The Cold War would’ve likely ended slightly sooner since it would’ve bolstered America’s bombastic anti-commie proxy-war idea and the counter-culture movement would likely be crushed as opposed to embraced. However, it might lead to American over-confidence and lead to their loss through other proxy wars
If the Kuomintang won the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s, then a western-backed democratic government may have been able to unite Vietnam in the post-WW II decades.
I don’t know if you guys noticed but those are actually Australian soldiers in the thumbnail. You can tell because they are holding L1A1 battle rifles.
Go hell with your crocodile. In picture of American, in Battle of American, in land of American, they are American. And American hide them for American millitary. Great American.
The sad thing is that if the Americans would have supported Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese independence after WW2, they would not have joined the Eastern bloc. The Vietnamese have a traditional distrust towards the Chinese which we see today as well. They only allied with the USSR and China because there was no other option.
Ho Chi Minh actually tried to get US help in setting up an independent Vietnam after the first WW. He went to Woodrow Wilson and ask for help in setting up an independent republic modeled after the US. He was told to piss off and Ho Chi Minh turned to Communism.
Bryce Peters it’s a meme. The meme/joke is “lol how did the strong USA lose to simple Vietnamese farmers” you literally pointed out what makes it a meme, then said that makes it not a meme.
@@lollylemur5041 They weren't actually rice farmers. They were soldiers disguised as civilians. If they weren't cowards they would have lost against us.
Fun Fact, North and South Vietnam argued over the shape of the negotiation table. N.Vietnam wanted a round table so everyone was equal and S.Vietnam wanted a square table so the separate sides were separate.
Just imagine someone in a alternate universe watching a video 'what if the communists won the vietnam war' Edit: after 1 year I am still reading your comments.
I have gone back to Vietnam twice since the war and it was a beautiful country and wonderful people. Last year in 2020 Vietnam joined with the U.S., Philippines, Japan, India, Taiwan and Australia to defend against China when they built a base on a Philippine Island. They have become an ally to the west.
In terms of battlefield supremacy, the US/SV kicked ass. A common misconception is that scene in Forrest Gump where the US soldiers gets slaughtered, is actual history and was commonplace in Vietnam. This simply isn't true. If you look at almost every major battle in Vietnam, casualty rates for the Americans were considerably lower than the NVA/Vietcong. Eventually, they just would've ran out of men. Where the US lost was on the homefront. No one wanted this war(with pretty good reason, it was a stupid war) and protests were all over the place. You simply cannot fight a war without the backing of your people. History has shown this time and time again.
Thành Hoàng Ngọc Take your childish remarks and blow it out your ass. It's clearly not that obvious seeing as how plenty of fools like to say that the Vietnamese slaughtered the US troops.
This is gonna be long.The ideas are split. Apparently because the communism is the main (or only) government so yeah they. or the NVA back in the day said that the war is a unification campaign and it was a success, which is true in a way since a lot of farmers and workers followed Communism back in the day, the Nguy government from the South (that's how they call it) did some really bad policies with America having their back. On the other hand, those that are so-called rich (or having properties as the words saying here) that lived in Saigon mostly suffered a lot from the unification campaign from the NVA like their properties were confiscated, those still supported Nguy government were forced to be in some kind of "politics rehabilitation" to be "brainwashed", their words not mine. So they tried to illegally leave the country and hold a really really bad grudge. About history lessons, this is a really interesting part. I myself learned like a lot and lots of superb things about Communism, all the campaigns, the difficulties of Nguy Government seek and kill all Vetcong that are being deep agents (One of my grand uncle is the leader of a student's movement backed by Vietcong, he is kind of a legend) all the guerrilla warfare events and the success of the unification in words of glory. On the other hand, a lot and lots of info like "The truth about Ho Chi Minh" or yadda yadda like that shows another perspective that back the Nguy government and cause a lot of confusion whenever the matter of "Vietcong or Nguy" is brought up. Also yeah, freely discuss about politic on social media is a risk here, especially whenever you talked about things like "back then in the day of..", u know what I mean. I don't back any sides, I just talk from what I know as a history buff. That's why I have better to study my country's feudal history, yet they are not taught that well in school.
My Uncle was in the Vietnam war, and he has a funny story about when he got home. As soon as he got home, he was greeted by the usual group of hippies calling him a baby killer, etc. He walks up to the biggest hippy, who spits in his face. My Uncle stares at him and knocks out the hippy with one punch to the face. Everyone near him cheers and they all bought him a drink. He was so drunk that both his wife and her sister were barely able to help him walk to their car.
+CreeperCrew jakethefake Hahahaha, that's what those stupid hippies get for being ignorant doofuses! >:) Good job on your uncle's part, that hippie deserved it.
Dylan Stothard 1. Nobody EVER SAID,"Being born in America justifies killing innocent people." Get your facts straight and stop assuming. 2. The ignorant hippies/stupid pacifists NEVER believed in equality, rather they believed that what the Vietcong were doing, such as...oh I don't know...KILLING HUSBANDS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR WIVES was good.(not really, but I'm using sarcasm to get my point across. Really, those hippies were just ignorant idiots who weren't smart enough to realize war is necessary) 3. South Vietnam WELCOMED America's presence, you idiot. Also, Australia also sent troops to Vietnam. And New Zealand. And the Philippines. And South Korea. Bottom Line:the Vietcong were wicked wicked WICKED and deserved to have their butts kicked and were not in any way "innocent". You're scum because you're sticking up for them.
I think it would have been more interesting to talk about the cultural impact of victory on America. The long unpopular war and eventual defeat had profound effects on our people. How would things have been different, if we'd won?
I don't know, TBH. What people forget is that Korea became EXTREMELY unpopular with many of the public when it became clear that it was a real war, not a brief intervention mission like Truman claimed it was. Even though we technically "won" (South Korea was saved and the Communists battered back north of the 38th Parallel), many didn't want to talk about it afterwards, partially out of their anger at what they felt was government deception involving their loved ones (and due to how brutal both sides were on the battlefield). As one 1950s film had a pilot's wife say to a general, "Was one war not enough for you?" Add in the war crimes our troops were caught doing in Vietnam, and it might have been seen as a win for bullies, enraging the left wing folks even more. It might have improved national morale some, but would have been bitterly divisive in legacy no matter what. The real question for me is, "what if America never fights directly in Vietnam?" That would have saved us countless lives, national prestige, and kept our people a little more united. There's a chance under that timeline though that we intervene elsewhere in like the late 70s or early 80s (perhaps in Ethiopia where the Emperor, a US ally, was being overthrown by a Communist faction). America would have been better off in every way not getting in Vietnam.
I dont care about america, but maybe vietnam would be as developped as south corea I have vietnamese origin and I think vietnamese did well defendkng why cut in two but now it's a poor country
@@Sai-lk9he Because the French pitched a b*th fit and we stupidly listened to them. Then compounded said stupidity by getting involved. When the French proved incapable of defending thier claims.
@@LanMandragon1720 well I m french too If there was not vietnam war My viet grandfather would never came in France and i would never born so I think its fine even if america had to lose
2 scenario if Vietnam was US-aligned: Scenario 1: It'll end up like Thailand or the Philippines: Stuck in the middle income trap with corrupt, unstable governments Scenario 2: It's kinda Sinosphere culture would help them greatly and develop like Singapore, Taiwan, or South Korea
@@patriotenfield3276 I lean that way as well, given how South Vietnam's government isn't exactly fit for civilisation. Even though I'm staunchly anti-communist, China and Vietnam did itself a huge favour and had an authoritarian quasi meritocratic council leading the way the past few decades. In a few years, however, both countries will have to decentralise as Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea had as it's the next step towards being an advanced economy. For now, their authoritarianism is needed to whip the lazy into work and eliminate any taint of anti-intellectualism within its culture. Then comes democracy.
@@WanderingVincent Like Thailand,the phillipines it´s complicated,their problems became since the 1898 war against spain first,second against america and finally during and after of wwII,they have an identity problem thanks by those conflicts that i mentioned before.
For the South to stay capitalist, it would have needed massive economic expansion. Some kind of Marshall plan, with a rapidly growing middle class, which would have made the South Vietnamese more pro-US.
***** You've made up a definition for Capitalism which doesn't exist. It never means only a purly free market with no intervention. You pulled that right out of your ass.
***** except that there is no such thing as a free market economy in your definition, because there will ALWAYS be dominant market forces. Even completely without government regulation, people, businesses or organisations will find ways to completely dominate the market and manipulate it to their own ends. A "true free market" economy is a utopian mirage.
***** No, without the government interfering, the richest and most powerful will simply fill the vacuum. There IS no balance, the market is NOT free, you simply have a different power paradigm.
***** Simple: The richest can buy up supply lines, they can buy up key choke points in the marketplace, they can buy up key geographical locations, they can buy up key infrastructure and restrict access to it, and, in extreme cases, they can simply use violence.
***** and how are the government supposed to step in without violence? And invisible competition ONLY occurs in markets where the dominant entities have fundamental weaknesses. Sure I can set up a shop in a small town where there is already a walmart, but THEY have all the supply lines, THEY have the best location, THEY have market domination, so can get their supplies far cheaper, and people just can't compete with that. They get buried.
My dad's a refugee from Vietnam, he was in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), he was sent into a reeducation camp for 2 years, he escaped in 1977 and hid for 5 years with his family from the North and escaped Vietnam in 1982. Became a refugee in Malaysia. He said that the only reason the North 'won' was because of the Paris conference. They broke the peace treaty and invaded South in 1975.
The French promised independence to Ho Chi Min to fight the Japanese in WW II. After the war they refused three times before he went to Russia for help. China was always the conqueror they resisted.
The reason Vietnam war was so hard fought by the Vietcong was because the south Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem was corrupt, U.S only supported him because he was anti communist, Hi Chi Minh(North Vietnam revolution leader) wanted liberation from France (Vietnam was still under French control at the time) and a government that wouldn’t allow its people to starve, so communism was the only route to go to
@@duckquack8562 He's standing in the back ground. The photographer moves across the road after this photo. He's standing with radio in this photo. s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/EKN/67/0131/VN/screen/3981040.JPG
@@blukeyify There was no excuse for My Lai and most Americans have accepted the shame of My Lai . And sitting at my age in a fairly safe air conditioned home having not seen my friends destroyed I wonder how My Lai or Hue ( or I would not imagine we treated every German prisoner at Day that well when we got off the beach at least they were soldiers ) could have happened . When you fire at an enemy from behind a shield of your own people you have to expect or possibly hope for return fire . And I believe 911 happened because of our support of Israel and many of our actions in the middle east. But holding box cutters to women's throats to fly planes into innocent civilians is never "ok".
"America killed way more civilians than the Viet Cong ever did." AHAHAHAA *Seriously, you have no idea how the Vietcong loved to prey on South Vietnamese policemen and their innocent families.* That guy in that famous photo shooting a man pointblank? The executioner is a police officer, and the executed was a notorious terrorist who just weeks before murdered and burned 20 police family members. The South Vietnamese were very furious with these terrorists and had no qualms about human rights when it came to torturing and executing any Vietcongs they caught. Also, after Vietnam unified in 1976, there was a huge purge and 900,000 ppl were harmed in this. My Lai Massacre was 600 ppl. There is a reason Vietnam actually prefers to keep the past quiet because if you dig too deep it's impossible to not find evidence of far greater numbers murdered when the regime changed. Also, South Vietnamese refugees and their descendants loathe the current Vietnamese government. But ofc, nowhere as near as the Chinese invaders of 1979.
I was going to say that as well. The helicopters are RAAF (9 Sqn?). That picture is is the main backdrop to the Vietnam War Memorial in Canberra that was opened in 1992. My brother was in SVN at the time of the picture and marched are the opening. I was in the Aust Army and had a posting to the US in the 1980s. Only a handful of US soldiers I met had any idea we were in VN but a lot remembered R&R in Sydney.
Nope. The perfect example of that is France and Algeria conflict. French broke Algerian fighters, US didn't do that to Vietcong and they weren't running things in South Vietnam. And it was South Vietnam politicians who pretty much pushed their citizens into loving embrace of VC and North Vietnam.
@@PobortzaPl "it was South Vietnam politicians who pretty much pushed their citizens into the loving embrace of VC and North Vietnam" they did, but after november 1th 1963 when the US backed a military coup to overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem who killed it in defending the south from north aggressors and the VC insurgency but the stupidity of the Kennedy administration and Kennedy himself has gone off limit in the overthrown of Ngo Dinh Diem because he wants to send troops to Vietnam to speed up a war he believes America could win. In fact, he chose Vietnam just to keep his presidency in a steady position in the 1964 presidential election because of his total failure in 1962 at Cuba. The war wouldn't have broken out and the South could win by a peace negotiation to liberate the entire country like Germany in 1989
@@PobortzaPl It's all about context. Yes, the United States DID leave Vietnam and therefore "lose", but who really won? Vietnam was awful and people suffered for decades after the war under communist rule. Mass famine, executions, the typical stuff you see from communism. The United States was largely unaffected by the war and left the country in complete ruin for incompetent leadership to make its people suffer longer than they needed to. It would be like if a bully beat you up and took your lunch money but claim you won because he walked away first. Vietnam definitely did not win that war.
Right, you didn't lose the ground war you just pulled all your troops out and went billions of dollars in debt fighting a pointless war. Your modern public debt problem started with the Vietnam war.
JollyOldCanuck Actually the Vietnam War has very little to do with our debt problem. Our debt problem is and will continue to be our over funding of welfare programs. It all started with Johnson's Great Society.
Bill Hill Technically it was Kennedy's great society since Johnson just continued Kennedy's agenda. Except for the war in Vietnam, he sent an ambassador to Vietnam to survey the situation who advised him that Vietnam would only trap the US in a "bottomless military and political swamp" (Charles De Gaulle). Based on what happened to the French. Additionally, the Vietnam war did have an impact on the national debt, the war cost nearly a trillion dollars in todays money.
The entire cost of the Vietnam War when adjusted for inflation is 770 billion dollars. The cost of the Great Society and the War on Poverty is 22 trillion dollars. The US GDP is 16.7 trillion dollars. The Vietnam war was a drop in the bucket financially. Also the Great Society was exclusively Johnson. Kennedy's big focus was civil rights not welfare. Welfare not war has always been the crippling factor to our debt.
I honestly believe that while it would have been nice to see democracy return to Vietnam, we need to remember that South Vietnam was under a US backed Dictator and one of the situations is that there was a monk in South Vietnam who set himself on fire to demonstrate the dire situation of how oppressive the Saigon government was to its people. Back then in the 1960s the Vietnamese people were either choosing to live in the North under an Communist Authoritarian Asshole or live in the South under an Capitalist Authoritarian Asshole. Both might I add, were killing their own people who disagreed with their political ideology.
USA backed dictator because it was in a dire need for a stable south Vietnam government, same happened in South Korea, i think after the Vietnam War resolve, South Vietnam would return democratic like what happened in South Korea
I am a Military supporter as well. And I agree we lost many good men. But if we had sat back the communists would have moved into the South unopposed and slaughtered everyone in their path. By being there, we kept our oath that we would combat communist takeover, and we gave the enemy hell and made them bleed in order to take the south.
Actually, Hochiminh is a nationalist and he tried to contact the USA first for supporting of independence. Too bad that US government refuse those efforts and choose France. There wouldn't be a war if US government decide to help Hochiminh from beginning and let Vietnam to become a neutral nation.
Nobody ever considers all the Australian soldiers forced to go to Vietnam by the Australian government. they literally held the south together while the American forces attacked north Vietnam.
Australia did NOT hold the South together, nor did the American ground forces attack north Vietnam. Australian troops gave sterling service in Phuc Tuy Province and fought a successful campaign against the VC and NVA units. We operated more or less independently but within the overall US command structure. Our role was important, our role was well executed but our role was also small compared to the overall effort.
You are 100% Magpie correct m8 but our effort wasn't small. Remember that Australia joined the war before the USA and had many bases in south Vietnam and we provided shitloads of humanitarian aid. We only assisted the south Vietnamese and supplied them. We didn't do air strikes or anything on the vietkong because Russia would hate Australia aswell as the USA.
Our effort was tiny by comparison. 1 ATF was approximately brigade sized at its largest. We did carry out airstrikes on the VC and NVA, 2 Sqn in their Canberra Bombers were based in Sth Vietnam from 67 to 71
I particularly like your opening disclaimers regarding the depth of your subject matter. Sadly some people aren't prepared to, and choose to ignore it. I notice they don't have their own YT channel with such educational interest. Keep up the good effort.
blukeyify It didn’t matter if they were Democratic The point was to stop The USSR from turning another country into communist Not turn Vietnam into a Democracy
It’s cuz most of the leaders in the South were corrupt. Kennedy couldn’t get to any agreement to aid the ARVN because president Điem was more focused on himself.
This video is poorly researched. The American plan for option one was to turn the Republic of Vietnam into an agrarian nation producing vast amounts of rice for the Japanese market. This was to help reduce Japan's need for agricultural workers and help put more Japanese into factories to produce cheap goods for the American market. When that failed the US went to China instead. The fact that the US lost the Vietnam War lead directly to China opening their boarders to the west and western trade. Had the US won the war there very well could still be a Sino-American Cold War.
AlternateHistoryHub Because you assumed that South Vietnam would have an economy similar to South Korea. Likewise, you kept the US-China relationship the same, where as we only went to China after seeing the Vietnam War as a lost cause and had already begun peace negotiations with the North. Also, you assumed the Chinese supported the Viet Cong. Where that is true in some sense China did somewhat support them early on, that quickly changed as attitudes in Beijing quickly soured. They even had boarder skirmishes with Vietnam both during the war and after, continuing throughout the Cold War. To this day China and Vietnam are poised on the edge of war over territorial disputes.
AlternateHistoryHub I'm not saying your videos are bad though, but sometimes they seem like a little more research is need to fully flesh out what could have been.
maneatingcheeze I never said China supported the Viet Cong. I said the US China relationship could have been the same it could have changed too. Its a 5 minute video there is only so much you can put
The truth is that Ho Chi Minh asked the USA for help against French colonization because they thought democracy could help them. But Vietnam became communist after the USA rejected to help and supported their "French Allies" during WW2. When Vietnam turned into a communist country, the USA blatantly attacked the sovereignty of the Vietnamese People. Had they decided to help Vietnam in the past, the war never would have happened, and Vietnam could have been democratic without any loss of US lives who served to defend democracy.
Wouldve then invaded pakistan and then gained an actual useful seaport and build navy bases, unlike the shit places russia call military bases in the present, those bases r bascially limited either by terrain or other countries...
thumboy21 While this is correct, what else can we call people from USA? United Statians? People between Canada and Mexico? We don't call ourselves Americans because we think that we own the rest of 'America', but because any other possible name would sound stupid. Sorry? :/
The Americas is a collective term for North and South America. Now saying The United States Of America every time you wish to refer to the country, is just clunky and inefficient. Saying the USA works...in English. In Spanish many refer to the nation as Estados Unidos, does that mean in Spanish it should be refered to as The EU? That would no doubt cause even more confusion internationally. Now in English we could take Spanish's lead and say The United States. But there is a problem there too, The United States of America is only one nation that contains the phrase "The United States" The United Mexican States, or Mexico being one of them. Several others have existed throughout history, such as The United States of Belgium. As mentioned before these long names can get clunky, and their acronyms simply do not work across languages which can cause problems. So what do we do? Simply take the only part of their name which they do not share. Making The United Mexican States into Mexico, The United States of Belgium into Belgium and The United States of America into.. Well America. Yes this name is very close to that of the collective name of the New World (Americas) but it is one we must use as it is the only one that makes any logical sense for human linguistics.
the soviet union would slowly gain a higher quality of life due to the production benefits of a correctly executed communism, and people would immigrate there instead of to the USA. eventually, the USSR would have the entire world on a string.
max p Your story ends at "correctly executing communism" Human nature isn't good enough to work for no money, and only to better society. Sure there are people that would do that, but not a whole country. Plus you would probably see him become the dictator, and when it comes time for the government to fade away, he would simply say "no thanks" and continue being dictator.
@@godmode4790 Then China or the USSR would have Nuked US forces in the area.Then World War 3 would have start and everybody would have died. The US lost the Vietnam war its a fact. They have always struggled fighting gurilla warfare where they can't just bomb the shit out of the enemy.
@@Spygon you ignorant fool 🤦♂️, during that era only USA had the nuke.USA had no chance of losing the war,when they had the ability to wipe out your country into dust
@@godmode4790 lol! USSR suceeded in their first Nuke Experiment in 1949. The first US Army combat troop ever set foot into Vietnam was in 1965. So NO! US never had any chance of nuking Vietnam without retaliation from USSR or China. Please review your history lesson before showing your ignorance on utube.
It was either the dictators running things or the country turned into another Cuba or North Korea. I'm sure if there were freedom-loving parties existing they would have been supported, but those countries were too sh***y so it was an "enemy of my enemy" deal.
The most common response I've gotten on the streets of Hanoi about what the North Vietnamese thought of America's involvement was that they were confused. They didn't know why America was suddenly bombing them. Only vaguely relevant, but I thought it would be an interesting tidbit of information to share.
The United States did win the war. The point of the war wasn't to make Hanoi into San Francisco. The point of the war was to show the Soviets that we would fight, kill and die over further expansion of communism. The unfortunate fact that the South couldn't maintain its defenses was a loss in the sense that our publicly stated policy was to maintain "freedom" in South Vietnam. But the South was always a dictatorship and preserving its government was a secondary purpose.
You're assuming that to stop the Domino Effect we had to conclusively win the war in Vietnam. That isn't necessarily true. What I am suggesting is the mere fact of fighting a very aggressive war with the communists and turning it into a economic political and expense showed the Soviets and the People's Republic of China that they could not roll over US supported Asian regimes.
+mijnkampvuur i disagree with youre comment... when i mean militarily it did won because of the comparison between us casualties and vietnamese casualties... the only problem was that the us withdrew... because of pressure of those times back at home... but if it would not withdrew it would definitely be a different story...
***** So you believe that there are no more terrorist organisations in Afghanistan that pose a threat to US security? I would say after 10 years, a trillion dollars and 100,000 people killed the results are some what dissapointing.
Good video! Honestly, i dont believe North Vietnam become a North Korea 2-0, because in the country has never installed a family dictatorship like the second with the Kims. I believe North Vietnam today was like Vietnam in OTL, and has good relations with South Vietnam and USA after 90s like OTL. I had three scenarios for South Vietnam 1. The first is the country is modernized and westernized like South Korea, Taiwan or Japan, with a stable and democratic government after a democratic transition, maybe in the beginning of 90s, and was the first economy of Southeast Asia 2. The second is the country like Thailand, with a great economy and industry, but a unstable government with coup d eats. 3. The third and the most lame scenario is the country like Burma/Myanmar, with a deficient dictatorship government, poor people and poor economic and industrial development
Farmer with guns alway beat a global superpower. Remember ameeica revolutionairy war? They were just farmer with guns fighting a trained army, despite all odd they still won
No. The U.S. was fighting alongside South Vietnam, Australians, and NATO members against North Vietnam, the VC(Viet Cong was a name given to a conglomerate of revolutionary groups by the South, meaning something along the lines of Traitors to South Vietnam.), the NVA(Standing for the North Vietnamese Army, not to be confused with the Nationale Volksarmee of Germany.), China, Laos, and the USSR. South Vietnam & its allies were beaten by multiple trained fighting forces, along with support from North-backed rebels, who were typically untrained. The South lost, even with supplied manpower and advanced weaponry, due to their inexperience & corrupt politicians. The North won because, even with obsolete armour/weaponry, they had a better understanding of their land than foreign agressors from half-way around the world(This doesn't apply to most joint NVA-VC operations in urban warfare.). That's not even mentioning the demonizing of Americans, and the subsequent hate for the war back in the U.S. As for your comparison to the American Revolution, the Continental Army was trained by the French, and aided by the Spanish in their territories.
@@ulikemyname6744 I disagree with that statement, because technically that title could be given to a number of ancient civilizations, due to there not being a control for defining fighting experience(People will have their own conflicting opinions generated by their experiences on any given subject, especially one as complex as war.). To delve deeper into the subject of the VC, they were experienced in warfare. What I meant by untrained was that they weren't entirely trained(Or a part of.)formally by an established fighting force(Although they were trained and supplied to an extent by the NVA, PRV, and USSR.). A decent sum of the VC must've been veterans(Which is slightly unlikely, considering the ~20 year span between Vietnam's War for Independence and the Vietnam War.), or trained/raised by veterans to have the strategic mindset and skills necessary to set up traps, outposts, and ambushes on short notice.
@@CB-ni9vi Well considering that they were fighting from 1945 to 1983 minus 1 or 2 years I can confidently say that they were the most experienced fight force in the world back then. Of course they were not alone the help of China was absolutely devastating for the South. China was their biggest ally back then. For me this war just shows how powerful and flexible was and still is the US military because not only they were fighting on enemy terrain their doctrine was absolutely unsuitable for the terrain. The US forces were never trained for that. They were train for the European terrains which are vast. Also their doctrine was unsuitable again because it was meant to be used on vast terrains with massive forces stacked on one place. The VC and NVA were not just having a experience advantage but also huge terrain advantage. They were digging a whole cities under the ground equipped with weapon storages, headquarters and even hospitals. The tunnels were so long that they literally could jump out where ever they wanted including behind the enemy lines. Further more at the beginning of the war they had a weapon advantage. M1 rifle was far behind its rival Ak-47. After that they came out with the m16 which had some problems is Vietnam due to the weather but with further improvements it was suitable and better then Ak-47. After all these advantages the US army never lost a battle in Vietnam and at the end they won the because in 1973 after massive bombardments over Hanoi and Haiphong the North Vietnam agreed to sigh the peace treaty. But in 1974 the Watergate scandal was the key for the Vietnam War Victory. After the Republican party lost the election the Democrats stopped helping the South. After the news came to the North there was nothing to be done. Within several moths the North and they allies devastated the South capturing it and effectively winning the vietnam war
There is one major flaw with the title of this video. The reason you should have put quotations around the word “won” is because America unequivocally in no small way won the Vietnam war. The Paris peace accords were signed. It only feels like a loss because many outspoken communists in the media spun an inaccurate narrative, and we quit providing support after the way and another one sparked up shortly after. If conflicts after the end of a war start another counts as a loss, by that logic allies lost WWI because WWII happened after the treaty of Versailles.
For the most part the US was winning but people stopped Protesting and they signed a treaty , US could have nuked them and won but they signed an agreement not to use Bombs
They went under ground and knowing Asians they will not give up ,so all in all seeing the casualties of the Vietcong and NVA they really didn't care we were exhausted so we gave up and left south Vietnam to fend for themselves .
Why the fuck would America nuke them when they were helping the anti communists? And China and Russia would probably have nuked the U.S.A dumb fuck. And the Americans "didn't get tired and left" the south turned on them and kicked their asses hard.
Assuming that the US and Britain+Canada didn't agree to divide it or go to war over it by the end of the 19th Century. Another possibility would have been a kind of co-dominion for a US-Canadian-UK Alaska, like the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or Anglo-French New Caledonia. A possibly more interesting scenario would be a Socialist/Bolshevik Western Russia in constant political/military warfare with an Eastern Imperial Russia. Back and forth action across Eurasia, with interventions by other powers and birth of Central Asian states would have been epic and make for very good story lines in alternate history novels. The US did temporarily occupy Vladivostok to help the White Army to escape, and I think Britain occupied Murmansk at the same time.
The Protectorate of Russian America, the Dominion of Russian America [the Czar being a relative of the British Royal Family] are both, in my opinion more likely than an independent Russian polity. An Eastern Russian Empire would be most likely if Britain and the US jointly agreed to it and supported the White Army in keeping the Far Eastern Republic [without the Romanovs] or the Far Eastern Empire if a Romanov had survived to reach it. Hey Cody, how about your take on this?
Kaleb Hill Sarah Palin's husband belongs to the PRAK [People's Republic of Alaska Separatist Movement]. I imagine an independent PRAK with Palin in charge would be DPRK {a.k.a. North Korea] on steroids with hormonal mood swings and a creepy state religion of the Mother-Goddess Sarah.
Just a minor quibble: without massive US support, there wouldn't have been much of a civil war in Vietnam. One observer described it perfectly at the time, seeing how ill-prepared and quickly demoralized most South Vietnamese army units were. He wrote (paraphrased, can't remember it precisely): these people (both North and South Vietnamese) are from the same ethnicity (he probably said 'race') and have more or less the same history. Yet, the North Vietnamese Army fights with fierce tenacity, willing to take massive losses and to sacrifice themselves on many occassions. The South Vietnamese Army, not mentioning the few elite units, are for the most part beaten the moment they are dropped into a combat zone. So no, this observer could not see a South Vietnamese victory without massive US support. And even then, the US armed forces would have to do most of the fighting. So I think it practically was America that was at war with North Vietnam.
That's no civil war. South Vietnam was US puppet to wage war against North Vietnam, the legitimate government of the country. Is more like US vs Vietnam.
your forgetting that amidst the revolution period of the veitnam war specialised British jungle troops nearly wiped out the communists untill they where recalled and the french re assumed control only to be utterly wiped out
Things were a mess in 1945 but the transition away from Japanese government was poorly managed. I didn't know the British were there too. China was just across the border and it was rapidly going red, assisting the Viet Minh.
The truth is that the us military won the war , but our politicians lost it. The Communists in North Vietnam actually signed a peace treaty, effectively surrendering. But the U.S. Congress didn't hold up its end of the bargain.
America lost! VC are tough, Honourable,have integrity, fighting for their country, Americans are soft,lazy, undisciplined, drug users, fighting for whom or what exactly????
@@saltysocks1074 The war ended, America promised support to South Vietnam, North Vietnam promised that it would not invade. 2 years later it invaded and the American Congress refused to honor the treaty.
Vietnam: i beg you, sign for future. American: "it's just ending, i will never come this land" and they just left. South Vietnam: but support for me, money for me, how we can fight with ourself soliders, they was useless.
US technically didn't "lose" especially in terms of casualties inflicted and successful terms signed in a peace accord, the North Vietnamese just didn't honor the agreement and when the fighting would have restarted American public support was already exhausted.
I think the weirdest part about the Second Indochinan War is that it's one of the bloodiest in both US and Vietnamese history and yet US and Vietnam are almost allies now. Then again, the U.S. is allied with both Japan and Germany, and the almost-country that we had the single bloodiest war in our whole history with, the Confederate States of America, is now part of the US.
SyncKo yep Australia had to buy helicopters from somewhere to help our American friends At least we had the decency to build our own FN L1A1 rifles Thank you
Eh,I'm Vietnamese and kinda wanted to America won...Seriously,in my country they still talking about how "strong,brave,intelligent blah blah" those Vietcong were and about that "victory" like brainwashing,especially in school,when Vietnam these days did nothing compared to Japan who lost the war but have some big economic growth.They just keep yelling about things in past that doesn't matter anymore and trying to defend themselves that they're not useless. It's really annoying.
Nobody won, if anything the U.S. won militarily, we just walked out on you guys. Trust me if we wanted to, we would of killed more than just 3 million soldiers, rather than our 58,000 soldiers killed. We should of never gotten involved, move on.
Feel sorry for US soldiers who got sent to Vietnam, they got sent to a place halve way across the globe, had lost some close friends during the Vietnam war, came home and were shit talked by a bunch of hippies and 'peace keepers' who were mad that they lost the war, soldiers after the war eventually turned to drugs and alcohol because of depression leading to homelessness, Vietnam veterans are homeless to this day... :(
U.S : japan war : jpan become free country veitname: vitnm become free country cuba war: cuba become free country *now bringing peace in israel* *making deal with talibs in afghanistan to stop war* WOW
@@nickw7321 www.google.com/search?q=how+many+vc+died+in+vietnam+war&oq=how+many+vc+died&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l4.4698j0j9&client=ms-android-verizon-sscr&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 Not only are you wrong. You're stupid too.
well the US could have one the war if: 1-the enemy body count strategy was out by 1967, and US soldiers would consolidate the ground they took, like in the battle of hamburger hill weher more then a hundred american soldiers died for nothing because 5 days after the battle they withdrew and the NVA took back the hill without firing a shot. 2-giving clear objectives, there were no clear objectives in this war as many soldiers who have been there would testify, because there was no ground taking, only jumps into battles in an out, you couldnt judge if you're close to victory or not, unlike WW2 where you saw yourself getting closer to berlin so you could judge your progress ok were getting closer to victory, but that was not here. 3- almost 2 thirds of the american soldiers in vietnam used drugs, and not justg plain ol weed, were talking about coce, raw oppium, alot of really nasty shit, i dont expect an army to be able to fight well if almost all of it is drugged most of the time. besides this, having the media portray the american soldiers as soldiers and not as cold blooded killers would have helped as well
+gil riv Ladies and gentlemen...this is what pop history has done to the study of the subject. Every point you make is just perpetuating stereo-types and myths from that era. If you think a winning strategy for the Vietnam War can be summed up in a few points on youtube...well, you're either dumb, naive, or even worse...both!
+gil riv "almost 2 thirds of the american soldiers in vietnam used drugs, and not justg plain ol weed, were talking about coce, raw oppium, alot of really nasty shit, i dont expect an army to be able to fight well if almost all of it is drugged most of the time." citation please? "giving clear objectives, there were no clear objectives in this war as many soldiers who have been there would testify, because there was no ground taking, only jumps into battles in an out, you couldnt judge if you're close to victory or not, unlike WW2 where you saw yourself getting closer to berlin so you could judge your progress ok were getting closer to victory, but that was not here." this is bs...the us army had clear objectives which was to keep the north out of the south as much as possible and to drain the north of its will to fight because a invasion was out of the question
Over 600 men went up Hamburger Hill, only around 150 came back down. I've spoken to guys who fought in Vietnam, including a few who were at Hamburger Hill-they still hate the General's for pulling them out and letting the VC take it back, especially as they all lost friends up there.
I think he was just looking for a photo of Vietnam it doesn’t necessarily matter who was in it the Australians fought with us but we were the main force in Vietnam at the time
What people don’t realize is that when the US pulled troops not even hours before North Vietnam would’ve surrendered. In a documentary an Old Viet Cong officer stated that the NVA was around 18 hours away from surrendering before the US stopped involvement.
Ironically, USA did achieve its long term objective ,to stop communism from spreading southwards, with a little bit of help from China. First, US long stay in Vietnam bought time for many South east Asia which had emerged from colonialism to develop their own economy and to fight off their own communists . If North Vietnam won in the early 60's, it might very quickly attacked the rest of SEA as they did to Cambodia. China, otoh, became enemy with Soviet Union in the 60's and attacked Vietnam in 1970'for a brief period for their act against Cambodia. The Chinese thought that Vietnam was a stooge of USSR and if Vietnam spread their communism southwards, the whole region may be under Soviet influence. The Cultural revolution which resulted in millions of death also created fear in SEA the horror of communism, making them more resistance to communism.
WTF? in 1978 Vietnam attacked cambodia because they crossed our border and killed thousands of our citizens, we just counter-attacked. You know the khmer rogue government is also communist, don't you?
Before it was colonized by the French, Vietnamese were rabid colonists themselves. They invaded the Chams and took their lands. The people of Vietnam were not peaceful neighbors.
漢子 actually, they would be unable to control Southeast Asia. it's majorly Muslim and muslims tend to rebel against communism very often as it is opressive of religion and goes against some Muslim teachings, so yeaaah, U.S could easily gain influence there, but they shouldn't put dictators they can't trust in power (like it was the case with taliban)
Uhhh people wouldn’t make memes about trees talking and we would’ve eventually released it and gave Vietnam independence so I don’t think it really matter
Actually Cody...The US did win. We forced the North to sign a peace treaty in 1972, we pulled our troops out be 1975, and the North immediately invaded the South violating the treaty.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Vietnamese, I will dare to say that the volume of this video is too damn low
you god damn right
yes I agree
as an american i fucking agree
His newer videos have a much better quality audio.
And sexier voice.
I think the greater impact of a US victory in Vietnam would be here in the States. I would love to see that aspect explored
It would be a us territory
@@sherbypppssdemahrimodlin3369 no it would be south vietnam territory
As Vietnamese, i'd love to see that alternate timeline.
@@hoangnguyenbui4614 How is life in Vietnam?
The Cold War would’ve likely ended slightly sooner since it would’ve bolstered America’s bombastic anti-commie proxy-war idea and the counter-culture movement would likely be crushed as opposed to embraced. However, it might lead to American over-confidence and lead to their loss through other proxy wars
When you are reading the comments and you have heard a Vietnamese trees joke for the millionth time
*"You're a real comedian."*
I don't really agree with thoes people
CEO of comedy
@@oliverdozerlesky2646 same
Oliver Chic Chic đồng chí chào đồng chí , tôi là Nguyễn Lê Minh Kiên đây
@@KienNguyen-bj2fw chào đồng chí
When your an American soldier and the trees started speaking Vietnamese.
When your’re Vietnamese and the sky started singing Fortunate Son.
EJ Darroca OH SAY CAN YOU SEE!!! BY THE DAWN’S EARLY LIGHT! WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAILED THROUGH TO TWILIGHT’S LAST GLEAMING!!!
When you see G.I. Speak Vietnamese
If the Kuomintang won the Chinese Civil War in the 1940s, then a western-backed democratic government may have been able to unite Vietnam in the post-WW II decades.
When you’re Russian and the snow starts speaking Norwegian
@@brokendoor1430 Finnish*
Really interesting video guys, thumbs up!
Thanks :)
crazy asians, deal with your own problems
cameron snegosky as i remember it was white people who started the war
no, the united states entered into the war after the conflit between the french and vietmanese people went to war, the communism took oer
He meant all the way back.
I don’t know if you guys noticed but those are actually Australian soldiers in the thumbnail. You can tell because they are holding L1A1 battle rifles.
Visible Jeff It's also the most "iconic" photo of Australian soldiers in Vietnam.
Nice catxh
When I was in the Australian Army, we actually called it the SLR 7.62 mm.
Merica
Go hell with your crocodile. In picture of American, in Battle of American, in land of American, they are American. And American hide them for American millitary. Great American.
The sad thing is that if the Americans would have supported Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese independence after WW2, they would not have joined the Eastern bloc. The Vietnamese have a traditional distrust towards the Chinese which we see today as well. They only allied with the USSR and China because there was no other option.
Ho Chi Minh actually tried to get US help in setting up an independent Vietnam after the first WW.
He went to Woodrow Wilson and ask for help in setting up an independent republic modeled after the US.
He was told to piss off and Ho Chi Minh turned to Communism.
ho chi minh was like a crazy chick who you turned down and then change 180 degree and try to make your life hard
A. Cunningham According to Wikipedia he was already a Marxist.
A. Cunningham Ho Chi Minh was always a communist and studied Guerillar tactics in the USSR
The problem is we want France to like us more than we want the Viatnamese too. They're more useful, IMO.
Who would win
Strongest army in the world
Or
Some moving bushes with ak47
THEY'RE IN THE TREES
@@machomanalexyt5736 your so wet
There defaults
Kalashnakovs
When you are a rice eater and start hearing flight of valkaries-_-
Then there would be no usa vs. vietnamese farmers memes.
Bryce Peters it’s a meme. The meme/joke is “lol how did the strong USA lose to simple Vietnamese farmers” you literally pointed out what makes it a meme, then said that makes it not a meme.
You would have literally no life whatsoever
@@lollylemur5041 They weren't actually rice farmers.
They were soldiers disguised as civilians.
If they weren't cowards they would have lost against us.
SN1P3RW01F I like your patriotism but also I know they weren’t rice farmers, it’s just how the joke goes
SN1P3RW01F Some were rice farmers, and some did disguise themselves, but they mostly hid underground, or did guerrilla tactics
Fun Fact, North and South Vietnam argued over the shape of the negotiation table. N.Vietnam wanted a round table so everyone was equal and S.Vietnam wanted a square table so the separate sides were separate.
Just imagine someone in a alternate universe watching a video 'what if the communists won the vietnam war'
Edit: after 1 year I am still reading your comments.
Wow that's deep
@@tracihaynes7396 lol
And also what if communism was destroyed entirely in the Cold War?
and what if communism rule the world?
@@bamboo9666 And also what if the korean war was a stalemate
I have gone back to Vietnam twice since the war and it was a beautiful country and wonderful people. Last year in 2020 Vietnam joined with the U.S., Philippines, Japan, India, Taiwan and Australia to defend against China when they built a base on a Philippine Island. They have become an ally to the west.
I'm in the Philippines with my wife, she's Filipino and Im Canadian. I'd like to here more about what you're talking about
It's still an oppressive dictatorship.
Wrong, Vietnam has no allies, let alone the West.
You mis-understood the hatred of those who remained.
The US would help Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and MAYBE the Philippines. Vietnam is basically on its own, and that's a good thing
In terms of battlefield supremacy, the US/SV kicked ass. A common misconception is that scene in Forrest Gump where the US soldiers gets slaughtered, is actual history and was commonplace in Vietnam. This simply isn't true. If you look at almost every major battle in Vietnam, casualty rates for the Americans were considerably lower than the NVA/Vietcong. Eventually, they just would've ran out of men. Where the US lost was on the homefront. No one wanted this war(with pretty good reason, it was a stupid war) and protests were all over the place. You simply cannot fight a war without the backing of your people. History has shown this time and time again.
+Allan Costa that was an ambush scene described to me by vets as extremely realistic. not a direct engagement.
N Genovese I didn't question the authenticity of the scene. That wasn't my point. And not any single movie will ever truly authenticate battle.
of course not. just some feedback from vietnam vets i know.
N Genovese Was a pretty intense scene though!
Thành Hoàng Ngọc Take your childish remarks and blow it out your ass. It's clearly not that obvious seeing as how plenty of fools like to say that the Vietnamese slaughtered the US troops.
As a Vietnamese with enough history knowledge, this video is interesting and the comments are even "better".
Bill Ly are you from Vietnam what do they say over there about the war
This is gonna be long.The ideas are split.
Apparently because the communism is the main (or only) government so yeah they. or the NVA back in the day said that the war is a unification campaign and it was a success, which is true in a way since a lot of farmers and workers followed Communism back in the day, the Nguy government from the South (that's how they call it) did some really bad policies with America having their back.
On the other hand, those that are so-called rich (or having properties as the words saying here) that lived in Saigon mostly suffered a lot from the unification campaign from the NVA like their properties were confiscated, those still supported Nguy government were forced to be in some kind of "politics rehabilitation" to be "brainwashed", their words not mine. So they tried to illegally leave the country and hold a really really bad grudge.
About history lessons, this is a really interesting part. I myself learned like a lot and lots of superb things about Communism, all the campaigns, the difficulties of Nguy Government seek and kill all Vetcong that are being deep agents (One of my grand uncle is the leader of a student's movement backed by Vietcong, he is kind of a legend) all the guerrilla warfare events and the success of the unification in words of glory. On the other hand, a lot and lots of info like "The truth about Ho Chi Minh" or yadda yadda like that shows another perspective that back the Nguy government and cause a lot of confusion whenever the matter of "Vietcong or Nguy" is brought up. Also yeah, freely discuss about politic on social media is a risk here, especially whenever you talked about things like "back then in the day of..", u know what I mean.
I don't back any sides, I just talk from what I know as a history buff.
That's why I have better to study my country's feudal history, yet they are not taught that well in school.
And yes, I've been living in Vietnam all my life
Bill Ly nice
Bill Ly and yet, we have Civic Education which taught everything about Communism, those lesson gave me cancer :v
Me: Why did Vietnam like the USSR?
Friend: Easy, because they're communist
Me: no they were SoVIET
USSR so viet first and then vietnam become communist ?
knell knell
It's a joke
@@creeperproductionsgma4130 Soviet and So Viet :)
Chi Teo Nguyen, shut up commie bastard, Without us Vietnam would still be under Japan’s rule so I say we helped more so than the Soviet.
Oh lord that was bad 😂
What if?....
I got out of bed this morning?
Ww2 would have never happened
Hans! Get the flammenwerfer!
@@kingcobra7183 Er braucht Hilfe! Er wurde getroffen!
How else did you reach the computer
@@alexkerr1008 coulda been a laptop or maybe mobile.
My Uncle was in the Vietnam war, and he has a funny story about when he got home.
As soon as he got home, he was greeted by the usual group of hippies calling him a baby killer, etc. He walks up to the biggest hippy, who spits in his face. My Uncle stares at him and knocks out the hippy with one punch to the face. Everyone near him cheers and they all bought him a drink. He was so drunk that both his wife and her sister were barely able to help him walk to their car.
+CreeperCrew jakethefake Hahahaha, that's what those stupid hippies get for being ignorant doofuses! >:) Good job on your uncle's part, that hippie deserved it.
Dylan Stothard 1. Nobody EVER SAID,"Being born in America justifies killing innocent people." Get your facts straight and stop assuming.
2. The ignorant hippies/stupid pacifists NEVER believed in equality, rather they believed that what the Vietcong were doing, such as...oh I don't know...KILLING HUSBANDS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR WIVES was good.(not really, but I'm using sarcasm to get my point across. Really, those hippies were just ignorant idiots who weren't smart enough to realize war is necessary)
3. South Vietnam WELCOMED America's presence, you idiot. Also, Australia also sent troops to Vietnam. And New Zealand. And the Philippines. And South Korea.
Bottom Line:the Vietcong were wicked wicked WICKED and deserved to have their butts kicked and were not in any way "innocent". You're scum because you're sticking up for them.
+Dylan Stothard Because if you insulted someone who FOUGHT, for you, or who was drafted or FORCED, to fight for you, that would be insulting.
The fight wasn't for working class people so your first point is invalid, I do however agree that the draft was unethical
Dylan Stothard You're right, must be the hippies brainwashing me.
I think it would have been more interesting to talk about the cultural impact of victory on America.
The long unpopular war and eventual defeat had profound effects on our people.
How would things have been different, if we'd won?
I don't know, TBH. What people forget is that Korea became EXTREMELY unpopular with many of the public when it became clear that it was a real war, not a brief intervention mission like Truman claimed it was. Even though we technically "won" (South Korea was saved and the Communists battered back north of the 38th Parallel), many didn't want to talk about it afterwards, partially out of their anger at what they felt was government deception involving their loved ones (and due to how brutal both sides were on the battlefield). As one 1950s film had a pilot's wife say to a general, "Was one war not enough for you?" Add in the war crimes our troops were caught doing in Vietnam, and it might have been seen as a win for bullies, enraging the left wing folks even more. It might have improved national morale some, but would have been bitterly divisive in legacy no matter what. The real question for me is, "what if America never fights directly in Vietnam?" That would have saved us countless lives, national prestige, and kept our people a little more united. There's a chance under that timeline though that we intervene elsewhere in like the late 70s or early 80s (perhaps in Ethiopia where the Emperor, a US ally, was being overthrown by a Communist faction). America would have been better off in every way not getting in Vietnam.
I dont care about america, but maybe vietnam would be as developped as south corea
I have vietnamese origin and I think vietnamese did well defendkng why cut in two but now it's a poor country
@@Sai-lk9he
Yeah it’s poor because it went communist
@@Sai-lk9he Because the French pitched a b*th fit and we stupidly listened to them. Then compounded said stupidity by getting involved. When the French proved incapable of defending thier claims.
@@LanMandragon1720 well I m french too
If there was not vietnam war My viet grandfather would never came in France and i would never born so I think its fine even if america had to lose
Wait so Vietnam was like Korea back then?
Yes, but with less overweight leaders
and with an actual great Leader in the north side,unlike the kims
U know china almost spit like Korea to
Back in the day North Korea was a lot better placed to live than South Korea until the ussr collapsed
Smiliar but pretty much yeah
2 scenario if Vietnam was US-aligned:
Scenario 1: It'll end up like Thailand or the Philippines: Stuck in the middle income trap with corrupt, unstable governments
Scenario 2: It's kinda Sinosphere culture would help them greatly and develop like Singapore, Taiwan, or South Korea
Probably Thailand
@@patriotenfield3276
I lean that way as well, given how South Vietnam's government isn't exactly fit for civilisation. Even though I'm staunchly anti-communist, China and Vietnam did itself a huge favour and had an authoritarian quasi meritocratic council leading the way the past few decades. In a few years, however, both countries will have to decentralise as Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea had as it's the next step towards being an advanced economy.
For now, their authoritarianism is needed to whip the lazy into work and eliminate any taint of anti-intellectualism within its culture. Then comes democracy.
@@WanderingVincent total perfection
Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea have high poverty while Vietnam had low until it adopted capitalism
@@WanderingVincent Like Thailand,the phillipines it´s complicated,their problems became since the 1898 war against spain first,second against america and finally during and after of wwII,they have an identity problem thanks by those conflicts that i mentioned before.
For the South to stay capitalist, it would have needed massive economic expansion. Some kind of Marshall plan, with a rapidly growing middle class, which would have made the South Vietnamese more pro-US.
***** You've made up a definition for Capitalism which doesn't exist. It never means only a purly free market with no intervention. You pulled that right out of your ass.
***** except that there is no such thing as a free market economy in your definition, because there will ALWAYS be dominant market forces. Even completely without government regulation, people, businesses or organisations will find ways to completely dominate the market and manipulate it to their own ends. A "true free market" economy is a utopian mirage.
***** No, without the government interfering, the richest and most powerful will simply fill the vacuum. There IS no balance, the market is NOT free, you simply have a different power paradigm.
***** Simple: The richest can buy up supply lines, they can buy up key choke points in the marketplace, they can buy up key geographical locations, they can buy up key infrastructure and restrict access to it, and, in extreme cases, they can simply use violence.
***** and how are the government supposed to step in without violence?
And invisible competition ONLY occurs in markets where the dominant entities have fundamental weaknesses. Sure I can set up a shop in a small town where there is already a walmart, but THEY have all the supply lines, THEY have the best location, THEY have market domination, so can get their supplies far cheaper, and people just can't compete with that. They get buried.
My dad's a refugee from Vietnam, he was in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), he was sent into a reeducation camp for 2 years, he escaped in 1977 and hid for 5 years with his family from the North and escaped Vietnam in 1982. Became a refugee in Malaysia. He said that the only reason the North 'won' was because of the Paris conference. They broke the peace treaty and invaded South in 1975.
It was actually the US dictatorship in the South that violated the peace treaty.
ahemcoughaaargh Actually both sides were dictatorships, and both sides broke the treaty.
Cramer Ss u cant call a 1 party rule dictatorship
Yes they typically are. Look at the USSR, North and South Vietnam, China, Nazi Germany, etc. All 1 party ruled dictatorships.
ahemcoughaaargh The North violated the peace treaty. Have you ever heard of the Tet Offensive?
The French promised independence to Ho
Chi Min to fight the Japanese in WW II. After the war they refused three times before he went to Russia for help. China was always the conqueror they resisted.
Absolutely
Avoidable if Ho chi Minh was listened to in Paris
But he was denied a seat at the table.
The reason Vietnam war was so hard fought by the Vietcong was because the south Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem was corrupt, U.S only supported him because he was anti communist, Hi Chi Minh(North Vietnam revolution leader) wanted liberation from France (Vietnam was still under French control at the time) and a government that wouldn’t allow its people to starve, so communism was the only route to go to
Wait, I thought France left Vietnam after Dien bien phu in 1954?
True
@@cadjebushey6524America replaced France as the enemy.
My dad's in that photo. 7RAR A company, 67/68 tour.
Thats really cool which one is he?
@@duckquack8562 He's standing in the back ground. The photographer moves across the road after this photo. He's standing with radio in this photo.
s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/EKN/67/0131/VN/screen/3981040.JPG
@@duckquack8562 s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/EKN/67/0132/VN/screen/3915511.JPG
@Jennifer Vander Lugt Dude didn't respond.. Thats tuff.
Poinced he didn’t respond because it was 9 months ago
Holy crap Cody's old voice sounds weird, or is it his mic?
Epicviper56 It's his mic
The old Mic makes him sound a little like Adam Carolla.
His voice is also much higher here compared to today.
Like all those little countries in South America the US fucked over
Epicviper56 It's both.
The north Vietnamese only wanted one thing, to unite Vietnam as one communist nation. And they got what they wanted.
Nope sorry
fleece johnson "Nope sorry". What is that supposed to mean? You need to explain more.
+Triumph Whitehall piont withdrawn.
fleece johnson So you're saying that you have no idea what you're talking about?
+Triumph Whitehall Piont withdrawn LEAVE IT BEEEEE.
We didn't lose the Vietnam War on the battlefield, we lost the Vietnam War on the political front.
You ain't wrong, but I don't think any memers or Anti-Americans would care.
blukeyify but some “civilians” were actually Vietcong who had gureila warfare tactics
@@blukeyify When you hide behind women and children you have to take some of the blame.
@@blukeyify There was no excuse for My Lai and most Americans have accepted the shame of My Lai . And sitting at my age in a fairly safe air conditioned home having not seen my friends destroyed I wonder how My Lai or Hue ( or I would not imagine we treated every German prisoner at Day that well when we got off the beach at least they were soldiers ) could have happened . When you fire at an enemy from behind a shield of your own people you have to expect or possibly hope for return fire . And I believe 911 happened because of our support of Israel and many of our actions in the middle east. But holding box cutters to women's throats to fly planes into innocent civilians is never "ok".
"America killed way more civilians than the Viet Cong ever did." AHAHAHAA
*Seriously, you have no idea how the Vietcong loved to prey on South Vietnamese policemen and their innocent families.* That guy in that famous photo shooting a man pointblank? The executioner is a police officer, and the executed was a notorious terrorist who just weeks before murdered and burned 20 police family members. The South Vietnamese were very furious with these terrorists and had no qualms about human rights when it came to torturing and executing any Vietcongs they caught.
Also, after Vietnam unified in 1976, there was a huge purge and 900,000 ppl were harmed in this. My Lai Massacre was 600 ppl. There is a reason Vietnam actually prefers to keep the past quiet because if you dig too deep it's impossible to not find evidence of far greater numbers murdered when the regime changed.
Also, South Vietnamese refugees and their descendants loathe the current Vietnamese government. But ofc, nowhere as near as the Chinese invaders of 1979.
1:25 thats a photo of Australians in Vietnam not Amaircans
I was going to say that as well. The helicopters are RAAF (9 Sqn?). That picture is is the main backdrop to the Vietnam War Memorial in Canberra that was opened in 1992. My brother was in SVN at the time of the picture and marched are the opening. I was in the Aust Army and had a posting to the US in the 1980s. Only a handful of US soldiers I met had any idea we were in VN but a lot remembered R&R in Sydney.
no kangaroos i dont buy it
Gustavo Rodriguez yep
Usa in vietnam war is the perecr example of "winning the battle but losing the war"
Nope.
The perfect example of that is France and Algeria conflict. French broke Algerian fighters, US didn't do that to Vietcong and they weren't running things in South Vietnam. And it was South Vietnam politicians who pretty much pushed their citizens into loving embrace of VC and North Vietnam.
@@PobortzaPl "it was South Vietnam politicians who pretty much pushed their citizens into the loving embrace of VC and North Vietnam" they did, but after november 1th 1963 when the US backed a military coup to overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem who killed it in defending the south from north aggressors and the VC insurgency but the stupidity of the Kennedy administration and Kennedy himself has gone off limit in the overthrown of Ngo Dinh Diem because he wants to send troops to Vietnam to speed up a war he believes America could win. In fact, he chose Vietnam just to keep his presidency in a steady position in the 1964 presidential election because of his total failure in 1962 at Cuba. The war wouldn't have broken out and the South could win by a peace negotiation to liberate the entire country like Germany in 1989
@@PobortzaPl if we are going to go by the "whoever killed more won" then the US won by a landslide
@@joeswansonthesimphunter2612 By that logic Germany had won WW2.
@@PobortzaPl It's all about context. Yes, the United States DID leave Vietnam and therefore "lose", but who really won? Vietnam was awful and people suffered for decades after the war under communist rule. Mass famine, executions, the typical stuff you see from communism. The United States was largely unaffected by the war and left the country in complete ruin for incompetent leadership to make its people suffer longer than they needed to. It would be like if a bully beat you up and took your lunch money but claim you won because he walked away first. Vietnam definitely did not win that war.
We didnt lose the ground war, we lost the political war.
Right, you didn't lose the ground war you just pulled all your troops out and went billions of dollars in debt fighting a pointless war. Your modern public debt problem started with the Vietnam war.
JollyOldCanuck
Actually the Vietnam War has very little to do with our debt problem. Our debt problem is and will continue to be our over funding of welfare programs. It all started with Johnson's Great Society.
Bill Hill Technically it was Kennedy's great society since Johnson just continued Kennedy's agenda. Except for the war in Vietnam, he sent an ambassador to Vietnam to survey the situation who advised him that Vietnam would only trap the US in a "bottomless military and political swamp" (Charles De Gaulle). Based on what happened to the French. Additionally, the Vietnam war did have an impact on the national debt, the war cost nearly a trillion dollars in todays money.
The entire cost of the Vietnam War when adjusted for inflation is 770 billion dollars. The cost of the Great Society and the War on Poverty is 22 trillion dollars. The US GDP is 16.7 trillion dollars. The Vietnam war was a drop in the bucket financially. Also the Great Society was exclusively Johnson. Kennedy's big focus was civil rights not welfare. Welfare not war has always been the crippling factor to our debt.
Bill Hill sorry trump makes me hate the usa
I honestly believe that while it would have been nice to see democracy return to Vietnam, we need to remember that South Vietnam was under a US backed Dictator and one of the situations is that there was a monk in South Vietnam who set himself on fire to demonstrate the dire situation of how oppressive the Saigon government was to its people.
Back then in the 1960s the Vietnamese people were either choosing to live in the North under an Communist Authoritarian Asshole or live in the South under an Capitalist Authoritarian Asshole.
Both might I add, were killing their own people who disagreed with their political ideology.
USA backed dictator because it was in a dire need for a stable south Vietnam government, same happened in South Korea, i think after the Vietnam War resolve, South Vietnam would return democratic like what happened in South Korea
as a huge Military supporter we should not have been there it wasn't our business and we lost too many good men
I am a Military supporter as well. And I agree we lost many good men. But if we had sat back the communists would have moved into the South unopposed and slaughtered everyone in their path. By being there, we kept our oath that we would combat communist takeover, and we gave the enemy hell and made them bleed in order to take the south.
7thSmurf wtf does American military have to do with jews?? My God people are stupid.
+Jacob Moore lol he's a typical weird fuck from overseas.
Actually, Hochiminh is a nationalist and he tried to contact the USA first for supporting of independence. Too bad that US government refuse those efforts and choose France. There wouldn't be a war if US government decide to help Hochiminh from beginning and let Vietnam to become a neutral nation.
If Kennedy wasn't assassinated, or Johnson was a much more cool head, we wouldn't have Vietnam.
Nobody ever considers all the Australian soldiers forced to go to Vietnam by the Australian government. they literally held the south together while the American forces attacked north Vietnam.
ott mick there goal was to defend the South, and that didn't quite go to plan...
Australia did NOT hold the South together, nor did the American ground forces attack north Vietnam.
Australian troops gave sterling service in Phuc Tuy Province and fought a successful campaign against the VC and NVA units.
We operated more or less independently but within the overall US command structure.
Our role was important, our role was well executed but our role was also small compared to the overall effort.
You are 100% Magpie correct m8 but our effort wasn't small. Remember that Australia joined the war before the USA and had many bases in south Vietnam and we provided shitloads of humanitarian aid. We only assisted the south Vietnamese and supplied them. We didn't do air strikes or anything on the vietkong because Russia would hate Australia aswell as the USA.
Our effort was tiny by comparison. 1 ATF was approximately brigade sized at its largest. We did carry out airstrikes on the VC and NVA, 2 Sqn in their Canberra Bombers were based in Sth Vietnam from 67 to 71
***** The NZ army is smaller for sure but it is far form worse.
I particularly like your opening disclaimers regarding the depth of your subject matter. Sadly some people aren't prepared to, and choose to ignore it. I notice they don't have their own YT channel with such educational interest. Keep up the good effort.
Man, the audio quality improved A LOT
Imagine saying a joke to one of your mates while your walking through the forest. And the bush starts laughing.
Actually USA already did win the Vietnam War....
in Rise of Nations.
Call of duty modern warcrimes
@@amazingandy007yt3 REMEMBER they aren’t war crimes until you get caught!
@@thatoneguy6466 war crimes don't apply to America
@@danielcarthy9250 its only a warcrime if you lose
Wait a minute
@@thunderthys2077 it’s only a war crime if someone sees it
Out Politicians LOST this War!
Totally Backstabbed the Americans who were Drafted into this mess!!!
It was the Democrats who completely abandoned SVN.
blukeyify It didn’t matter if they were Democratic
The point was to stop The USSR from turning another country into communist
Not turn Vietnam into a Democracy
@@tommythehospitalfish5572 Pretty much doing no different from the Soviets...
It’s cuz most of the leaders in the South were corrupt. Kennedy couldn’t get to any agreement to aid the ARVN because president Điem was more focused on himself.
"DolchstoBlegende." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth. That is some Nazi-flavored bullshit.
mad to see how far your editing skills have come along cody
This video is poorly researched. The American plan for option one was to turn the Republic of Vietnam into an agrarian nation producing vast amounts of rice for the Japanese market. This was to help reduce Japan's need for agricultural workers and help put more Japanese into factories to produce cheap goods for the American market. When that failed the US went to China instead. The fact that the US lost the Vietnam War lead directly to China opening their boarders to the west and western trade. Had the US won the war there very well could still be a Sino-American Cold War.
AlternateHistoryHub
Because you assumed that South Vietnam would have an economy similar to South Korea. Likewise, you kept the US-China relationship the same, where as we only went to China after seeing the Vietnam War as a lost cause and had already begun peace negotiations with the North. Also, you assumed the Chinese supported the Viet Cong. Where that is true in some sense China did somewhat support them early on, that quickly changed as attitudes in Beijing quickly soured. They even had boarder skirmishes with Vietnam both during the war and after, continuing throughout the Cold War. To this day China and Vietnam are poised on the edge of war over territorial disputes.
AlternateHistoryHub
I'm not saying your videos are bad though, but sometimes they seem like a little more research is need to fully flesh out what could have been.
maneatingcheeze I never said China supported the Viet Cong. I said the US China relationship could have been the same it could have changed too. Its a 5 minute video there is only so much you can put
AlternateHistoryHub
You implied that they would have by comparing a post-war N.Vietnam to modern day N.Korea.
maneatingcheeze I said they could have. Not would have
The truth is that Ho Chi Minh asked the USA for help against French colonization because they thought democracy could help them. But Vietnam became communist after the USA rejected to help and supported their "French Allies" during WW2. When Vietnam turned into a communist country, the USA blatantly attacked the sovereignty of the Vietnamese People. Had they decided to help Vietnam in the past, the war never would have happened, and Vietnam could have been democratic without any loss of US lives who served to defend democracy.
Now for the Cold War Soviet equivalent; What if the Soviet Union won in Afghanistan?
Wouldve then invaded pakistan and then gained an actual useful seaport and build navy bases, unlike the shit places russia call military bases in the present, those bases r bascially limited either by terrain or other countries...
Also need to ignore the massive amount of corruption in the southern government which also faced coupes during the conflict.
And the massacres of Buddhists by Ngo Dinh Diem.
If america had mason the us would of won. Call of duty players will get this reference
THE NUMBERS MASON!!!!!!!
Why can't you remember?
THE FUCKING NUMBERS WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!!
+Friedrich Nietzsche RESNOUVE!
Friedrich Nietzsche i am victor resnov AND ILL HAVE MY REVENGE!
There is no country named 'America'....America is a collective term for North and South America....
I understand that,but that is really the only term that could be used besides US citizen. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/american
Fair enough, but when referring to the USA itself, it annoys me how some use the term America because it's the USA!
thumboy21 While this is correct, what else can we call people from USA? United Statians? People between Canada and Mexico? We don't call ourselves Americans because we think that we own the rest of 'America', but because any other possible name would sound stupid. Sorry? :/
The Americas is a collective term for North and South America. Now saying The United States Of America every time you wish to refer to the country, is just clunky and inefficient. Saying the USA works...in English. In Spanish many refer to the nation as Estados Unidos, does that mean in Spanish it should be refered to as The EU? That would no doubt cause even more confusion internationally. Now in English we could take Spanish's lead and say The United States. But there is a problem there too, The United States of America is only one nation that contains the phrase "The United States" The United Mexican States, or Mexico being one of them. Several others have existed throughout history, such as The United States of Belgium. As mentioned before these long names can get clunky, and their acronyms simply do not work across languages which can cause problems. So what do we do? Simply take the only part of their name which they do not share. Making The United Mexican States into Mexico, The United States of Belgium into Belgium and The United States of America into.. Well America. Yes this name is very close to that of the collective name of the New World (Americas) but it is one we must use as it is the only one that makes any logical sense for human linguistics.
Search up America: County or continent. that will explain it better.
What if the USSR was led by Trotsky instead of Stalin?
Stalin probably would have had him killed and took over the election after. :\
Still, if that wouldn't happen, it would make an interesting cenario!
the soviet union would slowly gain a higher quality of life due to the production benefits of a correctly executed communism, and people would immigrate there instead of to the USA. eventually, the USSR would have the entire world on a string.
wow now that's an interesting what if.
max p Your story ends at "correctly executing communism" Human nature isn't good enough to work for no money, and only to better society. Sure there are people that would do that, but not a whole country. Plus you would probably see him become the dictator, and when it comes time for the government to fade away, he would simply say "no thanks" and continue being dictator.
I just remember naked giant blue man defeating the entire Vietnam with his mind power
I dont know what that mean little kid?but you touched my heart.
People really thinks US lost the Vietnam war.if the US really wanted to win,they would have just nuked Vietnam and wipe it off the world map.
@@godmode4790 Then China or the USSR would have Nuked US forces in the area.Then World War 3 would have start and everybody would have died. The US lost the Vietnam war its a fact. They have always struggled fighting gurilla warfare where they can't just bomb the shit out of the enemy.
@@Spygon you ignorant fool 🤦♂️, during that era only USA had the nuke.USA had no chance of losing the war,when they had the ability to wipe out your country into dust
@@godmode4790 lol! USSR suceeded in their first Nuke Experiment in 1949. The first US Army combat troop ever set foot into Vietnam was in 1965. So NO! US never had any chance of nuking Vietnam without retaliation from USSR or China. Please review your history lesson before showing your ignorance on utube.
The biggest thing that bugs me about this era is the fact that the United States kept propping up dictators to fight the threat of communism.
It was either the dictators running things or the country turned into another Cuba or North Korea. I'm sure if there were freedom-loving parties existing they would have been supported, but those countries were too sh***y so it was an "enemy of my enemy" deal.
+derpdog
well cuba is better free than under usa flag
Ew, a Che Guevara picture. Why would you idolize a coward racist homophobe? Seriously.
Comrade Stalin Ew, a Josef Stalin picture. Why would you idolize an oppressive totalitarian communist?
Pastlife17 Irony. It's ironic to be using a Stalin picture to preach anti-communism, and one of the only ways to get communists to notice.
aka a joke
The most common response I've gotten on the streets of Hanoi about what the North Vietnamese thought of America's involvement was that they were confused. They didn't know why America was suddenly bombing them.
Only vaguely relevant, but I thought it would be an interesting tidbit of information to share.
No one was "confused" about imperialist America's intervention in Vietnam
The United States did win the war. The point of the war wasn't to make Hanoi into San Francisco. The point of the war was to show the Soviets that we would fight, kill and die over further expansion of communism. The unfortunate fact that the South couldn't maintain its defenses was a loss in the sense that our publicly stated policy was to maintain "freedom" in South Vietnam. But the South was always a dictatorship and preserving its government was a secondary purpose.
You're assuming that to stop the Domino Effect we had to conclusively win the war in Vietnam. That isn't necessarily true. What I am suggesting is the mere fact of fighting a very aggressive war with the communists and turning it into a economic political and expense showed the Soviets and the People's Republic of China that they could not roll over US supported Asian regimes.
The South was never a dictatorship. The North was.
*****
Shut up and listen if you don't know shit about history.
exactly. And in the end china and russia pissed away a lot of man power and supplies fighting a war we didn't even try to win.
lastwolflord America lost alot of soldiers in those wars too.
Man, look how far this channel has come
the us did won the vietnam war...militarily...but lost politically.
+Alvaro Cruz Thanks to very liberals in congress who got us into that war in the first place.
No they did not and didn't even come close. Just like the French didn't come close and the Russians and later the US in Afghanistan didn't come close.
+mijnkampvuur i disagree with youre comment... when i mean militarily it did won because of the comparison between us casualties and vietnamese casualties... the only problem was that the us withdrew... because of pressure of those times back at home... but if it would not withdrew it would definitely be a different story...
We accomplished most of our goals in afghanistan.
***** So you believe that there are no more terrorist organisations in Afghanistan that pose a threat to US security?
I would say after 10 years, a trillion dollars and 100,000 people killed the results are some what dissapointing.
nice video as usual :)
Good video! Honestly, i dont believe North Vietnam become a North Korea 2-0, because in the country has never installed a family dictatorship like the second with the Kims. I believe North Vietnam today was like Vietnam in OTL, and has good relations with South Vietnam and USA after 90s like OTL.
I had three scenarios for South Vietnam
1. The first is the country is modernized and westernized like South Korea, Taiwan or Japan, with a stable and democratic government after a democratic transition, maybe in the beginning of 90s, and was the first economy of Southeast Asia
2. The second is the country like Thailand, with a great economy and industry, but a unstable government with coup d eats.
3. The third and the most lame scenario is the country like Burma/Myanmar, with a deficient dictatorship government, poor people and poor economic and industrial development
Mostly 2 or 3
Man, your videos have come a long way since this one (regarding animation) great content since the beginning though
It was a classic no -win situation. Every western nation knows better than to get into a land war in Asia
Why? I think you're getting Russia and Asia confused.
Jake Waddington bro, Russia is Asia.
That's why just like Iraq it got nicknamed the Vietnam syndrome .
Roger Iman Yet only slightly less known is this, never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
JoeHooker11 Sir, Korea was where the Communist Red Chinese took a lesson from the red legs & tactical air support. Just saying. Peace out Rog
Farmer with guns alway beat a global superpower. Remember ameeica revolutionairy war? They were just farmer with guns fighting a trained army, despite all odd they still won
The_Doctor ok mudhut farmer,
No. The U.S. was fighting alongside South Vietnam, Australians, and NATO members against North Vietnam, the VC(Viet Cong was a name given to a conglomerate of revolutionary groups by the South, meaning something along the lines of Traitors to South Vietnam.), the NVA(Standing for the North Vietnamese Army, not to be confused with the Nationale Volksarmee of Germany.), China, Laos, and the USSR. South Vietnam & its allies were beaten by multiple trained fighting forces, along with support from North-backed rebels, who were typically untrained.
The South lost, even with supplied manpower and advanced weaponry, due to their inexperience & corrupt politicians. The North won because, even with obsolete armour/weaponry, they had a better understanding of their land than foreign agressors from half-way around the world(This doesn't apply to most joint NVA-VC operations in urban warfare.). That's not even mentioning the demonizing of Americans, and the subsequent hate for the war back in the U.S.
As for your comparison to the American Revolution, the Continental Army was trained by the French, and aided by the Spanish in their territories.
These farmers were the most experienced land force in the world. Just saying...
@@ulikemyname6744 I disagree with that statement, because technically that title could be given to a number of ancient civilizations, due to there not being a control for defining fighting experience(People will have their own conflicting opinions generated by their experiences on any given subject, especially one as complex as war.).
To delve deeper into the subject of the VC, they were experienced in warfare. What I meant by untrained was that they weren't entirely trained(Or a part of.)formally by an established fighting force(Although they were trained and supplied to an extent by the NVA, PRV, and USSR.). A decent sum of the VC must've been veterans(Which is slightly unlikely, considering the ~20 year span between Vietnam's War for Independence and the Vietnam War.), or trained/raised by veterans to have the strategic mindset and skills necessary to set up traps, outposts, and ambushes on short notice.
@@CB-ni9vi Well considering that they were fighting from 1945 to 1983 minus 1 or 2 years I can confidently say that they were the most experienced fight force in the world back then. Of course they were not alone the help of China was absolutely devastating for the South. China was their biggest ally back then. For me this war just shows how powerful and flexible was and still is the US military because not only they were fighting on enemy terrain their doctrine was absolutely unsuitable for the terrain. The US forces were never trained for that. They were train for the European terrains which are vast. Also their doctrine was unsuitable again because it was meant to be used on vast terrains with massive forces stacked on one place. The VC and NVA were not just having a experience advantage but also huge terrain advantage. They were digging a whole cities under the ground equipped with weapon storages, headquarters and even hospitals. The tunnels were so long that they literally could jump out where ever they wanted including behind the enemy lines. Further more at the beginning of the war they had a weapon advantage. M1 rifle was far behind its rival Ak-47. After that they came out with the m16 which had some problems is Vietnam due to the weather but with further improvements it was suitable and better then Ak-47. After all these advantages the US army never lost a battle in Vietnam and at the end they won the because in 1973 after massive bombardments over Hanoi and Haiphong the North Vietnam agreed to sigh the peace treaty. But in 1974 the Watergate scandal was the key for the Vietnam War Victory. After the Republican party lost the election the Democrats stopped helping the South. After the news came to the North there was nothing to be done. Within several moths the North and they allies devastated the South capturing it and effectively winning the vietnam war
Love your videos!!! What if Alexander never died and lived I would love a video on this THANKS MATE
Imagine being a soldier pissing in a bush in Vietnam and then hear
“I like ya cut g”
A scenario about an American conflict!?
*grabs popcorn and runs to the comment section to read the troll statements*
Hey man can I have some
You'd have to go into Laos and Cambodia to decisively interrupt the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Your footage at 1.28 minutes in are Australian Troops awaiting deployment in Helicopters
Australia was not in Vietnam America was
@@MuscleCowboy13
58,000 Australian troops served in Vietnam
Based out of Vung Tau.
522 were killed.
There is one major flaw with the title of this video. The reason you should have put quotations around the word “won” is because America unequivocally in no small way won the Vietnam war. The Paris peace accords were signed. It only feels like a loss because many outspoken communists in the media spun an inaccurate narrative, and we quit providing support after the way and another one sparked up shortly after. If conflicts after the end of a war start another counts as a loss, by that logic allies lost WWI because WWII happened after the treaty of Versailles.
What if the Spartans won at Thermopylae.
Randy Woodworth War would have ended sooner. end of the story.
Fun fact: The picture in the thumbnail features Australian soldiers.
For the most part the US was winning but people stopped Protesting and they signed a treaty , US could have nuked them and won but they signed an agreement not to use Bombs
With like Actual Nuclear Bombs not Napalm I meant
They went under ground and knowing Asians they will not give up ,so all in all seeing the casualties of the Vietcong and NVA they really didn't care we were exhausted so we gave up and left south Vietnam to fend for themselves .
Why the fuck would America nuke them when they were helping the anti communists? And China and Russia would probably have nuked the U.S.A dumb fuck. And the Americans "didn't get tired and left" the south turned on them and kicked their asses hard.
Lol .
Yes because Nuking 'Nam would cause China to Risk everything. 10 years without America buying shit from China , They'd go broke
Also US citizens protested alot
Love your videos and wow the audio has come a long ways in 7 years!
What if ... Russia never sold Alaska to the US in the 1867 Alaskan Purchase. (Therefore Alaska is still Russian).
The Czar and the White Russians would have gone there in a kind of Taiwan vs China scenario.
Assuming that the US and Britain+Canada didn't agree to divide it or go to war over it by the end of the 19th Century.
Another possibility would have been a kind of co-dominion for a US-Canadian-UK Alaska, like the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or Anglo-French New Caledonia.
A possibly more interesting scenario would be a Socialist/Bolshevik Western Russia in constant political/military warfare with an Eastern Imperial Russia. Back and forth action across Eurasia, with interventions by other powers and birth of Central Asian states would have been epic and make for very good story lines in alternate history novels. The US did temporarily occupy Vladivostok to help the White Army to escape, and I think Britain occupied Murmansk at the same time.
The Protectorate of Russian America, the Dominion of Russian America [the Czar being a relative of the British Royal Family] are both, in my opinion more likely than an independent Russian polity. An Eastern Russian Empire would be most likely if Britain and the US jointly agreed to it and supported the White Army in keeping the Far Eastern Republic [without the Romanovs] or the Far Eastern Empire if a Romanov had survived to reach it.
Hey Cody, how about your take on this?
Kaleb Hill Sarah Palin's husband belongs to the PRAK [People's Republic of Alaska Separatist Movement]. I imagine an independent PRAK with Palin in charge would be DPRK {a.k.a. North Korea] on steroids with hormonal mood swings and a creepy state religion of the Mother-Goddess Sarah.
Just a minor quibble: without massive US support, there wouldn't have been much of a civil war in Vietnam.
One observer described it perfectly at the time, seeing how ill-prepared and quickly demoralized most South Vietnamese army units were. He wrote (paraphrased, can't remember it precisely): these people (both North and South Vietnamese) are from the same ethnicity (he probably said 'race') and have more or less the same history.
Yet, the North Vietnamese Army fights with fierce tenacity, willing to take massive losses and to sacrifice themselves on many occassions. The South Vietnamese Army, not mentioning the few elite units, are for the most part beaten the moment they are dropped into a combat zone.
So no, this observer could not see a South Vietnamese victory without massive US support. And even then, the US armed forces would have to do most of the fighting. So I think it practically was America that was at war with North Vietnam.
That's no civil war. South Vietnam was US puppet to wage war against North Vietnam, the legitimate government of the country. Is more like US vs Vietnam.
@@angkhoanguyen6114 Yes yes, but we don't want to upset any Americans
Unfortunately we would have no Rambo
Just because we lost doesn’t mean that the Vietnam veterans don’t deserve respect they were American soldiers who earned respect like those of WW2
your forgetting that amidst the revolution period of the veitnam war specialised British jungle troops nearly wiped out the communists untill they where recalled and the french re assumed control only to be utterly wiped out
Things were a mess in 1945 but the transition away from Japanese government was poorly managed. I didn't know the British were there too. China was just across the border and it was rapidly going red, assisting the Viet Minh.
The truth is that the us military won the war , but our politicians lost it. The Communists in North Vietnam actually signed a peace treaty, effectively surrendering. But the U.S. Congress didn't hold up its end of the bargain.
America lost! VC are tough, Honourable,have integrity, fighting for their country, Americans are soft,lazy, undisciplined, drug users, fighting for whom or what exactly????
What was the terms of the treaty?
@@saltysocks1074 The war ended, America promised support to South Vietnam, North Vietnam promised that it would not invade. 2 years later it invaded and the American Congress refused to honor the treaty.
Vietnam: i beg you, sign for future.
American: "it's just ending, i will never come this land" and they just left.
South Vietnam: but support for me, money for me, how we can fight with ourself soliders, they was useless.
miloraca
Say that to the 1 Million Vietnamese soldiers dead compared to the 58K US dead. The US win every major battle.
US technically didn't "lose" especially in terms of casualties inflicted and successful terms signed in a peace accord, the North Vietnamese just didn't honor the agreement and when the fighting would have restarted American public support was already exhausted.
If you count the "casualty inflicted" and "successful terms signed in peace accord" then the Axis just won WW2 according to you
viet there wasnt a peace accord signed in WW2 until the end... Completely different
@@giathuanleviet4138 go educate yourself on the Paris peace accord
I think the weirdest part about the Second Indochinan War is that it's one of the bloodiest in both US and Vietnamese history and yet US and Vietnam are almost allies now.
Then again, the U.S. is allied with both Japan and Germany, and the almost-country that we had the single bloodiest war in our whole history with, the Confederate States of America, is now part of the US.
The thumbnail and picture at 1:25 are Australian soldiers
+The Space Fox Thank you! I'm glad someone commented that. the whole reason I opened the video was to comment that and you beat me to it
yeah mate same here i have that photo on a poster in my room i got from the war memorial
SyncKo yep Australia had to buy helicopters from somewhere to help our American friends
At least we had the decency to build our own FN L1A1 rifles
Thank you
Poor Vietnam for all the innocent people that died with no reason 😭😭
Have you watch mr.peabody and Sherman?
No
Well when you watch it, I have
a suggestion for you!
I have.
Kevin Esta bnbbmnbbkbnbkkkbnb,mghvmhvggmjvmhgvjvh,
great video , Love the thumbnail mate ! them where the days eh , Nui Dat , crikey ... cheers eh
Spent a month in Vietnam this year (2018). Amazing country, one of my favourites
FUCK YOU
@Nitroid haha I never saw this until now. Why is he so angry?
@@razorburns8651 Haha
Eh,I'm Vietnamese and kinda wanted to America won...Seriously,in my country they still talking about how "strong,brave,intelligent blah blah" those Vietcong were and about that "victory" like brainwashing,especially in school,when Vietnam these days did nothing compared to Japan who lost the war but have some big economic growth.They just keep yelling about things in past that doesn't matter anymore and trying to defend themselves that they're not useless. It's really annoying.
Nyato108 Modern day usa would destroy Vietnam because we will just nuke them lol
Melk Is Sexy Ael that's not how it works dumbass
Melk Is Sexy Ael us had nukes back then,or are u saying that because trump is now the president
I'm pretty surprised you have good English and have access to the internet. This is a communist country we are talking about.
Nobody won, if anything the U.S. won militarily, we just walked out on you guys. Trust me if we wanted to, we would of killed more than just 3 million soldiers, rather than our 58,000 soldiers killed. We should of never gotten involved, move on.
Feel sorry for US soldiers who got sent to Vietnam, they got sent to a place halve way across the globe, had lost some close friends during the Vietnam war, came home and were shit talked by a bunch of hippies and 'peace keepers' who were mad that they lost the war, soldiers after the war eventually turned to drugs and alcohol because of depression leading to homelessness, Vietnam veterans are homeless to this day... :(
*some Vietnam veterans are homeless to this day
+CACTUSgaming Not all of them are homeless smart one. Also, they are getting the reconision they deserve today.
wargasm74 Explain how they aren't getting recognition today.
The Hippys weren't mad at the soldiers, they were mad at the government
Didn't the North Vietnamese government at some point say they had been on the verge of surrendering when we pulled out historically?
U.S :
japan war : jpan become free country
veitname: vitnm become free country
cuba war: cuba become free country
*now bringing peace in israel*
*making deal with talibs in afghanistan to stop war*
WOW
Imagine attacking a neutrul country with the best army in the world and loosing
How to win, use simpler tech... WHAT? HOW
Ok, just simple. Aim to head with anything you have, even just the eye.
The Viet kong used the Jungle to hide in they new the land and could move quickly
Guerilla warfare
With an estimated 1.1mil dead on the VC side for using simpler tech.
@@nickw7321 www.google.com/search?q=how+many+vc+died+in+vietnam+war&oq=how+many+vc+died&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l4.4698j0j9&client=ms-android-verizon-sscr&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 Not only are you wrong. You're stupid too.
I think this was put together as a google slide.
There's no wrong with that. Only awesomeness
well the US could have one the war if:
1-the enemy body count strategy was out by 1967, and US soldiers would consolidate the ground they took, like in the battle of hamburger hill weher more then a hundred american soldiers died for nothing because 5 days after the battle they withdrew and the NVA took back the hill without firing a shot.
2-giving clear objectives, there were no clear objectives in this war as many soldiers who have been there would testify, because there was no ground taking, only jumps into battles in an out, you couldnt judge if you're close to victory or not, unlike WW2 where you saw yourself getting closer to berlin so you could judge your progress ok were getting closer to victory, but that was not here.
3- almost 2 thirds of the american soldiers in vietnam used drugs, and not justg plain ol weed, were talking about coce, raw oppium, alot of really nasty shit, i dont expect an army to be able to fight well if almost all of it is drugged most of the time.
besides this, having the media portray the american soldiers as soldiers and not as cold blooded killers would have helped as well
Using of Napalm and agent orange did not help, the generals were cowards, but soldiers brave. Without executive responsibility this war was lost.
+gil riv
Ladies and gentlemen...this is what pop history has done to the study of the subject. Every point you make is just perpetuating stereo-types and myths from that era. If you think a winning strategy for the Vietnam War can be summed up in a few points on youtube...well, you're either dumb, naive, or even worse...both!
+brinktk I don't see how he is invalid or, how his statement are based off of stereotypes during the era, explain your proof.
+gil riv "almost 2 thirds of the american soldiers in vietnam used drugs, and not
justg plain ol weed, were talking about coce, raw oppium, alot of really
nasty shit, i dont expect an army to be able to fight well if almost
all of it is drugged most of the time." citation please?
"giving clear objectives, there were no clear objectives in this war as
many soldiers who have been there would testify, because there was no
ground taking, only jumps into battles in an out, you couldnt judge if
you're close to victory or not, unlike WW2 where you saw yourself
getting closer to berlin so you could judge your progress ok were
getting closer to victory, but that was not here." this is bs...the us army had clear objectives which was to keep the north out of the south as much as possible and to drain the north of its will to fight because a invasion was out of the question
Over 600 men went up Hamburger Hill, only around 150 came back down. I've spoken to guys who fought in Vietnam, including a few who were at Hamburger Hill-they still hate the General's for pulling them out and letting the VC take it back, especially as they all lost friends up there.
The US didn’t lose, they quit. The US didn’t like the way the game was being played so they picked up their ball and went home.
Unfortunate for them history will not see it that way
@@velocityhdmi8140 and history is written by the victor. Their history becomes written and ours becomes lost and ridiculed
Nah the realized the were losing to much and rage quit beacuse their guns were getting destroyed by sharp bamboo😂😂😂
...so they lost then lol
If you quit in boxing then you lose
Love how you show a thumbnail showing AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS IN VIETNAM. PLEASE RESEARCH THE PICTURES YOU USE.
I think he was just looking for a photo of Vietnam it doesn’t necessarily matter who was in it the Australians fought with us but we were the main force in Vietnam at the time
Also it’s a humble mistake let it go man
What people don’t realize is that when the US pulled troops not even hours before North Vietnam would’ve surrendered. In a documentary an Old Viet Cong officer stated that the NVA was around 18 hours away from surrendering before the US stopped involvement.
Ironically, USA did achieve its long term objective ,to stop communism from spreading southwards, with a little bit of help from China. First, US long stay in Vietnam bought time for many South east Asia which had emerged from colonialism to develop their own economy and to fight off their own communists . If North Vietnam won in the early 60's, it might very quickly attacked the rest of SEA as they did to Cambodia. China, otoh, became enemy with Soviet Union in the 60's and attacked Vietnam in 1970'for a brief period for their act against Cambodia. The Chinese thought that Vietnam was a stooge of USSR and if Vietnam spread their communism southwards, the whole region may be under Soviet influence. The Cultural revolution which resulted in millions of death also created fear in SEA the horror of communism, making them more resistance to communism.
WTF? in 1978 Vietnam attacked cambodia because they crossed our border and killed thousands of our citizens, we just counter-attacked. You know the khmer rogue government is also communist, don't you?
#Triggered.
Before it was colonized by the French, Vietnamese were rabid colonists themselves. They invaded the Chams and took their lands. The people of Vietnam were not peaceful neighbors.
漢子 actually, they would be unable to control Southeast Asia. it's majorly Muslim and muslims tend to rebel against communism very often as it is opressive of religion and goes against some Muslim teachings, so yeaaah, U.S could easily gain influence there, but they shouldn't put dictators they can't trust in power (like it was the case with taliban)
The USA won most of the battles just lost public support back home,which in the end cost them the war.
"most of" the battles not all
Uhhh people wouldn’t make memes about trees talking and we would’ve eventually released it and gave Vietnam independence so I don’t think it really matter
Really interesting video guys, thumbs up!
nah nah, After Vietnam conflict, Laos would have tried invading and dragging us into further conflict into the region
Laos was neutral in the war until it was basically overthrown by the communists.
err, what if i told you they actually did that ? like just a years after Vietnam got it liberated ?
South Vietnamese and SEATO allied occupation *
So you don't think Vietnam would become a 51st state of America like in Watchmen? Also, what about Forrest Gump?
Actually Cody...The US did win. We forced the North to sign a peace treaty in 1972, we pulled our troops out be 1975, and the North immediately invaded the South violating the treaty.