In years to come will historians come to see America's defeat in...

[sandyRoe]

...Vietnam as the beginning of the end of their role as the major superpower in the world?

[Kromovaracun]

Considering they reached their height as a superpower in the 1990s, I'd say probably not. (And remember even now, while having a bloody nose from the war on terror, there's still not yet another truly major superpower in competition - all their competitors are still emerging.)

[R1Geezer]

when did Vietnam control the US? I must have missed that.

[jno]

no, they're much more of a superpower now - mainly, as Kromovaracun suggests, because there isn't a plausible rival at the moment. Give China another 20 years, though, and who knows.

Not quite sure what Geezer's on about; nobody suggests the Vietnamese control the US. They did repel it, though, as the Taleban are also in the process of doing.

[Old_Geezer]

Taliban ? I'd not say they were really repelling. Merely continuing to exist until the Americans get fed up and try to find a way out which saves face. I think the main problem is that we don't even really know what the invasion was trying to achieve aside for destroying a few terrorist training camps, and that was done ages ago.


No it's the economics one needs to remain aware of. What is the better strategy, to owe loads to everyone, or to be the country that provided the loans ? Can their currency remain the one oil is traded in ? Economics are more important that the military exploits.

[R1Geezer]

It's like when Germany beat France they controlled France. I was wondering when Vietnam controlled the US.

[jackthehat]

I think all the 'reading by match-light' in the dungeon has ruined your eyesight....where on earth in the OP does it say anything to warrant your responses, Geezer?

[R1Geezer]

the questioner refers to America's defeat, I was trying to understand when that was.

[Zeuhl]

<<It's like when Germany beat France they controlled France>>

No not really.

<Defeat in Vietnam> is not the same as defeat BY Vietnam.

[MrsGillseldest]

The Fall of Saigon was a massive national humiliation for the US

[dr b]

If the only two choices are "defeat" or "victory", then it certainly wasn't a victory. However, a more nuanced view might say that militarily the edge was certainly to the US (the Tet Offensive, remembered by many as some great victory for the North, was in fact a crushing defeat for the Communists, after the initial surprise attacks). But, the US public turned against the war and politically it became impossible to support it (much as may be happening in Afghanistan now). LBJ refused to run for reelection, inflicting Nixon on the country, and even he eventually saw there was no way to win politically from continuing the fight.

Yes, the fall of Saigon was a disaster (consigning millions of Vietnamese to decades of misery). But now Vietnam is an ally & trading partner! Hopefully in 30 years we can say the same for Afghanistan. Not optimistic about that, though.

[jno]

when some countries (eg the US) beat others it's because they want to control them. Vietnam had no wish to control the US, they just wanted Americans to leave. Which they did.

[Manwithnoname]

No they might see it as the US withdrawing in humiliation from a war with the communists that they could not win, as well as a world wide hatred of the US because of their inhumane tactics.
However the country did unite without any foriegn intervention

[jenius]

I think it will. Since there was no support from the people for this was and no rational reason for us to be there. It change the way wars were handled forever.When you think about it, you know that if Kennedy hadn't be killed we would have never been there in the first place. Johnson was not a warrior and could not manage the war, Nixon extended it an unneccessary 2 years, and while that was going on there was massive unrest in the streets. Finally, after years of failure we withdrew, the USA was never the same after tham.

[ABerrant]

"...you know that if Kennedy hadn't be killed we would have never been there in the first place."

Eh? JFK was a rabid anti-communist who brought nations closer to nuclear war than any other US President, a la Cuban Missile Crisis.

In the first speech he made to the American public as their President, Kennedy made it clear that he intended to continue Eisenhower's policy of supporting the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem. He argued that if South Vietnam became a communist state, the whole of the non-communist world would be at risk. If South Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Philippines, New Zealand and Australia would follow. If communism was not halted in Vietnam it would gradually spread throughout the world. This view became known as the Domino Theory. Kennedy went on to argue: "No other challenge is more deserving of our effort and energy... Our security may be lost piece by piece, country by country." Under his leadership, America would be willing to: "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty."