Jungle Gorilla Warfare

Vietnam and WW2 aren't even remotely similar. Why do euroshits make this retarded comparison? WW2 was a bunch of countries literally fighting for survival, Vietnam was just a proxy war between two countries trying to establish their respective ideologies.

I know, it was just a way to point out that total losses means jack shit. Nam still has a red flag with a star on it, even if they lost a shitton of people.

On top of that, the general feeling in the North, from what I understand, is that the animosity between the US and Vietnam ended with the war. To them, America was just another obstacle on their long road to independence. On top of that, Ho Chi Minh was apparently heavily influenced by the writings of the US founding fathers, and saw the Declaration of Independence as an inspiration for his own movement.

The only reason the US got involved at all was to prevent communism from spreading to SV and trying to clean up the Frenchies' mess. One of the few times in history the US's reluctance to enter a war didn't work out, but they DID technically accomplish their overall objective of preventing the spread of communism...until they pulled out and NV steamrolled the politically fucked SV.

Was it a victory, No.
Was it a Loss, No.

It was just a fucked situation and the Gulf of Tonkin incident adds a whole other layer of bullshit.

Tonkin really wasn’t relevant to the political context of the conflict. It was just a pretext for overt involvement in a war that Americans had been fighting for a number of years beforehand.

/his/ is that way >>>/his

The kill counts are massively inflated, if you knew anything about the war or had done any reading on it you would know that the way the kills were counted were ridiculous and inaccurate.

In fact, it's very telling that the instant coping mechanism is to talk about a fake k/d.

Obvious bait, but I'll bite because not enough people actually know this.

First and foremost, it wasn't the US versus Vietnam or even the US against the commies. We never invaded North Vietnam and the ground war was fought pretty much entirely in South Vietnam, mostly by the ARVN with the US playing a support role. The casualty figures are a lot less lopsided when you count South Vietnamese losses. The risk of provoking a war with China was simply too great for a full scale invasion of North Vietnam. What we tried to do was wear them down with massive strategic bombing campaigns a la WWII. This failed partly because the USSR and China were easily able to cover the NVA's industrial and material losses and partly because the former provided the NVA with a great abundance of AA weaponry, pic related.

Which leads into my second point: Vietnam, even at the height of the war, was relatively a low priority for US strategic planning. While the USSR supplied North Vietnam with all their latest gadgets, the US saved its newest toys, such as the M60 tank, for Europe, believing they would be much more needed there in the event of a war with the Warsaw Pact. If I'm not mistaken this was also the ostensible reasoning behind holding a draft instead of mobilizing the reserves.

Finally, it pains me to say it but the boomers are kinda right when they say we lost because of politics. Despite Nixon's reputation as a hippie-hating neocon, his platform in 1968 was very much in favor of ending the war. When you read about the policy of "Vietnamization", mainstream historians say he tried to replace American troops with Vietnamese ones. What they really mean is that we simply popped smoke and hoped against all reason that the ARVN would hold its own- but did it slowly to save face. The Paris Peace Accords, which required the US but not North Vietnam to pull out of South Vietnam, sealed it.

Attached: 671px-North_Vietnamese_Antiaircraft_Weapons.jpg (671x1125, 275K)

Attached: image-asset.png (309x764, 20K)

>survives against the mongols
>survives against the USA

Are Jungles where great empires goes to lose wars?

Attached: YuanEmperor.jpg (350x437, 26K)

million
Maybe try over 20 million?

Yeah, perhaps, but the point is still the same

What about afghanistan?

Attached: PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-01-1.png (308x606, 75K)

afghanistan is where empires goes to die like alexander, soviet and america. china is currently in there just raiding the natural resources at all cost including destroying thousand year old cities from alexander time.

>china is currently in there just raiding the natural resources at all cost including destroying thousand year old cities from alexander time.
Sauce?

youtube.com/watch?v=SAHVseE8Cks

>muh jungle terrain unbeatable
Then how'd France conquer Indochina in the first place? How'd the Dutch conquer Indonesia? How'd Spain and America conquere the Philippines? How'd Britain conquer all of South Asia?

Attached: mapcolonialasia.jpg (1335x868, 675K)

Because those countries had much weaker or basically no foreign great powers supporting them. Vietnam would've fallen like dominoes if it wasn't for constant Soviet and Chinese supply and threat of military action. By contrast, when France conquered Indochina and when the Dutch conquered Indonesia, China was a failing basket case of a nation and was in no position to resist foreign incursion into its sphere of influence. When America defeated Spain for the Philippines, Spain was already thoroughly rotting from the inside economically and militarily and couldn't put up much of a fight.

The lesson from this is that foreign supply and support is a very good asset to have if you want to overthrow a government or fight off a foreign one.

Foreign supply and support is pretty much the only way a revolution can succeed, sadly.

You ate missing put South Vietnease casualties, who did much of the fighting.

US was restricted by the (((media))) and rules of engagement. It was both trying to fight a conventional war with an unconventional enemy, and fight a PR war.

If this was like WW2, and the media and the culture was on the side of the US, Vietnam would be like Korea or Japan now. Also, In WW2 America mobilized 16 million men, and spent about 3/4 of its GDP on the war effort, in Vietnam the US sent under 3 million, with about 500,000 serving there at any given time.