into war with China at the time

Read the thread. It involves massive disproportionate investment in resources for the invader compared to the defender, and it represents the reality that the entire population of the nation is a potential enemy, not just the soldiers.

It has no superiority and exists to harass and demoralize the occupying force while trying to build sympathy from the local population or fear them into submission.

Eh, 2 million gooks dead to 50k Americans. Their homeland was fucked with DDT, Agent Orange and Napalm. Tet Offensive ended with a commie defeat. South Vietnam got buttfucked by the North.

We did alright.

who know ?
yep

Tunnels, traps (pits with shit covered bamboo spikes, spiky log that swings at the person who set it off, mines, etc.), and guerrilla warfare

Its winnable, you have to beat the shit out of the entire population and basically abandon all the cucked rules of engagement they have in place now.

Its hard to do in the jungles of Vietnam because they had so many places to hide, but true fuck everyone burn everything tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan would have ended those wars in less than a year.

McNamera

>bragging about killing civilans

orkish logic bruh

>whilst also murdering a fuckton of American and Vietnamese alpha males

I sometimes wonder if this is why the US seems to be in a war every generation or so. WW2 > Korea > Vietnam > Afghanistan/Iraq. I realize there are (arguably) valid reason for the post-WW2 wars, but it seems like a really effective way to eradicate brave men. And then society back home is at least to some degree less brave and more malleable.

You mean WW2 Russian logic.

lel

we should have stayed in korea and pushed straight in the chinese motherland and fucked mao up his ass with a 1911. vietnam would have never happened and the commies would have crashed.

Militarily? Stupid 'play defense only' strategy, afraid of advancing on the north for fear of the Chinese stepping in like they did in Korea.

what the fuck are you talking about, nigger?

>implying we did

learn some history, kid

youtube.com/watch?v=Ow5-f6XCTOg

We didn't it's like a 50/1 k/d ratio

> pulled back before conquering
You completely missed the entire point of the Vietnam War then.
Pro tip: It was a civil war where the US went to help the South Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost bigly because the US decided that they weren't worth the effort anymore and left.

About 20 million gooks died AFTER the US pulled out.

FPBP

>How did the US lose to the vietcong?

>The Vietcong hide among the population, so they could choose where and when the combat happened
>The Vietcong already had infrastructure to fight a guerilla war from when they fought the French
>The Vietcong could obtain manpower at will by coercing civilians into becoming soldiers. If you didn't join or supply them they'd kill you or your family
>The Vietcong had the support of North Vietnam. As the war continued a larger and larger portion of the Vietcong was actually regular North Vietnamese soldiers that were infiltrated deep into the country
>The US would not invade North Vietnam. When they invaded North Korea it brought China into the war. Vietnam also borders China and is a similar situation with the Korean War. They could only bomb the North, and lost 1800 planes shot down while doing it.
>The homefront was unwilling to support the war

The Vietcong suffered greatly in any engagement with the US, even though the nature of the war meant that they chose the time and place of the fight over 90% of the time.

>It's winnable, but you have to be evil to win

Some things are more important than petty victory user

No McCain landed in the water and broke both his arms during the ejection.

>Guerrilla warfare is almost unbeatable when done right

Only when you follow 20th century rules.

t. New world natives.

Since you actually know what you're talking about, here's your (You).

I lost. Right away.

Thanks fellow burger, I needed this tonight.

>fuck everyone burn everything

I'm sure you'll make it to 4 star general in no time.

they didn't, (((media))) made it out to look like a net loss because LBJ was running his presidency in a way that was at odds with how the media wanted to see it. (sound familiar? lol)

Even during the tet offensive, the vietcongs famous push to retake the central palace in saigon, every single inch of land they had taken and then some was retaken a mere two days afterwards by 'murica.

So....we didn't win the revolutionary war then?

That being said, we didn't lose vietnam. We decided to stop warring with them

I didn't know Vietnam was a rebellious colony of the US before the war happened.

It's almost like your analogy doesn't work.

yes like a never ending war unless it can be won on your terms right?

kek

Poland always knew what was up with the commies. Sorry that cripple faggot of ours sold you out to the mustached manlet.

They didn't.

Military-wise, the US was winning the war. The Tet Offensive, itself, had caused a major blow to the Communists -- and they even admit as much.

What ended the war was anti-war sentiment at-home -- largely due to the draft being enforced.

If the US had stayed in the war, they would have won, but it would be at the expense of more citizens.

This is the best answer in this thread

We didn't lose the war. The politicians decided to stop supporting it

Nationalism will always defeat Imperialism.

It wasn't our war. South Vietnam lost the war, and thus our support.

Lost the war at home long before the fall of Saigon.

Vietnam was A E S T H E T I C

We didn't invade Vietnam, we sent support for France at first, then aided South Vietnam for democracy. When South Vietnam fell, we pulled our support. Was never our war.

the us didn't lose. they pulled out too early. should have stayed balls deep in that bitch, but that's what happens when limpdicked leftists get put in charge.

same thing happened in iraq. such in a hurry to get us out, there was a power vacuum. then the left can't wait to run out and blame everybody else.

>and Afghanistan

Afghanistan has very tough terrain to fight in, just as deadly as Vietnam, different, but just as tough to fight in.

Mountains and forests make it crazy

Vietnam had MVP defense in the 20th century.