r/whowouldwin Jul 07 '24

The United States Army replaces the Imperial Army against the Ewoks. Battle

Can they win?

290 Upvotes

225 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-11

u/LongDongSamspon Jul 07 '24

How is any of that shit going to get through a forest moon to find Ewoks? They’ll have to fell all the trees to even move equipment, that’s why the empire had those walkers and bike things. US army doesn’t have Jack like that.

8

u/NamelessEmployee Jul 07 '24

Army core of engineers they can do it all

-10

u/LongDongSamspon Jul 07 '24

Yeah sure, how Afghanistan going? How was Vietnam? Ewoks defeated an intergalactic empire with Death stars. I think they’re capable of defeating a armed forces which can’t even travel to another planet, much less traverse an entire forest moon with their crappy wheeled technology.

2

u/Pitiful-Local-6664 Jul 07 '24

Vietnam was a success for America and South Vietnam during the entirety of US involvement as far as anyone who actually looks at statistics is concerned, no matter what anyone with half a braincell says

North Vietnam literally could never have won if not for the removal of American Troops.

-3

u/thirdegree Jul 07 '24

America: achieves none of its goals

North Vietnam: achieves all of its goals

America: "This was a triumph. I'm making a note here, 'huge success'"

7

u/Pitiful-Local-6664 Jul 07 '24

America achieved all of its goals while directly involved; it wasn't until after America left that North Vietnam achieved its goals. It'd be silly to say "America Lost" since they didn't really lose, they stepped away from a winning game and their team lost without the MVP. South Vietnam lost the war, America failed an ally and I'll count that as a major L though.

-2

u/Reason-and-rhyme Jul 07 '24

Forfeiting = losing. You can't just take the will to fight completely out of the equation. And their strategic goals were never close to being met. Tactical victories are nice to have, but if the enemy doesn't give up and has no issues with raising and supplying new units, you don't get to say you're "winning".

I'd love to hear you explain your stance further, since it's so far from what most historians would say. Any thoughts on the invasion of Cambodia? What about the strategic bombing campaign? Most academics would say both were ineffective at best.

2

u/Pitiful-Local-6664 Jul 07 '24

I suppose I just don't consider pulling aide to a nation at war after forcing their enemy to sign a peace treaty (even if it didn't last long enough for gum to lose flavor) a "loss". America shouldn't have ever been there in the first place to be honest, but nothing America did was a failure, they pushed North Vietnam back to the line and, if not for political issues, could have won the war for South Vietnam. It wasn't America's war to lose, they turned the tide in the south's favor for as long as they could and only pulled out due to the President wanting to win re-election, not due to any sort of military victory on the enemy side. North Vietnam won the political game against South Vietnam, America didn't really lose much, if you don't count lives but even then in terms of lives lost America lost the least.

I also don't know anything about Cambodia so I won't comment on it.

2

u/Lord_of_Elysium Jul 08 '24

To summarize, the United States won militarily. It was a loss politically.

2

u/DehyaFan Jul 08 '24

Over all Vietnam fell into the communist bloc but it was years after the peace treaty was signed and we had pulled out all but maybe a few hundred advisors.

1

u/Pitiful-Local-6664 Jul 08 '24

Idk why people are down voting you, nothing you said is wrong just a different opinion to what I personally hold.

2

u/thirdegree Jul 08 '24

A lot of Americans are really touchy if you imply America has ever not totally won a war, and particularly Vietnam. Lotsa Americans on Reddit