>>9370074>If we go with the actual reason then the war was maybe a success.it wasn't a success, because France gave the middle finger to the US and left NATO. The US had gained too much influence around the world and France didn't like that.
>If we go with the latter then it was an utter, abysmal failureYeah, no shit. Even when the US was utterly BTFOing North Vietnam/VC, the US media was saying the US army wasn't gaining any ground and losing
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_and_the_Vietnam_War#Tet_Offensive:_1968>I also think that the amount of damage that occurred to US troops could be considered a critical factor when deciding whether the war was a success.No one should do this. If you go by this, WW1 and WW2 were loses for everyone involved. There were clear wins for the not-Germans, but all wars produced some really fucked up vets. You only get the media's gleaming bright side of things, especially from WW2, but the vets were little better than vietnam vets.
Vietnam vets got shat on extremely hardcore by the media, and because of the media's influence, the people shat on these vets. This only exasperated the problems vets normally have.
THEN because of the economy's downturn in the late 70s, it just made it seem like the vets had even more problems
PLUS, the US government started defunding mental hospitals which hid away the mental illness problems pre-late-70s and this led in a boom of rambling homeless people on the streets.
So these long series of failures and negative influence starting in the late 60s just makes it so much worse, with only the negative influence being directly related to the nam war and vets.
In the long term of things, it was a win for the US. The Vietnam War and most commie countries being fucked over by constant wars, war spending, and lack of trading partners made all the commie countries ripe for basically slave labor for capitalist pigs.
