Do you think the protests were instrumental in ending the Vietnam war?

Not really. It was the deaths that ended the war. The American population got tired of politicians supporting the army that had already lost 55,000 soldiers for no good reason. And it helped that the US was losing the war, as well.

The protests played some role, but it was the ongoing deaths that really did it.

And no, the protests don’t mean a thing. They make people feel good, but they have zero effect.

I remember the protests and took part in them. I have no doubt they had an effect in ending an increasingly unpopular war. Compare that with the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where there are very few casualties and no protests that could go on forever.

No. It was about money and lives. And a lesson few have learned: If you go to fight a war, go to win. Don’t go if you only plan to not lose.

No, it was the ”shack and awe” of the Tet Offensive that opened their eyes that they could not beat those determined, ass backwards, unsophisticated, rice farmers, even with superior weapons, so they called the curtains on that ”offensive” since it was never officially a war.

I think the media played a bigger part.

It was the first war where there were cameras filming lots of stuff. It brought the images of war to the families at home.

The Zipo fires , and mistreated villagers were too much for the American people.

The protests were a form of light shedders. They brought the horrors to light. Put it in people’s faces.

Sometimes a problem has to be brought into the light, to be seen for what it is,and that it must be eradicated.

Awareness is important to the public.

Without knowledge of events, how can they change them?

Nah, everyone knows it was Rambo who ended that war…

Yes, i think they helped.

@MrGrimm888 That is a good point. The media told the public about the realities of the war in Vietnam. We are told very little about what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq.

@ucme
My dad could have been the guy they based Rambo on.
He said it was the immorality of involuntary conscription (he volunteered) combined with a confusing objective that assured the public would never get behind that war. He never blamed the protesters. I think he simply thought they recognized the dilemma and said so.

I think they did have an influence. Without the very public display against the war the political elites would have just continued but when you have so many in the streets saying that this is not right it is hard to continue with business as usual.
I believe that the inclusion of so many vets in the anti-war movement was the impetus to end it. If the ones who participated do not believe it is just then how can you justify it?

Definitely, although when it was just students’ it was not nearly as effective as when middleclass and middle aged people joined the marches.

No

@rojo the inclusion of so many vets in the anti-war movement

I was one of those vets.