[throw0101d]

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it?

In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive

and the US (military) basically did nothing to help the south.

Kind of like Afghanistan more recently: as long as the US had an interest in it the Taliban could not "win", but the US simply concluded that they didn't want to be involved any longer and pulled out.

If the US had continued support and presence, like with South Korea, would it have been possible that South Vietnam would still be around? Bothering with (South) Vietnam wasn't of strategic importance (?) any more, and so the US pulled out and let the chips fall where they may. If the US had continued to care about Vietnam strategically, could they have continued to make tactical (military) decisions to support the south?

[vundercind]

The question doesn’t make much sense because “stopped bothering with it” is how rich foreign states meddling in colonized territory usually lose wars. It’s not like Vietnam was gonna invade the US, or like we couldn’t have stuck around indefinitely if we’d really wanted to.

This is just what losing looks like in that situation. Yes, we lost.

[bawolff]

Even in wars between peer-level nations, it doesn't end with total destruction.

Did Germany lose world war 1 or did they just decide to stop bothering with it? I think the answer is clearly the former, but in the end they still kept an independent state, weren't occupied, etc.

[vundercind]

Absolutely right, negotiated peace in some fashion is common even then. But either side might be able to follow through and entirely subjugate the other, or at least dismantle their state. That’s not on the table with very-unequal combatants. The only plausible outcome (barring expansion of the war into something more like a world war, anyway) of the Vietnam war that was a victory for north Vietnam was “the US gives up and leaves”. That’s the only way a US loss was ever gonna look—there weren’t (realistically) other ways to lose.

[edit] my point simply being that yes, that’s a loss, and in fact it was the only real way a loss could have looked, so if that’s not a “real” loss then I guess we “couldn’t lose” that war, which is plainly a strange way of looking at it.

[cthalupa]

> if that’s not a “real” loss then I guess we “couldn’t lose” that war, which is plainly a strange way of looking at it.

Well, I think the entire reason the US has been so quick to insert itself in situations like this is because there's a very real feeling that the US can't really lose these wars, because the consequences of failure are very different from, say, WW2.

If the stakes were higher for America as a nation we'd probably be significantly less likely to enter into these sorts of conflicts to begin with. And if the stakes were higher for America in the conflict for some other reason - say it was Mexico instead of Vietnam - there'd probably be significantly more political and public support for continued action and additional resources being thrown at it. But it's hard to do that when it's for the more nebulous idea of keeping the foreign power most aligned with US interests in the region in power.

Which isn't to say I disagree with the general idea - Vietnam was a loss by any reasonable sense of the word - but that I think there is a certain amount of truth to the idea that people in power really did look at Vietnam as a war that couldn't truly be lost.

[bawolff]

I mean, i guess the other way to lose is like the soviet union in afghanistan, depending on how directly you think that lead to its collapse. But yeah, i agree with you.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Did Germany lose world war 1 or did they just decide to stop bothering with it?

Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered.

[bawolff]

Pretty sure germany did not unconditionally surrender in world war 1. Japan was on the winning side so they definitely did not surrender.

World war 1 is not the same as world war 2.

[JumpCrisscross]

Yup, misread.

[bawolff]

If you fail all your objectives and then "stop bothering", that is losing the war.

The point of war isn't neccesarily to have your opponent destroyed, just to have them yield to your political objectives. If you give up on all your objectives , and grant your opponent everything they want, that is a loss.

[sillywalk]

I depends on what "win" would've meant. South Vietnam was the creation of the US. It didn't really have any popular support, it was dictatorship, massively and systematically corrupt, and existed because of US aid.

It's doubtful that the US could've continued to keep troops in Vietnam.

By the time (1973) the Paris Peace Accords happened, there was little US domestic support in the public, in business leaders, or in Congress. US troops hadn't done any major offensives for years, in order to keep casualties low.

By 1970, within the US Army in Vietnam, there was an level of mutiny, with entire units refusing to go on missions, officers and NCOs getting fragged (murdered) if they sent troops on missions felt to be too dangerous or pointless. The US strategy was one of attrition, and they simply couldn't continue. The Vietnamese were going to kick the foreigners out and re-unite the country, no matter how long it took.

For the whole war, the NVA / Viet Cong - largely held the initiative - around 85% of the time from '65 to '68' and then around 75% afterwards, they could choose when, and if to engage US troops and thus control their casualties to a certain extent. Once engaged, the US could bring massive firepower, but it required grunts as bait to go searching for ambushes, in addition to the constant threat of mines and booby-traps.

[pjc50]

> It didn't really have any popular support, it was dictatorship, massively and systematically corrupt, and existed because of US aid.

Bears repeating. This was true of a lot of "anti-communist" US actions: propping up a hated local elite who were in no way democratic.

[throw0101d]

> Bears repeating. This was true of a lot of "anti-communist" US actions: propping up a hated local elite who were in no way democratic.

Not wrong, but I'm curious to know how things worked out (so far?) over the long-term: a lot of non-communist dictatorial countries (that the US propped-up?) managed to move over onto more democratic systems eventually, whereas (AFAICT) communist governments have managed to hang on and are still single-party states.

[sillywalk]

The Commies are still around and one party though they've gotten more capitalist over the decades. I think the only ones left are China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and I think Belarus(?).

Most(all?) of the anti-communist dictators/juntas are gone. Greece in the 70s, South Korea in the 80s. The last that I can think of were El Salvador and Guatamala in the 1990s.

Supporting hated dictators/rulers is still around, e.g. all the Gulf states.

[poochipie]

Depends what you mean by "win". I suppose it implies "achieved some defined geopolitical goals". Those wars, perhaps, didn't have defined goals -- so what does "win" mean in the context of not having a win condition?

[chasil]

I am not deeply read on this subject, but the loss of President Diem profoundly impacted South Vietnam in an adverse manner for the U.S. efforts to maintain the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem

There was also great turmoil in the U.S. at the time (as we remember with the approaching DNC convention in Chicago). Nixon implemented an effort to distance the U.S. from the situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamization

Watergate closed the door on efforts to maintain South Vietnam.

[pjc50]

Rather like Afghanistan, you can prop up a government that has no real legitimacy outside the capital for as long as you're prepared to pay for it, but then it collapses.

I do not fully understand the backstory, but the Vienamese seem to have done OK out of the "Communist" victory. It's a very different place from North Korea.

Alternate counterfactual: is there a route through history where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiphong_incident does not take place and a peaceful, unified Vietnam exists from the end of WW2 onwards?

[no_wizard]

>the Vienamese seem to have done OK out of the "Communist" victory

They have largely followed the Chinese model of economic development, via a policy of Đổi Mới[0][1] adopted in 1986 and has since continued with various reforms in the 1990s as well. This is persistent today in how Vietnamese economic policy is driven, as far as I can tell

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%95i_M%E1%BB%9Bi

[1]: https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/rp2008-84.pdf

[bluejekyll]

It’s important to remember that the war in Vietnam had begun as a war of independence from the French. The US should never have gotten involved, and only did so because of the fear of the spread of Communism. We should never have gotten involved.

[FrustratedMonky]

Yeah, the typical US Citizen completely forgets the French part of Vietnamese history. The US was like the French's big and tough friend, that got dragged into it.

Really, the US is all about the under dog fighting for independence, isn't that the US Mythos? We should have been rooting for the Vietnamese, not bombing them.

[mcphage]

> Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it?

I think it all depends on (a) what was our desired outcome, and (b) did it come to pass? If we didn't achieve our desired outcome, then we lost.

[foobarian]

Something that strikes me as really ironic is that, here we are in 2024 and tons of goods are being manufactured in Vietnam for a pittance and exported to the west. We are effectively just a small step above having enslaved this country, without a single boot on the ground.

[pjc50]

The Vietnamese do not generally see it that way.

[foobarian]

I know, right? It's genius!