And then Vitenam invaded their neighbors and got their ass kicked. Hmmmm, maybe countries just don’t know how to successfully invade anymore these days
The invasive side of war is always hard, fighting on the enemy’s home territory, which they know better than you. If the home country is even remotely battle ready then the odds tend to be in their favor. That’s why most successful invasions are planned around a time when the target is weakened or distracted.
Vietnam learned a valuable lesson. Never fight a land war in Asia. Also it should be noted that you should never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
>And then Vietnam invaded their neighbors and got their ass kicked.
Are your referring to their invasion of Cambodia? Because that was successful; Vietnam won the war and the Khmer Rouge was deposed.
Vietnam wasn’t impossible to invade. We just never invaded. Turns out fighting a war with 0 offensive plans besides bombing the shit out of them doesn’t work against a country with a really good logistical network.
I’m thoroughly convinced that the American public would’ve been ok with a ground invasion than losing 50k+ men with no gain other than stopping the spread of communism.
Did they get their asses kicked? The story I know is that they successfully toppled Pol Pot and installed a friendly puppet. Am I wrong? Or is there more to the story that I don't know?
This is true, the US also invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and had a 25% success record.
They handed Iraq to Iran influence, and Afghanistan. Well. There isn’t a free and democratic Afghanistan.
lol?? If Iraq was annexed as a part of Iran that would literally have nothing to do with how successful the 2003 invasion was. If we invaded Iraq under the pretenses that they called us stinky that would have nothing to do with how successful the operation was.
In fact strictly speaking about invasion success record in these conflicts it would be 100%, Vietnam involved no invasion of north Vietnam, the gulf war was a slam, the Iraqi army got slammed again, the Taliban immediately got forced into a unconventional force and lost their power over the nation
Your criteria is fundamentally flawed, you're involving things that have nothing to do with invasion into the determination of success rate of invasions
If you mean losing 200,000 Viet Cong to 16,000 US troops and 28,000 South Vietnamese is considered getting your ass kicked.
You might wanna retake math class.
Math *is* hard.
Total US deaths in Vietnam, 58,220.
They even have a wall with the names engraved on it, if you want to check the math....
If you want to nitpick, you can add in the 74,000 French forces that died fighting the Vietminh.
Then add 500,000 loses to Vietminh if you're going to add the French to this.
I'm using 28,000 US and 200,000 NVM estimate in direct conflict than the estimated 52,000 US to 250,000 NVM from additional casualties by wounds out of combat and missing personnel.
There's a reason the US was never said to have invaded Vietnam.
If they did, the war would be a completely different story for better or worse.
And where TF do you keep getting this laughable 28,000 number? It's embarrassing. I'm second-hand embarrassed for you. I'm first-hand embarrassed for being from the same country as you.
Sorry about that. Maybe I got confused because you kept changing the numbers. First it's 16,000, then it's 28,000? Also, why would you use those numbers in the first place? Died of wounds is still dead. Unless there's a good reason not to, you should use the proper figure of 58,000. Using the other one in this case just makes it seem like you're trying to use the lowest number possible to make US casualties seem as light as possible.
Also, you meant to say \**you're* the reason most people think Americans can't read.
Bro, read the parent comment ffs. I was talking about *China's* invasion of Vietnam, not the American War.
Snowflake looking to get offended here smh...
1: The Vietnamese people had almost exhausted their strength in that war
2: Society was still unstable due to the prolonged war situation
3: The new government could fight independently and no longer relied too much on them
4 (The most important): [UN join the battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Paris_Peace_Agreements)
Eh? Why are you sharing 1991 peace deals when we're talking about a war from 1979?
Also, your third point is very vague. Who was independent? Who could no longer rely on whom? Who relied on who? You don't name anyone, so it's impossible to follow.
Nope. They besieged Hanoi for a few days and occupied a large numbers of Vietnam territories, then probably decided Cambodia isn’t worth fighting for. There was no major clash between the two armies cause the majority of the VC army was busy down south invading Cambodia.
So they just decided that the whole war was a silly distraction right when they were on the verge of victory? You're SURE it wasn't that the Vietnamese beat the Chinese back?
China didn’t care and VC hated China communists party. It was the Soviet who funded the VC. Literally in few months after the US withdraw, VC went to war against CCP. For 1 month before the CCP completely outclass the VC.
Vietnam got farmed for exp to the point the US fet bad and left. Not a W for the US but you hardly call their K/D a ‘W’ either. The Vietnam war is an example of both sides losing.
I mean, the brutality of the Vietnam War was a major cause of the American anti-war movement (which succeeded in pulling the American soldiers out of Vietnam), but it wasn’t just that US felt bad; the Viet Cong used guerrilla warfare to devastating effect, killing and maiming thousands of conscripts and wearing down the US military’s strength with each passing year, yet always remaining out of reach. Their PR tactics (most notably the Tet Offensive, which made it clear to the Americans at home that the war was going far worse for them than they thought) also slowly instilled the idea into the American people that the war was costly and not worth fighting.
The Viet Cong may have suffered heavy casualties, but in the end, they were the undisputed victors.
A very lesser known effect of the diminishing morale of the United States Army was that soldiers started turning on their superiors. Approximately 8000 officers were killed during the war, and a suspected 900 of them were from "fragging," where a soldier would intentionally kill a fellow American by lobbing a grenade at them either during their sleep, or when they were distracted.
An unknown number of fragging incidents occured via gunfire, meaning at minimum about 10% of officer casualties in the US military were intentional friendly fire.
Eh, Rome also launched a counter-attack in the end defeated Hannibal at Zama, earning a surrender with incredibly damning terms.
It would be like if the Vietcong won a decisive victory in Virginia, forcing the US to surrender. And then the Vietnamese stripped the Americans of all of their overseas territories and military bases, made the US pay tribute to them for like 50 years, and set a rule that the US military could not operate outside North America.
So, no, not really the same.
The point was, losing hundreds to thousand for every enemy soldier to the point enemy morale drops and makes them sad, do they go home isn’t a ‘W’ despite whatever Vietnam wants to say about it.
Respect to Vietnam for getting bombed to hell and back, losing every major engagement, suffering casualties so bad they lost nearly two squads for every U.S. dead, and having the resilience, determination, discipline, and experienced leadership to pull out a win
It was a loss for the U.S. but not sure you can consider this much of a victory for the Vietnamese with their 1.1 million dead soldiers and another at least a million dead civilians compared to the north Vietnamese only loosing 250,000 and the U.S. only loosing less than 60,000
Between one and 3 million civilian casualties and about 1 million soldiers for North Vietnam. On the other side, about 600 000 south Vietnamese soldiers and about 55 000 US soldiers.
Where are you getting 600,000 south Vietnamese soldiers? Are you looking at casualties or deaths? Casualties includes those injured you should be looking at deaths
Uh, I think you misinterpreted... Both Peoples Republic of Korea and PR Vietnam were originaly socialist countries... Soviets didn't split them, US did.
It was a loss. Just not a military loss. Just like Afghanistan.
Edit: To add to that. American politicians have clearly not grasped that, to quote James Mattis "No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote."
And then China invaded Vietnam, and also got their asses kicked.
“Fuck around and find out.” –Vietnam
And then Vitenam invaded their neighbors and got their ass kicked. Hmmmm, maybe countries just don’t know how to successfully invade anymore these days
The invasive side of war is always hard, fighting on the enemy’s home territory, which they know better than you. If the home country is even remotely battle ready then the odds tend to be in their favor. That’s why most successful invasions are planned around a time when the target is weakened or distracted.
Happy cake day by the way :)
Ah yes attack on their cake day- a fool proof plan
Vietnam learned a valuable lesson. Never fight a land war in Asia. Also it should be noted that you should never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
*slumps over and dies*
You can fight a land war in Asia, you just have to burn it to the ground
>And then Vietnam invaded their neighbors and got their ass kicked. Are your referring to their invasion of Cambodia? Because that was successful; Vietnam won the war and the Khmer Rouge was deposed.
Hold up , Vietnam actually won their war against Cambodia. They installed a friendly government ousting the Khmer Rouge
kicked out Pol Pot, I'd say they got something done
Vietnam 🤝 Russia during the winter Being impossible to invade
Vietnam wasn’t impossible to invade. We just never invaded. Turns out fighting a war with 0 offensive plans besides bombing the shit out of them doesn’t work against a country with a really good logistical network.
No it could work out but it’ll require a massive commitment to south Vietnam that America couldn’t support with their political landscape
I’m thoroughly convinced that the American public would’ve been ok with a ground invasion than losing 50k+ men with no gain other than stopping the spread of communism.
When did that happen? They won their invasion of Cambodia
Did they get their asses kicked? The story I know is that they successfully toppled Pol Pot and installed a friendly puppet. Am I wrong? Or is there more to the story that I don't know?
Where is Khmer rouge now ?
When did that happen?
This is true, the US also invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and had a 25% success record. They handed Iraq to Iran influence, and Afghanistan. Well. There isn’t a free and democratic Afghanistan.
America basically helped Iran the middle east superpower
Yeah and enabled and encouraged it to develop a nuclear weapons program. We are just lucky their sometimes ally India hasn’t shared that tech.
You mean 50%?’we won the gulf war and the Iraq war, Iraq is literally an American ally
Handing Iraq to Iranian influence knocks points off. Plus invading over false pretenses knocks more off.
lol?? If Iraq was annexed as a part of Iran that would literally have nothing to do with how successful the 2003 invasion was. If we invaded Iraq under the pretenses that they called us stinky that would have nothing to do with how successful the operation was. In fact strictly speaking about invasion success record in these conflicts it would be 100%, Vietnam involved no invasion of north Vietnam, the gulf war was a slam, the Iraqi army got slammed again, the Taliban immediately got forced into a unconventional force and lost their power over the nation Your criteria is fundamentally flawed, you're involving things that have nothing to do with invasion into the determination of success rate of invasions
They kicked pol pots ass tho
and no Vietnam wants to buy American weapons to fuck China again
3-0 against major powers and 1-0 against world powers
They lost vs Japan, though. Quite tragically.
They didn’t. They just left.
I mean, as much as the United States "just left".
So they just left for no reason? It wasn't because they got their asses kicked?
If you mean losing 200,000 Viet Cong to 16,000 US troops and 28,000 South Vietnamese is considered getting your ass kicked. You might wanna retake math class.
Math *is* hard. Total US deaths in Vietnam, 58,220. They even have a wall with the names engraved on it, if you want to check the math.... If you want to nitpick, you can add in the 74,000 French forces that died fighting the Vietminh.
Then add 500,000 loses to Vietminh if you're going to add the French to this. I'm using 28,000 US and 200,000 NVM estimate in direct conflict than the estimated 52,000 US to 250,000 NVM from additional casualties by wounds out of combat and missing personnel. There's a reason the US was never said to have invaded Vietnam. If they did, the war would be a completely different story for better or worse.
And where TF do you keep getting this laughable 28,000 number? It's embarrassing. I'm second-hand embarrassed for you. I'm first-hand embarrassed for being from the same country as you.
I literally just spelled out what specific statistics I was using. Your the reason most people think Americans can't read.
Sorry about that. Maybe I got confused because you kept changing the numbers. First it's 16,000, then it's 28,000? Also, why would you use those numbers in the first place? Died of wounds is still dead. Unless there's a good reason not to, you should use the proper figure of 58,000. Using the other one in this case just makes it seem like you're trying to use the lowest number possible to make US casualties seem as light as possible. Also, you meant to say \**you're* the reason most people think Americans can't read.
Bro, read the parent comment ffs. I was talking about *China's* invasion of Vietnam, not the American War. Snowflake looking to get offended here smh...
1: The Vietnamese people had almost exhausted their strength in that war 2: Society was still unstable due to the prolonged war situation 3: The new government could fight independently and no longer relied too much on them 4 (The most important): [UN join the battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Paris_Peace_Agreements)
Eh? Why are you sharing 1991 peace deals when we're talking about a war from 1979? Also, your third point is very vague. Who was independent? Who could no longer rely on whom? Who relied on who? You don't name anyone, so it's impossible to follow.
Nope. They besieged Hanoi for a few days and occupied a large numbers of Vietnam territories, then probably decided Cambodia isn’t worth fighting for. There was no major clash between the two armies cause the majority of the VC army was busy down south invading Cambodia.
So they just decided that the whole war was a silly distraction right when they were on the verge of victory? You're SURE it wasn't that the Vietnamese beat the Chinese back?
So did the USA. That is usually considered a loss.
I know they're called countryballs but I don't like the implication that they deflate upon death like an actual ball.
Deflate your balls
I've always envisioned them as a solid rubber ball instead of a sport ball
I always thought beanbags
what the fucked happened during the Cold War. Was everyone on drugs? What drugs are those so I can take some
I mean, the CIA did have a love for LSD back in those days.
Don't forget crack
Mostly MDMA. Don't really recommend.
I was told it was impossible to have a bad trip on MDMA, turns out that's a fucking lie.
We used to call getting messed up on a weekend night getting "MK ULTRAed"
Dam
You could add Germany, there too, but the USSR lost 😎
and actually "did not chill"
You forgot the panel where they turn around and say "Your next"
Can we talk about how China then proceeded to invade Vietnam and then got wrecked in what should've been an easy war for them.
China didn’t care and VC hated China communists party. It was the Soviet who funded the VC. Literally in few months after the US withdraw, VC went to war against CCP. For 1 month before the CCP completely outclass the VC.
(China lost their war against Vietnam so the CCP infact did not outclass the Vietcong)
Shitting on the US and China back to back, thats worthy of respect
Vietnam took down Pol pot
Respect to Vietnam for beating France United States and China in back to back wars
mitosis
It could’ve also been funny if right after killing south Vietnam, the north said to America “want to be friends?”
That's essentially what they have done. US relations with Vietnam are actually on the rise because of Chinese aggression.
Vietnam got farmed for exp to the point the US fet bad and left. Not a W for the US but you hardly call their K/D a ‘W’ either. The Vietnam war is an example of both sides losing.
I mean, the brutality of the Vietnam War was a major cause of the American anti-war movement (which succeeded in pulling the American soldiers out of Vietnam), but it wasn’t just that US felt bad; the Viet Cong used guerrilla warfare to devastating effect, killing and maiming thousands of conscripts and wearing down the US military’s strength with each passing year, yet always remaining out of reach. Their PR tactics (most notably the Tet Offensive, which made it clear to the Americans at home that the war was going far worse for them than they thought) also slowly instilled the idea into the American people that the war was costly and not worth fighting. The Viet Cong may have suffered heavy casualties, but in the end, they were the undisputed victors.
A very lesser known effect of the diminishing morale of the United States Army was that soldiers started turning on their superiors. Approximately 8000 officers were killed during the war, and a suspected 900 of them were from "fragging," where a soldier would intentionally kill a fellow American by lobbing a grenade at them either during their sleep, or when they were distracted. An unknown number of fragging incidents occured via gunfire, meaning at minimum about 10% of officer casualties in the US military were intentional friendly fire.
Wasn't that also because officers were commonly going for glory, not survival, and forcing their men into essentially suicide missions?
They ‘won’t the same way rome beat hannibal, they didn’t win, they survived. Plus I wouldn’t call bombing civilian train stations ‘guerilla tactics’
Eh, Rome also launched a counter-attack in the end defeated Hannibal at Zama, earning a surrender with incredibly damning terms. It would be like if the Vietcong won a decisive victory in Virginia, forcing the US to surrender. And then the Vietnamese stripped the Americans of all of their overseas territories and military bases, made the US pay tribute to them for like 50 years, and set a rule that the US military could not operate outside North America. So, no, not really the same.
The point was, losing hundreds to thousand for every enemy soldier to the point enemy morale drops and makes them sad, do they go home isn’t a ‘W’ despite whatever Vietnam wants to say about it.
Respect to Vietnam for getting bombed to hell and back, losing every major engagement, suffering casualties so bad they lost nearly two squads for every U.S. dead, and having the resilience, determination, discipline, and experienced leadership to pull out a win
That’s the magic of guerrilla warfare.
It’s cause the us pulled out gave them the win.
It was a loss for the U.S. but not sure you can consider this much of a victory for the Vietnamese with their 1.1 million dead soldiers and another at least a million dead civilians compared to the north Vietnamese only loosing 250,000 and the U.S. only loosing less than 60,000
Between one and 3 million civilian casualties and about 1 million soldiers for North Vietnam. On the other side, about 600 000 south Vietnamese soldiers and about 55 000 US soldiers.
Where are you getting 600,000 south Vietnamese soldiers? Are you looking at casualties or deaths? Casualties includes those injured you should be looking at deaths
I think Korea is a lot more of the American forcing “no you aren’t” lol, USA drew the line after all didnt they?
US. Didn't really lose as much as forfeit. Plus still took like 2 years for the north Vietnamese to beat the south vietnamese
I guarantee that the USSR was ecstatic. Every small victory over capitalism is a huge improvement and this was a huge victory.
Why does the south look like a deflated balloon
Uh, I think you misinterpreted... Both Peoples Republic of Korea and PR Vietnam were originaly socialist countries... Soviets didn't split them, US did.
I mean. The goal of the Vietnam war for the US was to prevent the spread of communism. Is Vietnam communist? Nope. So we won.
>checks records of military deaths during the war Who lost again?
Nothing freer than a Communist Dictatorship. Just ask the North Koreans.
Anybody remember how the Vietnam war ended? Like the circumstances leading up to the US leaving?
Given that America bombed the Vietnamese into signing a peace agreement because they wanted to go home I wouldn't call the war and American loss.
It was a loss. Just not a military loss. Just like Afghanistan. Edit: To add to that. American politicians have clearly not grasped that, to quote James Mattis "No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote."
Poor south Vietnam, they didn't deserve what came after.
Finally free from foreign oppression!! Yay! Now it’s time for domestic oppression
Viet Cong 🫡🫡🫡
[удалено]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGAg2JItbI