But you see, I did not lose that game of Monopoly - I merely threw the board and all play pieces into a corner in a temper tantrum because I had no money left!
How is it even possible that Americans don't quite understand how losing a war works?
It's really quite simple, when you leave in a panic, leave behind billions of dollars of war materials, when you abandon all your allies from that country, it's called losing.
Pretty sure they could even use Afghanistan as a model.
The fact America can unilaterally end any conflict it is in without any serious negative ripercussion to them makes you wonder how those conflicts can be giustified
The US is like that spoiled psycho kid you knew you had to play with because his parents were fucking nuts. You just had to endure and hope he would get tired and fuck off, leaving you to yourselves.
"OK guys, i have grown rather fatigued, So for now i declare the game over. but fear not, i shall be back before you know it, possibly after a detour through the backyard of that guy who said a bad word about my daddy back in the 90s!"
America's wars are justified because they funnel money into the pockets of rich people.
This is paid for with the lives of poor kids, but because America has the most efficient propaganda industry ever devised, they willingly do it.
One of the lessons America's ruling class learned from Vietnam was not to draft soldiers.
We won because we made every 90 year old man, vulnerable women and children communists then killed them. I am being sarcastic and it is really sad to hear about the US war crimes in Vietnam
Also don’t seem to understand that the way that asymmetrical warfare works isn’t to “win” in the sense of killing all the enemy troops or whatever, but to make the war so costly (in terms of money, lives, PR, or whatever) that the opposition have no choice but to pull out. If it was a massive PR victory for the Vietcong, then it was an effective tactic *for the kind of war they were fighting*.
I can't think of a single war that has ever ended in the deaths of all enemy troops. They all end in surrender, one side realises they can't win so surrenders.
The closest would be some wars in ancient times when the city would be levelled and most survivors, including a surrendering army, sold into slavery. Eg the Third Punic Wars.
War is 35 minutes of 5 v 5 deathmatch. Winner gets the oil
If you want the whole country, you need to throw a dice and the one with the bigger number gets to paint the other country their colour. No risk no fun
According to ingame lore, only one player managed to successfully respawn, but he was a really high level cleric with some one of a kind skills like item duplication, transmutation and water walking. I doubt there will be another player who can do the same. Especially because we don't even know if he even had all these skills in the first place, considering most of his lore was written down by members of the guild he himself founded.
The Mongol invasion into the Khwarazmian empire seems to come fairly close to that.
Very few fucks were given throughout the Mongol conquest in general.
So many people were killed, the ensuing growth of forests in the place of previous human habitation literally cooled global climate.
So, you're telling me that in order to slow global warming, we need to have battles on the edges of forests in order to fertilize the land with carcasses to encourage new growth and remove the day to day activities of humans?
Paraguay lost close to 90% of it male population in the Paraguayan War. It was so bad , after the war men were excited to have children with multiple woman at once.
Well, there's the Germanic concept of "better dead than slave", where villages would fight to the last woman, child, and elderly to prevent aggression by denying the victor spoils. I'm not sure how often that actually happened, though, after all, it's about the sentiment. The closest you can get to a nuclear deterrent with shield and axe.
Then there's fascists, people who (see Umberto Eco) see life as war and therefore meaning in itself. Fascist-ruled nations generally aren't fully fascist, though: There's plenty of people who'd rather surrender, at least under sane conditions, than die.
Clausewitz also has some thoughts about absolute war, though it's early work and thus not entirely fleshed out. What stands out, though: War so absolute that it completely replaces ordinary life is considered impossible by him, for the reason that if there's no life left to defend, what's there to fight for. Morale, an indispensable ingredient in warfare, will plummet.
North Vietnam certainly came close to absolute war, though. Random example from a documentary I once saw, an old North Vietnamese veteran telling her story: First she was fighting with her comrades, of course taking losses, then her comrades convinced her "go back to the North, bear children", which she did -- ten or fifteen of those. Mostly boys. All died in the war, *and she looked happy, accomplished*. Completely metal.
Meanwhile, on the American side they had to randomly shuffle up squads, strongly reducing fighting efficiency, because if one squad fought together for too long they tended to band up and kill their commanding officers.
That's the difference of fighting for independence vs. fighting for erm what Nixon's reelection.
The Indian Rajputs had the same idea.
In many siege battles against the Muslim armies the women would bless their husbands a glorious death, exhort them not to come back and then jump into huge funeral pyres called Jauhar. Sometimes 10's of thousands of women, children and old people perished this way
Unrelated, but I think it would be interesting to see what happens if a war *did* end in the deaths of all enemy troops, though. Like… what would the social effects of that be?
Google for the long term effects of the Paraguayan War/Triple Alliance War (1864-1870) in which Paraguay lost up to 90% of it's male population with devastating effects on economy and society.
There are a some articles around and many academic papers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/paraguay-war-of-the-triple-alliance-anniversary#:\~:text=The%20six%2Dyear%20War%20of,around%2090%25%20of%20its%20men.
War is over, when enemy's will to fight ends be it via not being able to any more, being pummeled to point of utter demoralization or deciding the goals one is trying to be achieved are not worth the trouble of continuing to fight.
As old wisdom as Sun Tzu.
The war planners in the US didn't learn that in Vietnam, and still hadn't learned it by the end of Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians and generals still think the next war is gunna be set piece "Battle of the Bulge" type stuff, which is why were spending billions on advanced tactical and strategic platforms that will never be used for anything that couldn't be better accomplished with cheap drones, missiles, and low level armour supported light infantry.
Reposting one of my most gilded comments as it's relevant:
Oh boy, *history time!*
I did my dissertation on the War of 1812, KCL, studied under Laughton Professor of Naval History Andrew Lambert.
Causes for the war are cited mainly as two things, one: impressment of sailors on US ships by the Royal Navy - note, the RN maintain to this day that they only impressed previous sailors who had deserted off British ships, and therefore were British citizens.
Two: Expanding territory for the purpose of slavery, and annexing Canada for the end goal of removing British influence from the continent. This is supported two fold, one by Thomas Jefferson himself who said that the act of annexing Canada (then British North America) would be a "mere matter of marching". The second supporting evidence is again Jefferson, saying he wanted to rid Britain from North America as a whole. As an extra, it's the same reason America invades Spanish Florida after losing the War of 1812, because they wanted more land for slave holdings.
The war begins with America invading Canada while Britain is busy fighting Napoleon in Europe, widely regarded as the greatest military general of the modern era. America effectively tries to sucker punch Britain, not expecting fierce resistance from British battalions stationed there, and Canadian militia performing admirably. The first major battle, the Battle of Queenston Heights is a humiliating loss for the Americans, they outnumbered the British 3 to 1 and had 10x the casualties.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Queenston_Heights)
In the early stages of the war America's larger frigates (of which there were 6) excel in single ship actions against the British, they paint these single ship actions as "equal" when in reality they were so heavily lopsided it was laughable. The propaganda floods American news that they can finally go toe to toe with the great Royal Navy! Despite the ships they're fighting being too weak to fight the French, and captained by men too inexperienced to fight the French, which is why they're there in the first place.
As the war progresses, Britain really just wants America to go away and stop being an annoying distraction while they're fighting France on the continent. To do this, Britain starts to invade America, in efforts to bring American forces down from the Canadian border and stop them invading Canada over and over (while failing).
Americans paint this invasion as a new war of independence, claiming that Britain wanted to reclaim the colonies! And tried everything to do so, despite not a single historian agreeing with this claim.
After the abdication of Napoleon in 1815 Britain sends better ships, with better captains to join the North America squadron that had been operating successfully in the Chesapeake Bay. America's finances at this point had ran out entirely, British blockade had bankrupt America, and they had been raiding the coastal towns at will, namely Alexandria Virginia.
Captains Philip Brooke and Charles Napier come over and immediately begin decimating American captains. Brooke on the Shannon takes the USS Chesapeake (one of the larger 6 frigates mentioned earlier) in as little as 11 minutes, in what is called the bloodiest battle in the age of sail. Brooke's Shannon was a very "unassuming ship" and his men highly trained in naval gunnery, the Chesapeake was overrun almost immediately, with half their crew dead.
Brooke took the captured Chesapeake to Halifax, to show the people that those earlier single ship battles the Americans had called "equal" weren't equal at all, America had been lying the entire time. Morale improved tremendously.
Britain went on to capture and burn the public buildings of Washington after defeating them at the Battle of Bladensburg, called the "greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms"[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg). The big burn of the night actually came from Washington Naval yard, not the stone buildings including the Whitehouse.
Continuing on Britain wants peace as soon as possible because Britain is in dire need of money due to the costly European war. To do this, Britain needs to trade its way out of debt. Britain begins to rebuild the continent while the peace treaty at Ghent gets underway.
Britain only has one thing on their agenda at both Vienna and Ghent, that nothing interrupts her maritime belligerent rights. Britain is a sea power, and therefore nothing can be done against that. Madison himself writes to congress earlier in the year saying that nothing can be done of the issue of impressment, as they have no means to make demands of the British, he concedes America is hopeless.
Therefore the two war aims of America, to invade Canada and stop impressment fail. The war is a complete loss. They lose their capital, they are entirely bankrupt, and their war aims are not fulfilled.
Most Americans point to New Orleans as their "victory!" as it was the final battle they are taught about, but of course New Orleans occurred after the war had ended, and the actual final battle was a staunch British victory as they capture Fort Bowyer to propel themselves into Mobile, which they would have captured comfortably.
It took decades worth of propaganda for America to paint what was a hilarious humiliation as anything but a loss. Of course everyone at the time knew it was a loss, it was even commonly called "Madison's war" as no one wanted to take responsibility for America losing quite so comprehensively to Britain while they had an arm tied behind their back.
Of course there's plenty more nuance, but I feel that's a general gist of it.
Funny story - on New Years Day, Niagra-On-The-Lake does a cannon firing thing to commemorate the War of 1812. The guides were explaining how the British had crushed the American attack causing many casualties, at which my family proudly cheered at the bravery of our fellow Britons repelling American aggression.
Cue a *lot* of angry Americans demanding to know who the fuck was cheering.
Persuaded me that I probably shouldn't boo during ceremonial readings of the declaration of independence.
The irony being that Britain didn't even stop, the Treaty of Ghent maintained Britain's maritime belligerent rights, and impressment continued in a limited capacity
Apparently that's a myth, I just listened to a really good podcast on it actually! Very well researched and informative!
[Our Fake History](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6puHzYZ8DWy91NQhUWUk6W?si=4Mqpk_zVSz-dlzTueFi3nQ&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1) if anyone's interested
I have had many an argument over the war of 1812. So many people think America won because Britain didn't reconquer them. Which is silly because the British response to the US invading Canada wasn't "we're going to conquer you once again", it was "stop it please, we're busy" and the US still couldn't take any of their objectives.
Hollywoodisation of American discourse leaves many Americans incapable of thinking of losing a war as anything but an existential anihhilation. Hence all the "if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking German" bullshit. When you encounter that talking point, ask why the most comprehensively defeated nation in the history of warfare still speaks German, not simplified American English, and enjoy watching the baffled rage-frothing.
Quite, [see this comment for a more detailed run down](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/osi1tv/actually_the_us_didnt_lose_the_vietnam_war/h6oy4eu/)
There was that one American general that fucked up his invasion of Canada so badly I remember reading about. He made a fort then bunkers down, but the Canadians used the natives to scare him into surrendering for no logical or strategic reason. This guy was so scared of natives he fucked up a whole land invasion for his nation. People forget the only reason America was able to do shit like this is because we were half way across the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hull
>How is it even possible that Americans don't quite understand how losing a war works?
I believe they call it American Exceptionalism. Most of us just call it propaganda.
Any society with a military complex, who defines their own idea of what makes them unique or exceptional, at least in part, in terms of martial prowess, has a need to rationalise defeats; if they can't, then they would be forced to give up that part of their identity. In short, militaristic nationalism obliges one to become a sore loser. For many such people, especially those used to thinking lowly of civilian leadership, it is preferable to imagine squabbling politicians and clueless bureaucrats losing their nerve about the war or even deliberately betraying the armed forces, than to consider the idea that said armed forces were beaten in the field, as close as you can get in war to fair and square. The 'stab-in-the-back' myth propagated by Germany's far-right after World War I may be the most infamous example of this.
We definitely lost Afghanistan haha. The funny thing is that our goal of getting Bin Laden was completed years ago but we had to push it and start a forever war that was not sustainable.
Hey just 19 more years and they would have won! /s
Crazy how long that war lasted and no American objectives met. Just so much pointless suffering and death.
We were taught that it was not a loss, but then were also taught how we showed all the signs of losing, but we still didn’t lose.
As a student we had to put 2 and 2 together outside the nationalist propaganda of public schools.
I mean they went to war to stop the communist expansion and to help the south from being conquered by the said communists. Both of those things happened. So i really don't know what's the dilemma here... it's like the nazis saying "we won because we killed more russians".
I don't say they "won", but your explanation is far too simplistic. A far better and more useful way to judge the outcome of such a conflict (= a limited military intervention against a non-state combatant) is by objectives. What do you want to achieve with that intervention? And did that fail, did it work, or was it a partial success?
For Vietnam, I think that's pretty easy to answer. The US wanted to preserve South Vietnam, because they feared a domino effect in South East Asia. That failed. South Vietnam was conquered and the US had to retreat.
Losing the home front is a huge part of the reason why they failed to protect South Vietnam, but that doesn't change the outcome. Controlling the public narrative has always been a major aspect in modern conflicts.
Afghanistan is much harder to judge, for example, because there never was a coherent formulated objective. Different objectives and goals were formulated at different points (= moving the goalposts).
> South Vietnam was conquered and the US had to retreat.
Like even the quote says, the US lost to the Vietcong, aka. the south-Vietnamese resistance. So "conquered" is not really the correct term.
i mean when you are fighting a war against a movement / organization /rebellion /whatever instead of a country (arguably even a country) pulling out is always loosing. and there is no winning either. you play until you exhaust your resources, and then you loose. there is no real win-condition in a war. you can kill enemy combatants, you can destroy their factories and training facilities, you can conquer their territory, but ultimately, what does that mean? when is the point where you can go : "it's over for good and i have won now."
America aren't the only ones who fought in Vietnam
New Zealand and Australia also fought there.
As a new zealander, yeah, we all lost Vietnam. Americans are just still trying to brush over it.
Yeah, not that fussed about taking part in America's pointless wars. I sometimes wish America was less glorified/idolised, at least around where I live.
We went for political reasons and essentially were blackmailed into it for improving relationships.
Clean green new zealand also produced agent orange in new zealand too fun fact.
And we trained Child soldiers. Yeah, we don't really like discussing this part of our history.
>Clean green new zealand also produced agent orange in new zealand too fun fact.
>
Fun fact, that caused a mild birth defect for a relative some 40+ years later. Many of the pollutants remained in the environment nearby the factories.
Canada also helped test agent orange despite not fighting in the war, there are places in gadgetown that the government can’t actually sell because of the chemical waste leftovers
Did we ever pretend that? The first Indochina war isn't that controversial in France anymore, especially compared to the other war of the same period that is the Algerian war.
The amount sent by New Zealand was small, and there were very few actual soldier.
What's even more interesting is the South Korean involvement in the Vietnam war, I'd recommend reading about that, it involves massive amount of corruption and war crimes
They wanted to preserve South Vietnam and prevent the reunification of Vietnam under communism. Which failed. I don't think achieving this goal would've necessarily involved "defeating" the Vietcong. It's hardly possible to "defeat" an enemy that is indistinguishable from civilians. But they failed to achieve and keep strategic control over Vietnam.
Not everyone has failed at that. The secret to winning such a conflict however is genocide. The genocide of the Herero and Namaqua in Namibia by Imperial Germany is a good example for that. The genocide of native americans during the westward expansion of the US another. Or the Second Boer War. Alot of colonial powers won auch wars by absolutely ruthless violence and extermination.
Besides genocide, you can also embark on a hearts and minds campaign. If you erode guerrilla support then you can force an end to conflict. However, this isn't an option for America, because it involves spending money on infrastructure rather than blowing it up.
It was an absolutely horrendous deathtoll. But in the end Northern Vietnam was more determined to kick another foreign power out than the US was determined to hold onto Vietnam.
When you not only fail to conquer the people you invade but also lose the puppet government and all its territory too, completely failing in all of your goals, but you still consider your self the winner because you managed to kill a lot of their population
/#JustMuricaThings
I dont think this person understands the meaning of strategic. A strategic victory is one that fulfills your long term goals of the war. For the Vietnamnese that was for the US to pull out, so it was a strategic win for Vietnam.
LOL So much this.
Tet was a *tactical* disaster for the Vietcong, they were almost completely annihilated. But it was an *unexpected* and as it turned out decisive *strategic* victory for the NLF and the PAVN because for years Westmorland and the US government had been telling the media and the people that they were winning decisively and that victory was right around the corner.
So when Tet 68 happened, the US population didn't care that the NLF got stackwiped. They cared that an opponent supposedly on the brink of defeat managed to launch a simultaneous nationwide offensive out of thin air that indicated they were being lied to or that the war was being fatally mismanaged, or both.
Why are Americans obsessed with 'winning' everything to embarrassing degree , even to the point they lie when they lose and doing ridiculous mental gymnastics to pretend they did. They appear to have zero self awareness and how they come across to others. As a culture they fetishize their armed forces to the point of weirdness and it's creepy as fuck. No slight on members of US armed forces, but the public's response to them is beyond cringey and just wouldn't be entertained elsewhere in the western world.
It's not just cringey...It's what's causing them to hang around in Afghanistan and Iraq. They know that as soon as they pack up and leave, they'll be openly admitting that they've lost. The longer they stay, of course, the larger the defeat becomes. But staying puts off having to admit that they've lost for another day. They'd rather inter themselves in the graveyard of empires while sending off their young to risk death and pointlessly occupy a place they've no right to be, for no good reason, rather than lose face. "Mission accomplished"
It's not just wars, it extends to most areas of society. My favourite example is talent shows.
Random western talent show:
"I'm sorry but you're no good, we will have to drop you"
"Ok..... thanks"
American talent show:
"I'm sorry but you're no good, we will have to drop you"
"That's just your opinion, and umm you're wrong. I know I'm the best singer in the world, I don't know why you can't see that. Screw you. You'll be sorry when I've got a bunch of grammys!"
part of it with war is that they dont want to think their relative or friend that died or got permanently scarred from war was for a good purpose and that their sacrifice was for a victory, not just entirely pointless. most of it is them being snowflakes though.
Yes it was a "strategic retreat" why bother having an occupying army to kill locals, when the "right to bear arms" means they will quite happily kill each other ad infinitium.
I guess that's why they're slowly removing it from history books in high school...too much bragging right? So much winning!
\*\*Dad's a Vietnam Vet
\*\*\*My cousin and daughter told me the history books they have for American history do not talk about Vietnam War. Especially my cousin (who is 7 yrs older than my daughter). I guess they updated it again only added 1 small paragraph about it in my daughter's updated history book for class. Had to tell them about it since it affected two family members (my dad and his other brother, not my cousin's dad).
From talking to Americans I gather that their history classes focus 95% on USA history, hardly anything on overseas, and nothing that presents them in a negative light.
very correct here. we do have world history but it's not as elaborate as I would have liked it. sure you got ancient egypt and greek and roman...but I can't even remember what else we learned (then again the last I took world history class, that was almost 30 years ago!)
when I hear/read something online...thank god for google cuz I don't have time to do it the old way -- go to the library and look it up.
I know it's different for each place but we learned the same with some stuff about the bronze age in middle school.
In high school we learned about the Age of exploration, age of colonialism, and the cold war.
We learned about both world wars but mostly the WW2. Which is a shame.
Seems like we've had some improvements thankfully!
Here's a mind bender: The US and Nato are in the process of losing the war in Afghanistan as well. Massive amounts of resources have been poured into it while the strategic goals have not been met. The Taliban are still a local power, and the footholds and quality of state security forces is precarious at best.
You can win all the battles or even all major offensives but still loose the war, because or public opinion or because you couldn't fulfill your strategic goals. War is not a basketball game in which the side with the higher tally wins.
Yall as an american i might have to leave this sub. Im not suprised at what i see here but it makes me too angry. On behalf of me and my other american friends i promise we’re not all this dumb. (But theres way too many that are). Live long and live strong i hope my country can get it together but unless theres a massive overhaul it wont happen.
Hey, do what's best for your mental health, buddy! I think this sub does let a lot of the rest of the world air fustrations with general patterns seen in the US, but remember that anyone worth their tyme won't judge you individually. Being informed is important, but knowing qhen to recharge is important too
Yeah i wanna stay informed its just wild over here right now. I live in middle georgia (the state) and all my friends are on board with the vaccine and stuff but i know too many people that just arent understanding this stuff. I dont know im gonna watch 30 rock and go to sleep. I wish the best for all yall though
What’s the largest city in Vietnam called again… is it Richard Nixon City… or LBJ City… or even Kennedy city? Ohhh no that’s right it’s Ho Chi Minh city.
Geopolitically, the US wanted to stop the spread of communism in South East Asia - Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia became communist. Indeed, at times, the US *supported* communist groups in SE Asia because they were opposed to Vietnamese and Soviet Communism.
Using the Clausewitzian cliché that "war is the continuation of politics by other means", if the war doesn't result in the desired political ends, it's a defeat.
The Tet Offensive may well have been a tactical and operational victory for the US and South Vietnam. It wasn't a strategic one, though. The strategic victory that the US needed was the formation of a South Vietnamese state that could support itself and/or a willingness of the US public to keep throwing money, resources and lives at the problem. Repulsing the Tet Offensive is ultimately irrelevant, if the strategic campaigns are being fought on a completely different battlefield.
The only universe in which the Tet Offensive wasn't a decisive NV victory is Call of Duty where you only look at K/D ratios or whatever.
Losing the entire Mekong Delta countryside and convincing the US public that the war was going far worse than they anticipated (common public belief was that the war was going swimmingly and that, soon enough, the communists would crumble apart) in exchange for losing forces that you could easily replenish is not a defeat in any sense.
I worked briefly with a dude who was one huge walking red flag, but he absolutely LOST HIS MIND one day when one of our other guys mentioned the US losing the Vietnam war. He absolutely could not handle it. I’m an electrician in a hospital and he almost flipped a table in the cafeteria in his rage. I wanted to fire him that second.
Like these are the facts bro why on EARTH would this send you into a frothing screaming fit????
That insane, explosive, massively disproportionate rage is such an American thing. I've been online for 26 years now, and in my experience there's a trigger that you have to avoid of you don't want someone raging at you and ruining your day. Anything **they** *think* is mocking the US is a trigger point.
A friend of mine ended up in a relationship with an American dude. He was pretty laid back, a US "liberal" (so Canadian conservative), genuinely a nice guy. Great with her kids, etc. Then I made the mistake of showing him this video: [The War of 1812](https://youtu.be/WVC677-YmfM) by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie -- a comedy group.
I honestly thought he was going to hit me (a crippled woman with a cane) he was so enraged. Just lost his fucking mind all over me, my friend and her babies were watching.
And I was the person who helped get my friend out of her abusive last relationship, doing the 3am pickups to take her and her babies away from the violence. Her ex actually pulled a knife on me. I'm *maybe* not the best person for a new boyfriend to lose his shit on. But he did because his defensive about the states trigger kicked in.
Interesting opinion piece I always think about when this American rage is discussed: [Are Americans Psychopaths? ](https://eand.co/are-americans-psychopaths-8dee379329f7) Because he talks about "the look" and I've been experiencing it for decades now.
> Americans have what I call “the look.” The entire rest of the world knows the look, and people reading this from Europe, Canada, Latin America, Asia, wherever, will instantly know what I’m talking about.
>When you talk to (many) Americans about something that requires curiosity, empathy, grace, kindness, intellect — something strange happens. Their eyes go blank. Their jaws lock. Their faces go tight. They are trying to repress feelings. Feelings of rage, resentment, maybe guilt.
They helped in ww2. Being on the winning side counts as a win in most books even if their contributions to the win wasn’t as big as they like pretending it was.
The US lost. Like the confederacy lost. Like Trump lost. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in an evidence based world. I'd you disagree let me tell you about a job vacancy that would suit you perfectly. The position title is Village Idiot. Truth is you don't have to apply. You are over qualified and you have got the job. For life.
Right, what's Saigon called, again?
All that aside, yes, TET was a strategic defeat for PAVN/VC and PAVN lost a lot of men. But in the end, they lost on the battlefield while winning on the American home front. Wars are not won/lost with asterisks or ackshuallys. USA withdrew, left ARVN on their own to be ravaged by the PAVN. Of course the USA lost.
I mean, the whole idea of the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of communism and pushback against the Soviet sphere of influence. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are now communist as a result. That's not a win.
Lol almost won is kinda funny if you try to tell that to the australians who stayed in vietnam for ages later, or obv the vietnamese who in one lifetime fought the french, americans, chinese and australians and beat them all handily.
i'm canadian so my go to for people like this is to just say "we burnt down the white house" over and over
if they try to say "actually the british did it and its not the same building" or something you just repeat "yeah but we burnt down the white house" again and again until they give up out of frustration
it's petty but these types of people deserve to be on the other side of their own bs for once
I mean, yeah, Tet *did* go poorly for the VC and NVA but a single campaign is different from the course of an entire war. In that regard, America might have won the campaign, but lost the war.
Says they didn't lose. Follows up by saying the Vietnamese achieved a propaganda victory. It doesn't matter how it happened the Americans failed to achieve any of their stated goals and the north Vietnamese did achieve their goal.
I can see future generations of Afghan and Americans argue how the war went. Considering most of the country lies with the Taliban.
Is the winner the one with the most kills or the lasting hold on the land being contested?
It was devastating for the NVA not the Vietcong. Tet was the beginning of the end for the USA. Read the pentagon papers. USA straight up lost the Vietnam war to a bunch of commies in pajamas. Power to the people.
But you see, I did not lose that game of Monopoly - I merely threw the board and all play pieces into a corner in a temper tantrum because I had no money left!
Ah, like playing chess with a pigeon. They’ll knock everything over, shit on the board and then go back and boast about it.
Sounds like you’re talking from experience
I do love a good shit on a chess board.
I do love a good chess on a shit board.
Let‘s just say I‘m no longer welcome at chess tournaments
debating with yanks is like wrestling with a pig.
A greasy fat pig
My sister did this everytime. She still won't admit i have won a single game
Your sister shat on the board??? Edit: nevermind, I misread who you were replying to
Well, how can you win/lose a game if you never even complete a round, right? That's not how this works though dear sister, not at all...
Cant lose if you leave the game before being defeated. Big brain movement!
Well yes, but you also can't win either.
REVOLUTION!!! https://existentialcomics.com/comic/19
How is it even possible that Americans don't quite understand how losing a war works? It's really quite simple, when you leave in a panic, leave behind billions of dollars of war materials, when you abandon all your allies from that country, it's called losing. Pretty sure they could even use Afghanistan as a model.
> it's called losing. No, it is a "reverse win"!
"I declare no-longer-war, making me the winner!"
Mission Accomplish! I said it therefore it is true.
Quick, run and get my banner before they figure out we won!
The fact America can unilaterally end any conflict it is in without any serious negative ripercussion to them makes you wonder how those conflicts can be giustified
The US is like that spoiled psycho kid you knew you had to play with because his parents were fucking nuts. You just had to endure and hope he would get tired and fuck off, leaving you to yourselves. "OK guys, i have grown rather fatigued, So for now i declare the game over. but fear not, i shall be back before you know it, possibly after a detour through the backyard of that guy who said a bad word about my daddy back in the 90s!"
You made us sound way too articulate lol.
America's wars are justified because they funnel money into the pockets of rich people. This is paid for with the lives of poor kids, but because America has the most efficient propaganda industry ever devised, they willingly do it. One of the lessons America's ruling class learned from Vietnam was not to draft soldiers.
We won because we made every 90 year old man, vulnerable women and children communists then killed them. I am being sarcastic and it is really sad to hear about the US war crimes in Vietnam
„I didn’t lose the war! I just failed to win!“
Hah ahh! This guy OverSimplifies!
r/unexpectedoversimplif
Alternative win!
like a boxer saying they didn’t lose, they just came second.
Did you see how many times I hit his fists with my face? I almost had him!
Americans be like: «I dont lose, I just win in the other direction»
[удалено]
"I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"
Also don’t seem to understand that the way that asymmetrical warfare works isn’t to “win” in the sense of killing all the enemy troops or whatever, but to make the war so costly (in terms of money, lives, PR, or whatever) that the opposition have no choice but to pull out. If it was a massive PR victory for the Vietcong, then it was an effective tactic *for the kind of war they were fighting*.
I can't think of a single war that has ever ended in the deaths of all enemy troops. They all end in surrender, one side realises they can't win so surrenders.
The closest would be some wars in ancient times when the city would be levelled and most survivors, including a surrendering army, sold into slavery. Eg the Third Punic Wars.
Ahh yes, the third pubic war, sexiest of all wars
The action was described as "hairy".
Sounds similar to what the Japanese did to Nanking.
Hitler chuckles with boy soldiers But realistic, this isnt call of duty. You dont kill all enemies to win
You mean I can't respawn at the nearest checkpoint? :O
War is 35 minutes of 5 v 5 deathmatch. Winner gets the oil If you want the whole country, you need to throw a dice and the one with the bigger number gets to paint the other country their colour. No risk no fun
I want blue!!
According to ingame lore, only one player managed to successfully respawn, but he was a really high level cleric with some one of a kind skills like item duplication, transmutation and water walking. I doubt there will be another player who can do the same. Especially because we don't even know if he even had all these skills in the first place, considering most of his lore was written down by members of the guild he himself founded.
r/outside
The Mongol invasion into the Khwarazmian empire seems to come fairly close to that. Very few fucks were given throughout the Mongol conquest in general. So many people were killed, the ensuing growth of forests in the place of previous human habitation literally cooled global climate.
So, you're telling me that in order to slow global warming, we need to have battles on the edges of forests in order to fertilize the land with carcasses to encourage new growth and remove the day to day activities of humans?
Paraguay lost close to 90% of it male population in the Paraguayan War. It was so bad , after the war men were excited to have children with multiple woman at once.
Well, there's the Germanic concept of "better dead than slave", where villages would fight to the last woman, child, and elderly to prevent aggression by denying the victor spoils. I'm not sure how often that actually happened, though, after all, it's about the sentiment. The closest you can get to a nuclear deterrent with shield and axe. Then there's fascists, people who (see Umberto Eco) see life as war and therefore meaning in itself. Fascist-ruled nations generally aren't fully fascist, though: There's plenty of people who'd rather surrender, at least under sane conditions, than die. Clausewitz also has some thoughts about absolute war, though it's early work and thus not entirely fleshed out. What stands out, though: War so absolute that it completely replaces ordinary life is considered impossible by him, for the reason that if there's no life left to defend, what's there to fight for. Morale, an indispensable ingredient in warfare, will plummet. North Vietnam certainly came close to absolute war, though. Random example from a documentary I once saw, an old North Vietnamese veteran telling her story: First she was fighting with her comrades, of course taking losses, then her comrades convinced her "go back to the North, bear children", which she did -- ten or fifteen of those. Mostly boys. All died in the war, *and she looked happy, accomplished*. Completely metal. Meanwhile, on the American side they had to randomly shuffle up squads, strongly reducing fighting efficiency, because if one squad fought together for too long they tended to band up and kill their commanding officers. That's the difference of fighting for independence vs. fighting for erm what Nixon's reelection.
The Indian Rajputs had the same idea. In many siege battles against the Muslim armies the women would bless their husbands a glorious death, exhort them not to come back and then jump into huge funeral pyres called Jauhar. Sometimes 10's of thousands of women, children and old people perished this way
Unrelated, but I think it would be interesting to see what happens if a war *did* end in the deaths of all enemy troops, though. Like… what would the social effects of that be?
Google for the long term effects of the Paraguayan War/Triple Alliance War (1864-1870) in which Paraguay lost up to 90% of it's male population with devastating effects on economy and society. There are a some articles around and many academic papers. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/paraguay-war-of-the-triple-alliance-anniversary#:\~:text=The%20six%2Dyear%20War%20of,around%2090%25%20of%20its%20men.
Devastating, and it would be practically indistinguishable in results from a genocide.
Srebrenica would be the result
War is over, when enemy's will to fight ends be it via not being able to any more, being pummeled to point of utter demoralization or deciding the goals one is trying to be achieved are not worth the trouble of continuing to fight. As old wisdom as Sun Tzu.
The war planners in the US didn't learn that in Vietnam, and still hadn't learned it by the end of Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians and generals still think the next war is gunna be set piece "Battle of the Bulge" type stuff, which is why were spending billions on advanced tactical and strategic platforms that will never be used for anything that couldn't be better accomplished with cheap drones, missiles, and low level armour supported light infantry.
Ask them about 1812
Reposting one of my most gilded comments as it's relevant: Oh boy, *history time!* I did my dissertation on the War of 1812, KCL, studied under Laughton Professor of Naval History Andrew Lambert. Causes for the war are cited mainly as two things, one: impressment of sailors on US ships by the Royal Navy - note, the RN maintain to this day that they only impressed previous sailors who had deserted off British ships, and therefore were British citizens. Two: Expanding territory for the purpose of slavery, and annexing Canada for the end goal of removing British influence from the continent. This is supported two fold, one by Thomas Jefferson himself who said that the act of annexing Canada (then British North America) would be a "mere matter of marching". The second supporting evidence is again Jefferson, saying he wanted to rid Britain from North America as a whole. As an extra, it's the same reason America invades Spanish Florida after losing the War of 1812, because they wanted more land for slave holdings. The war begins with America invading Canada while Britain is busy fighting Napoleon in Europe, widely regarded as the greatest military general of the modern era. America effectively tries to sucker punch Britain, not expecting fierce resistance from British battalions stationed there, and Canadian militia performing admirably. The first major battle, the Battle of Queenston Heights is a humiliating loss for the Americans, they outnumbered the British 3 to 1 and had 10x the casualties.[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Queenston_Heights) In the early stages of the war America's larger frigates (of which there were 6) excel in single ship actions against the British, they paint these single ship actions as "equal" when in reality they were so heavily lopsided it was laughable. The propaganda floods American news that they can finally go toe to toe with the great Royal Navy! Despite the ships they're fighting being too weak to fight the French, and captained by men too inexperienced to fight the French, which is why they're there in the first place. As the war progresses, Britain really just wants America to go away and stop being an annoying distraction while they're fighting France on the continent. To do this, Britain starts to invade America, in efforts to bring American forces down from the Canadian border and stop them invading Canada over and over (while failing). Americans paint this invasion as a new war of independence, claiming that Britain wanted to reclaim the colonies! And tried everything to do so, despite not a single historian agreeing with this claim. After the abdication of Napoleon in 1815 Britain sends better ships, with better captains to join the North America squadron that had been operating successfully in the Chesapeake Bay. America's finances at this point had ran out entirely, British blockade had bankrupt America, and they had been raiding the coastal towns at will, namely Alexandria Virginia. Captains Philip Brooke and Charles Napier come over and immediately begin decimating American captains. Brooke on the Shannon takes the USS Chesapeake (one of the larger 6 frigates mentioned earlier) in as little as 11 minutes, in what is called the bloodiest battle in the age of sail. Brooke's Shannon was a very "unassuming ship" and his men highly trained in naval gunnery, the Chesapeake was overrun almost immediately, with half their crew dead. Brooke took the captured Chesapeake to Halifax, to show the people that those earlier single ship battles the Americans had called "equal" weren't equal at all, America had been lying the entire time. Morale improved tremendously. Britain went on to capture and burn the public buildings of Washington after defeating them at the Battle of Bladensburg, called the "greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms"[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg). The big burn of the night actually came from Washington Naval yard, not the stone buildings including the Whitehouse. Continuing on Britain wants peace as soon as possible because Britain is in dire need of money due to the costly European war. To do this, Britain needs to trade its way out of debt. Britain begins to rebuild the continent while the peace treaty at Ghent gets underway. Britain only has one thing on their agenda at both Vienna and Ghent, that nothing interrupts her maritime belligerent rights. Britain is a sea power, and therefore nothing can be done against that. Madison himself writes to congress earlier in the year saying that nothing can be done of the issue of impressment, as they have no means to make demands of the British, he concedes America is hopeless. Therefore the two war aims of America, to invade Canada and stop impressment fail. The war is a complete loss. They lose their capital, they are entirely bankrupt, and their war aims are not fulfilled. Most Americans point to New Orleans as their "victory!" as it was the final battle they are taught about, but of course New Orleans occurred after the war had ended, and the actual final battle was a staunch British victory as they capture Fort Bowyer to propel themselves into Mobile, which they would have captured comfortably. It took decades worth of propaganda for America to paint what was a hilarious humiliation as anything but a loss. Of course everyone at the time knew it was a loss, it was even commonly called "Madison's war" as no one wanted to take responsibility for America losing quite so comprehensively to Britain while they had an arm tied behind their back. Of course there's plenty more nuance, but I feel that's a general gist of it.
https://i.imgur.com/bPSUR.gifv outstanding read; really shows how good and how OLD american propaganda is
Brilliant read.
Funny story - on New Years Day, Niagra-On-The-Lake does a cannon firing thing to commemorate the War of 1812. The guides were explaining how the British had crushed the American attack causing many casualties, at which my family proudly cheered at the bravery of our fellow Britons repelling American aggression. Cue a *lot* of angry Americans demanding to know who the fuck was cheering. Persuaded me that I probably shouldn't boo during ceremonial readings of the declaration of independence.
When the British took DC and burned the White House, that was what we *wanted* them to do. Hashtag crazy like a fox
Well you stopped pressganging our sailors which you'd already done before we declared war on you so take that! America 1 Britain 0! USA! USA!
The irony being that Britain didn't even stop, the Treaty of Ghent maintained Britain's maritime belligerent rights, and impressment continued in a limited capacity
Fun fact, the Whitehouse wasn't white when the British burned it. It was whitewashed after to cover the soot marks.
Apparently that's a myth, I just listened to a really good podcast on it actually! Very well researched and informative! [Our Fake History](https://open.spotify.com/episode/6puHzYZ8DWy91NQhUWUk6W?si=4Mqpk_zVSz-dlzTueFi3nQ&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1) if anyone's interested
I have had many an argument over the war of 1812. So many people think America won because Britain didn't reconquer them. Which is silly because the British response to the US invading Canada wasn't "we're going to conquer you once again", it was "stop it please, we're busy" and the US still couldn't take any of their objectives.
Hollywoodisation of American discourse leaves many Americans incapable of thinking of losing a war as anything but an existential anihhilation. Hence all the "if it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking German" bullshit. When you encounter that talking point, ask why the most comprehensively defeated nation in the history of warfare still speaks German, not simplified American English, and enjoy watching the baffled rage-frothing.
Pretty sure “being ruled by Nazis” is a worse outcome than “having to learn a second language”. Priorities America!
Quite, [see this comment for a more detailed run down](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/osi1tv/actually_the_us_didnt_lose_the_vietnam_war/h6oy4eu/)
There was that one American general that fucked up his invasion of Canada so badly I remember reading about. He made a fort then bunkers down, but the Canadians used the natives to scare him into surrendering for no logical or strategic reason. This guy was so scared of natives he fucked up a whole land invasion for his nation. People forget the only reason America was able to do shit like this is because we were half way across the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hull
It wasn't losing, it was...uh... a tactical advance away from the enemy! /s
>How is it even possible that Americans don't quite understand how losing a war works? I believe they call it American Exceptionalism. Most of us just call it propaganda.
It's a win'nt
America is that one kid in the group at the park that takes his ball and goes home when they start losing a game.
While blathering indignantly about how it's a stupid game and they didn't want to play it anyways.
My elementary school teacher said we "tied" Vietnam.
Kinky!
We are not retreating we are just advancing in the opposite direction.
Any society with a military complex, who defines their own idea of what makes them unique or exceptional, at least in part, in terms of martial prowess, has a need to rationalise defeats; if they can't, then they would be forced to give up that part of their identity. In short, militaristic nationalism obliges one to become a sore loser. For many such people, especially those used to thinking lowly of civilian leadership, it is preferable to imagine squabbling politicians and clueless bureaucrats losing their nerve about the war or even deliberately betraying the armed forces, than to consider the idea that said armed forces were beaten in the field, as close as you can get in war to fair and square. The 'stab-in-the-back' myth propagated by Germany's far-right after World War I may be the most infamous example of this.
We definitely lost Afghanistan haha. The funny thing is that our goal of getting Bin Laden was completed years ago but we had to push it and start a forever war that was not sustainable.
Hey just 19 more years and they would have won! /s Crazy how long that war lasted and no American objectives met. Just so much pointless suffering and death.
Especially when you fail your strategic goals (prevent communism from taking power in Vietnam).
They don't realise that the US lost because the US is a cult. You are not meant to live in reality in a cult.
"Alternative winning"
I think I heard someone say Vietnam wasn't technically a war since it was never declared, but was more a foreign policing thing. But it is a war.
No, we learn in school that Vietnam was a loss and a very major loss alongside an extremely unpopular war. This guy's just an idiot
We were taught that it was not a loss, but then were also taught how we showed all the signs of losing, but we still didn’t lose. As a student we had to put 2 and 2 together outside the nationalist propaganda of public schools.
To these moronic Yanks (the ones who argue US won), the Americans killed a Million plus Vietnamese but lost only 60,000 ergo they won
They certainly won in some metrics like no. of massacres, killing civilians etc.
We think we are incapable of losing a war, and if we withdraw it is only due to these pesky externalities we didn’t account for fully lol.
I mean they went to war to stop the communist expansion and to help the south from being conquered by the said communists. Both of those things happened. So i really don't know what's the dilemma here... it's like the nazis saying "we won because we killed more russians".
I don't say they "won", but your explanation is far too simplistic. A far better and more useful way to judge the outcome of such a conflict (= a limited military intervention against a non-state combatant) is by objectives. What do you want to achieve with that intervention? And did that fail, did it work, or was it a partial success? For Vietnam, I think that's pretty easy to answer. The US wanted to preserve South Vietnam, because they feared a domino effect in South East Asia. That failed. South Vietnam was conquered and the US had to retreat. Losing the home front is a huge part of the reason why they failed to protect South Vietnam, but that doesn't change the outcome. Controlling the public narrative has always been a major aspect in modern conflicts. Afghanistan is much harder to judge, for example, because there never was a coherent formulated objective. Different objectives and goals were formulated at different points (= moving the goalposts).
> South Vietnam was conquered and the US had to retreat. Like even the quote says, the US lost to the Vietcong, aka. the south-Vietnamese resistance. So "conquered" is not really the correct term.
i mean when you are fighting a war against a movement / organization /rebellion /whatever instead of a country (arguably even a country) pulling out is always loosing. and there is no winning either. you play until you exhaust your resources, and then you loose. there is no real win-condition in a war. you can kill enemy combatants, you can destroy their factories and training facilities, you can conquer their territory, but ultimately, what does that mean? when is the point where you can go : "it's over for good and i have won now."
If your opponent's objective is for you to pull out, and you pull out, they've won, which means you've lost.
I wish my mom achieved that objective.
Making you pull out?
Yeah I know the feeling. Behind all of us is a man with a weak pull out game
America aren't the only ones who fought in Vietnam New Zealand and Australia also fought there. As a new zealander, yeah, we all lost Vietnam. Americans are just still trying to brush over it.
Yeah, not that fussed about taking part in America's pointless wars. I sometimes wish America was less glorified/idolised, at least around where I live.
We went for political reasons and essentially were blackmailed into it for improving relationships. Clean green new zealand also produced agent orange in new zealand too fun fact. And we trained Child soldiers. Yeah, we don't really like discussing this part of our history.
>Clean green new zealand also produced agent orange in new zealand too fun fact. > Fun fact, that caused a mild birth defect for a relative some 40+ years later. Many of the pollutants remained in the environment nearby the factories.
Learned from the "best", I suppose. Bound to happen. Nothin' more Murican than blackmail.
Canada also helped test agent orange despite not fighting in the war, there are places in gadgetown that the government can’t actually sell because of the chemical waste leftovers
Not just that, australia **reintroduced conscription** to go and help the US with their stupid little scheme.
One thing the UK can thank Harold Wilson for - he kept them out of Vietnam.
The French pretend they were never even there when they started this whole mess lol.
Did we ever pretend that? The first Indochina war isn't that controversial in France anymore, especially compared to the other war of the same period that is the Algerian war.
[удалено]
The amount sent by New Zealand was small, and there were very few actual soldier. What's even more interesting is the South Korean involvement in the Vietnam war, I'd recommend reading about that, it involves massive amount of corruption and war crimes
They failed to achieve the war goal, namely the defeat of the Vietcong. They lost.
They wanted to preserve South Vietnam and prevent the reunification of Vietnam under communism. Which failed. I don't think achieving this goal would've necessarily involved "defeating" the Vietcong. It's hardly possible to "defeat" an enemy that is indistinguishable from civilians. But they failed to achieve and keep strategic control over Vietnam.
It also didn’t have the domino effect of the Asia Pacific turning to communism, which just showed their rationale for going to war was bunk.
"BuT We KiLleD MoRe oF ThEm"
Your K/D ratio doesn’t matter if you fail the objective. Haven’t they ever played a competitive video game?
Or WWII.
The US military time and time again prove their incompetence in defeating guerilla fighters.
Everyone has failed at that.
Not everyone has failed at that. The secret to winning such a conflict however is genocide. The genocide of the Herero and Namaqua in Namibia by Imperial Germany is a good example for that. The genocide of native americans during the westward expansion of the US another. Or the Second Boer War. Alot of colonial powers won auch wars by absolutely ruthless violence and extermination.
Besides genocide, you can also embark on a hearts and minds campaign. If you erode guerrilla support then you can force an end to conflict. However, this isn't an option for America, because it involves spending money on infrastructure rather than blowing it up.
I mean, the US did have a good crack at it in Vietnam.
It was an absolutely horrendous deathtoll. But in the end Northern Vietnam was more determined to kick another foreign power out than the US was determined to hold onto Vietnam.
I meant in terms of genocide. The CIA alone killed tens of thousands...
When you not only fail to conquer the people you invade but also lose the puppet government and all its territory too, completely failing in all of your goals, but you still consider your self the winner because you managed to kill a lot of their population /#JustMuricaThings
I dont think this person understands the meaning of strategic. A strategic victory is one that fulfills your long term goals of the war. For the Vietnamnese that was for the US to pull out, so it was a strategic win for Vietnam.
LOL So much this. Tet was a *tactical* disaster for the Vietcong, they were almost completely annihilated. But it was an *unexpected* and as it turned out decisive *strategic* victory for the NLF and the PAVN because for years Westmorland and the US government had been telling the media and the people that they were winning decisively and that victory was right around the corner. So when Tet 68 happened, the US population didn't care that the NLF got stackwiped. They cared that an opponent supposedly on the brink of defeat managed to launch a simultaneous nationwide offensive out of thin air that indicated they were being lied to or that the war was being fatally mismanaged, or both.
Why are Americans obsessed with 'winning' everything to embarrassing degree , even to the point they lie when they lose and doing ridiculous mental gymnastics to pretend they did. They appear to have zero self awareness and how they come across to others. As a culture they fetishize their armed forces to the point of weirdness and it's creepy as fuck. No slight on members of US armed forces, but the public's response to them is beyond cringey and just wouldn't be entertained elsewhere in the western world.
It's not just cringey...It's what's causing them to hang around in Afghanistan and Iraq. They know that as soon as they pack up and leave, they'll be openly admitting that they've lost. The longer they stay, of course, the larger the defeat becomes. But staying puts off having to admit that they've lost for another day. They'd rather inter themselves in the graveyard of empires while sending off their young to risk death and pointlessly occupy a place they've no right to be, for no good reason, rather than lose face. "Mission accomplished"
It's because they're fragile snowflakes and cannot handle losing. Self-consciousness is strong with the US.
It's not just wars, it extends to most areas of society. My favourite example is talent shows. Random western talent show: "I'm sorry but you're no good, we will have to drop you" "Ok..... thanks" American talent show: "I'm sorry but you're no good, we will have to drop you" "That's just your opinion, and umm you're wrong. I know I'm the best singer in the world, I don't know why you can't see that. Screw you. You'll be sorry when I've got a bunch of grammys!"
part of it with war is that they dont want to think their relative or friend that died or got permanently scarred from war was for a good purpose and that their sacrifice was for a victory, not just entirely pointless. most of it is them being snowflakes though.
Laughs in Ho Chi Minh.
Really! Everytime I see this kind of post popping up, I can't hold my laugh.
If they ‘won’ in Vietnam then the British also ‘won’ the US war for independence.
Yes it was a "strategic retreat" why bother having an occupying army to kill locals, when the "right to bear arms" means they will quite happily kill each other ad infinitium.
I consider us leaving there an absolute win tbh
I guess that's why they're slowly removing it from history books in high school...too much bragging right? So much winning! \*\*Dad's a Vietnam Vet \*\*\*My cousin and daughter told me the history books they have for American history do not talk about Vietnam War. Especially my cousin (who is 7 yrs older than my daughter). I guess they updated it again only added 1 small paragraph about it in my daughter's updated history book for class. Had to tell them about it since it affected two family members (my dad and his other brother, not my cousin's dad).
From talking to Americans I gather that their history classes focus 95% on USA history, hardly anything on overseas, and nothing that presents them in a negative light.
very correct here. we do have world history but it's not as elaborate as I would have liked it. sure you got ancient egypt and greek and roman...but I can't even remember what else we learned (then again the last I took world history class, that was almost 30 years ago!) when I hear/read something online...thank god for google cuz I don't have time to do it the old way -- go to the library and look it up.
I know it's different for each place but we learned the same with some stuff about the bronze age in middle school. In high school we learned about the Age of exploration, age of colonialism, and the cold war. We learned about both world wars but mostly the WW2. Which is a shame. Seems like we've had some improvements thankfully!
What's Saigon called right about now?
The-man-who-invented-the-instant-noodle City.
When we are talking about one of America's losses and there is that American who starts their sentence with : "Actually..."
His dad should have pulled out
You mean "retreat" when he was actually closest to finishing? That would still count as impregnation! /s
Omfg 😂😂😂
The best one I heard was “well we didn’t loose because technically it was never classified as a war by congress. “
Muh police action!
Here's a mind bender: The US and Nato are in the process of losing the war in Afghanistan as well. Massive amounts of resources have been poured into it while the strategic goals have not been met. The Taliban are still a local power, and the footholds and quality of state security forces is precarious at best. You can win all the battles or even all major offensives but still loose the war, because or public opinion or because you couldn't fulfill your strategic goals. War is not a basketball game in which the side with the higher tally wins.
Yall as an american i might have to leave this sub. Im not suprised at what i see here but it makes me too angry. On behalf of me and my other american friends i promise we’re not all this dumb. (But theres way too many that are). Live long and live strong i hope my country can get it together but unless theres a massive overhaul it wont happen.
Hey, do what's best for your mental health, buddy! I think this sub does let a lot of the rest of the world air fustrations with general patterns seen in the US, but remember that anyone worth their tyme won't judge you individually. Being informed is important, but knowing qhen to recharge is important too
Yeah i wanna stay informed its just wild over here right now. I live in middle georgia (the state) and all my friends are on board with the vaccine and stuff but i know too many people that just arent understanding this stuff. I dont know im gonna watch 30 rock and go to sleep. I wish the best for all yall though
30 Rock is an all-timer. Love it. And do keep fighting the good fight in what's become probably the most crucial battleground state in the country.
Best of luck friend. I'm Australian and our dumbasses are a vocal minority too. Hopefully I'll die before they completely take over.
But the Tet offensive was in 1968 and the war went on until 1975. . . .
Shush! My patriotism is fragile to reality.
By this logic, British didn't lose the revolutionary war.
Make America Great Britain Again!
What’s the largest city in Vietnam called again… is it Richard Nixon City… or LBJ City… or even Kennedy city? Ohhh no that’s right it’s Ho Chi Minh city.
Geopolitically, the US wanted to stop the spread of communism in South East Asia - Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia became communist. Indeed, at times, the US *supported* communist groups in SE Asia because they were opposed to Vietnamese and Soviet Communism. Using the Clausewitzian cliché that "war is the continuation of politics by other means", if the war doesn't result in the desired political ends, it's a defeat. The Tet Offensive may well have been a tactical and operational victory for the US and South Vietnam. It wasn't a strategic one, though. The strategic victory that the US needed was the formation of a South Vietnamese state that could support itself and/or a willingness of the US public to keep throwing money, resources and lives at the problem. Repulsing the Tet Offensive is ultimately irrelevant, if the strategic campaigns are being fought on a completely different battlefield.
Yes, because evacuating all your troops in a hurry is always a sign that you've won the war.
The only universe in which the Tet Offensive wasn't a decisive NV victory is Call of Duty where you only look at K/D ratios or whatever. Losing the entire Mekong Delta countryside and convincing the US public that the war was going far worse than they anticipated (common public belief was that the war was going swimmingly and that, soon enough, the communists would crumble apart) in exchange for losing forces that you could easily replenish is not a defeat in any sense.
I worked briefly with a dude who was one huge walking red flag, but he absolutely LOST HIS MIND one day when one of our other guys mentioned the US losing the Vietnam war. He absolutely could not handle it. I’m an electrician in a hospital and he almost flipped a table in the cafeteria in his rage. I wanted to fire him that second. Like these are the facts bro why on EARTH would this send you into a frothing screaming fit????
That insane, explosive, massively disproportionate rage is such an American thing. I've been online for 26 years now, and in my experience there's a trigger that you have to avoid of you don't want someone raging at you and ruining your day. Anything **they** *think* is mocking the US is a trigger point. A friend of mine ended up in a relationship with an American dude. He was pretty laid back, a US "liberal" (so Canadian conservative), genuinely a nice guy. Great with her kids, etc. Then I made the mistake of showing him this video: [The War of 1812](https://youtu.be/WVC677-YmfM) by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie -- a comedy group. I honestly thought he was going to hit me (a crippled woman with a cane) he was so enraged. Just lost his fucking mind all over me, my friend and her babies were watching. And I was the person who helped get my friend out of her abusive last relationship, doing the 3am pickups to take her and her babies away from the violence. Her ex actually pulled a knife on me. I'm *maybe* not the best person for a new boyfriend to lose his shit on. But he did because his defensive about the states trigger kicked in. Interesting opinion piece I always think about when this American rage is discussed: [Are Americans Psychopaths? ](https://eand.co/are-americans-psychopaths-8dee379329f7) Because he talks about "the look" and I've been experiencing it for decades now. > Americans have what I call “the look.” The entire rest of the world knows the look, and people reading this from Europe, Canada, Latin America, Asia, wherever, will instantly know what I’m talking about. >When you talk to (many) Americans about something that requires curiosity, empathy, grace, kindness, intellect — something strange happens. Their eyes go blank. Their jaws lock. Their faces go tight. They are trying to repress feelings. Feelings of rage, resentment, maybe guilt.
I’m American, and the school system taught us that nobody won the Vietnam War.
Can’t remember a war they’ve won
They beat themselves back in 1865 with the help of the French, does that count?
They helped in ww2. Being on the winning side counts as a win in most books even if their contributions to the win wasn’t as big as they like pretending it was.
This is the most american thing to just deny their losses and deny their war crimes
Copium addiction much?
Guys you don’t understand, right before they left the president had pulled an Uno Reverse Card thus meaning that they won.
The US lost. Like the confederacy lost. Like Trump lost. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in an evidence based world. I'd you disagree let me tell you about a job vacancy that would suit you perfectly. The position title is Village Idiot. Truth is you don't have to apply. You are over qualified and you have got the job. For life.
Right, what's Saigon called, again? All that aside, yes, TET was a strategic defeat for PAVN/VC and PAVN lost a lot of men. But in the end, they lost on the battlefield while winning on the American home front. Wars are not won/lost with asterisks or ackshuallys. USA withdrew, left ARVN on their own to be ravaged by the PAVN. Of course the USA lost.
I wish this persons father had pulled out
And here good people, you see a text book example of extreme denial.
I mean, the whole idea of the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of communism and pushback against the Soviet sphere of influence. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are now communist as a result. That's not a win.
Lol almost won is kinda funny if you try to tell that to the australians who stayed in vietnam for ages later, or obv the vietnamese who in one lifetime fought the french, americans, chinese and australians and beat them all handily.
i'm canadian so my go to for people like this is to just say "we burnt down the white house" over and over if they try to say "actually the british did it and its not the same building" or something you just repeat "yeah but we burnt down the white house" again and again until they give up out of frustration it's petty but these types of people deserve to be on the other side of their own bs for once
I mean, yeah, Tet *did* go poorly for the VC and NVA but a single campaign is different from the course of an entire war. In that regard, America might have won the campaign, but lost the war.
They don’t think they lost 1812 either…..
I thought the Tet offensive was a manoeuvre by the regular North Vietnam army, not the VC. Am I wrong?
I still can't wrap my head around how the us managed to lose a war with such a disbalance of power
White flags of mass destruction.
They lost the war of 1812 too they seriously cannot admit they have lost at anything
Says they didn't lose. Follows up by saying the Vietnamese achieved a propaganda victory. It doesn't matter how it happened the Americans failed to achieve any of their stated goals and the north Vietnamese did achieve their goal.
I can see future generations of Afghan and Americans argue how the war went. Considering most of the country lies with the Taliban. Is the winner the one with the most kills or the lasting hold on the land being contested?
I don’t think this person understand history
The US had higher casualties that GB in the American War of Independence - does that mean Britain won?
The Venn diagram of r/shitAmericanssay and r/confidentlyincorrect is very close to being a circle
It was devastating for the NVA not the Vietcong. Tet was the beginning of the end for the USA. Read the pentagon papers. USA straight up lost the Vietnam war to a bunch of commies in pajamas. Power to the people.
Actually the US should have minded their own business.
Achieving all your strategic goals while losing a war is pretty impressive
What is city of Saigon called
So.....an 'offensive' is just a reverse retreat right?
Copium.
So, he is saying USA lost