Did America gain victories in the Vietnam war and the Korean war?

Answer 1

In the context of your question, there are two dimensions to the word 'victory' - outcomes of the military battles (tactics) and the realization of the original aims of getting invovled in the war (strategy).

America won almost every tactical battle in both of those wars (with some notable exceptions in Korea) and strategically some gains were realized but the wars are not remembered as "victories" in the same sense as World War 2 because our enemies never surrendered to us.

The North Vietnamese eventually occupied the whole of the country in 1975 after we left and North and South Korea are still technically at war.

The argument was made during and after both wars that the main obstacle to winning them was that their strategic aims were either unrealistic or became unworkable as events played out.

The original strategic aim of the UN in Korea was to repel the North Korean invasion of the South, which was accomplished - but then Truman and MacArthur, giddy with success, changed the strategic goal to "unify Korea by vanquishing the North". Unfortunately, they pushed close enough to the Chinese border to give the Chinese an excuse to step into the war with their three-million man army (which they did at the Chosin reservoir in November 1950 and handed the US Army one of its few and biggest defeats), and once they were involved the new strategic goal (end North Korea) could never be realized without use of nuclear weapons or a general war between the US and China/Russia. After three more years of back and forth fighting, North and South Korea were still separate, so the original strategic goal had been won but the new strategic goal had not, and after three years of back-and-forth fighting the original victory was not seen as sufficient justification for all of the bloodshed that followed.

In Vietnam, the strategic aim was to prevent the spread of communism. However, North Vietnam did not openly invade South Vietnam but instead sent its troops disguised as guerilla fighters (the so-called Viet Cong) and hid in bases in neighboring countries. America bombed the North heavily but never seriously considered invading (partly because the number of troops required would have made it hard to keep depicting as a "police action" and partly because China was again at the northern border and nobody wanted a repeat of Korea 1951).

Since the bases in the North (and other surrounding countries including Laos and Cambodia) were never really compromised, the Americans could and did win tactical battle after tactical battle in the South but made no progress on the strategic goal of ensuring the freedom of South Vietnam. After a massive North Vietnamese guerrila attack in January 1968 during the Tet holiday, the distance between what the American government and military leadership was saying and the truth became very obvious and the public began to become disenchanted with the war.

Ultimately the combination of lack of victory, perceptions of futility and a growing sense among the American public that the leadership was lying and the war was unwinnable (meaning the original strategic goal was unreachable without a full-scale invasion and likely larger war), we withdrew and the North Vietnamese triumphed by invading and absorbing South Vietnam in April 1975.

Answer 2

Just from a historical view.....
In Korea we pushed the enemy all the way back into China(We Were in China).The president ordered,us out of China and back to the 38th parallel,in not wanting to start a full blown war against the communist countries of China and Russia.
During the Vietnam conflict,I agree a lot of brave young men died needlessly because they fought with rules,using the Korean example above,not looking for a total defeat,so since we had already established a parallel line from the start,it was doomed.The U.S. did have major victories(TET offensive,City of Hue)and had they followed up on the carpet bombing longer,instead of giving it up to get theVietcong back to the negotiating table ONLY!,There might have been a better turnout like that of Korea,since both were proxy wars for east against the west(instead of a full blown war)

Answer 3

The U.S. won many engagements and battles in both wars.

The UN beat North Korean all the way back of the peninsula from Pusan to the Yellow(Yalu) River and would have defeated North Korea if China hadn't entered the war.

In Vietnam the U.S. and her allies won every major battle and engagement, but lost the war. Which 35 years later looks like it might not have been the worst thing for Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

So yes we gained many victories in both the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Answer 4

In both cases we kicked butt. Korea is still under the 1953 Cease fire.
We beat North VietNam in every major battle. They staged TET 68 as a last resort and were very confused to hear they had won (according to our Press) while retreating fast for Laos, Cambodia and North. They love Jane Fonda, John Kerry, the Democratioc Congress of 1974 and every other protester for helping with the ultimate win.

Answer 5

We won battle after battle in both wars, and then were stabbed in the back on the home front!

Answer 6

it depends on how you define victory.

is being in Korea 50 years later , and paying more for there defense than they are a victory. we kicked butt on the battle Field if that's what you want to know

Answer 7

What do you mean victories? what you know about war?

Answer 8

Cain as a Viet Nam Vet i can tell you going in we knew we would not win. It was a polictical plo to have us there for all those years. Far to many men and women gave there lives for no real cause.

Answer 9

I suggest you view the documentary "The 10,000 day war".

Answer 10

In neither case.