The Vietnam War

Lemming · 04-08-2012 12:34am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What spread of communism? It didnt stop it in Vietnam and there was no pan continental movement- most of the surrounding countries have consistent methods of government.

To claim that the war was successful in stopping something that was never a real issue is strange- Can you give some examples of what country or countries had communist movements that floundered as a result of America sending its military into Vietnam?

You have to go back to the 1950s first of all, and then start to track movements forward to see a pattern, that was coined the "Domino Theory" by the US government of the day.

Throughout the 1950s & 60s there was a rise in communist backed movements across south east Asia (although I'll note that some may have been more nationalist in nature, e.g. the Vietnamese). I'll not suggest they were all part of some pan-movement because they wouldn't have been; simply organisations funded & manipulated to fight a war by proxy by the Soviet Union - and to a lesser extent China at the time. Take a look at Korea, the French Indochina war which resulted in what became North & South Vietnam, Cambodia, & Laos, all of which would have had either strong communist ties or sizeable population numbers sympathetic to communist or nationalist rhetoric. The Malayan conflict, the Philippines, & extensive communist activity in Indonesia also occurred during this period. And of course "the Vietnam war".

There is an argument put forward that in getting involved in the Vietnam conflict for the better part of a decade, the US allowed surrounding countries such as Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to strengthen their economic base (and undermine Communist rhetoric) and focused Soviet attention & supply of materials into Vietnam instead of being spread across S.E. Asia. Only a couple of years after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam war, the Soviet Union was embroiled in Afghanistan, thus again diverting its attention away from spreading Communism throughout SE Asia. The Soviet Union fell soon after its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The domino theory has one main flaw, so it is by no means gospel even if the pattern it identifies seems accurate; the flaw was that surrounding countries, such as Thailand did not fall to Communism after Vietnam fell (so no conclusive "Domino" effect). We'll ignore Cambodia on this one because that's a whole other basket case full of crazy monkeys, and it was already on its way south during the conflict; such to the point that the Vietnamese invaded to halt the excesses of the Khmer Rouge in late '78.

So it's hard to say "here's exactly where a communist movement foundered because of the Vietnam war", but if you look at events after the war, the rise of Communist movements across the region effectively ended soon after. Some of the incidents I mentioned above happened before the Vietnam war; some movements were broken before the US ramped up involvement in 1965, but any real attempts after 1975 seem lacking the scale or determination of the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s.

jonniebgood1 · 04-08-2012 12:47pm

golden lane wrote: »

of course....some people viewed communism as a success...i don't....
and it seems most people, given a choice hold my views...

we in the west have more now than we did when i was born.....on any scale, that is a success....

I would not view it as success either.

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

whitelines · 07-08-2012 4:08pm

The US involvement in Vietnam showed just how far they would go to defeat Communism. Perceived resolve is everything in ideological and other confrontations. Vietnam also drained Russian and Chinese resources - creating a logistical war with The US that these two states could not win in the long term.

It's no good being armed to the teeth if your potential enemy doubts your resolve to use those weapons. Proved many times, for example The Falklands, Northern Ireland, etc.

Canvasser · 15-08-2012 7:06pm

whitelines wrote: »

The US involvement in Vietnam showed just how far they would go to defeat Communism. Perceived resolve is everything in ideological and other confrontations. Vietnam also drained Russian and Chinese resources - creating a logistical war with The US that these two states could not win in the long term.

It's no good being armed to the teeth if your potential enemy doubts your resolve to use those weapons. Proved many times, for example The Falklands, Northern Ireland, etc.

Most disturbing jusification for murdering 3 milion people that I've seen.

Lemming · 15-08-2012 8:31pm

Canvasser wrote: »

Most disturbing jusification for murdering 3 milion people that I've seen.

I see nobody justifying what went on during the Vietnam war, never mind anything remotely "disturbing". With regards the Vietnam war, neither side of the equation covered themselves in glory, but since you seem to be so rabidly pro-socialist, the long catalogue of systematic war-crimes against south Vietnamese civilians by the VC & NVA seems lost on you.

So, do you engage in revisionism much? Or are you too busy licking the screen whilst reading indymedia to notice?

Canvasser · 15-08-2012 8:43pm

Lemming wrote: »

I see nobody justifying what went on during the Vietnam war, never mind anything remotely "disturbing". With regards the Vietnam war, neither side of the equation covered themselves in glory, but since you seem to be so rabidly pro-socialist, the long catalogue of systematic war-crimes against south Vietnamese civilians by the VC & NVA seems lost on you.

So, do you engage in revisionism much? Or are you too busy licking the screen whilst reading indymedia to notice?

The American military had absolutely no right to operate in Vietnam or bomb Vietnamese cities and civilians.

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

golden lane · 15-08-2012 8:51pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would not view it as success either.

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

yes, you have points there......but i do not know of any of those systems that where everybody is equal, or where most of the population prefer that system.......i believe in our form of democracy.....

Lemming · 15-08-2012 9:00pm

Canvasser wrote: »

The American military had absolutely no right to operate in Vietnam or bomb Vietnamese cities and civilians.

The US government was issued a formal request for military assistance by the South Vietnamese government. As a direct result of this, US forces were welcomed by the South Vietnamese government.

We could equally say that the Soviets/Chinese/North Vietnamese had no right to operate in South Vietnam or bomb South-Vietnamese cities & civilians. But they did.

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

LOL, you think I'm a proponent of the tea party? Well f*ck are you wide of the mark. Seriously, stop reading indymedia & whatever rag the SWP are handing out this week; you'll live longer for it.

Lemming · 15-08-2012 9:03pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There are however interesting arguments based on social equality that favour many communist systems. Issues such as suicide rates, depression, homelessness, healthcare for all, etc.

golden lane wrote: »

yes, you have points there......but i do not know of any of those systems that where everybody is equal, or where most of the population prefer that system.......i believe in our form of democracy.....

I once had a friend's father mention his days as a student in Glasgow to me and how he was quite the radical socialist at the time. He made an interesting comment on the notion of communism "working". Basically, in order for communism to work, the whole world would have to run under the system. And that of course still fails to take into account basic human nature.

Canvasser · 15-08-2012 9:57pm

Lemming wrote: »

The US government was issued a formal request for military assistance by the South Vietnamese government. As a direct result of this, US forces were welcomed by the South Vietnamese government.

We could equally say that the Soviets/Chinese/North Vietnamese had no right to operate in South Vietnam or bomb South-Vietnamese cities & civilians. But they did.

LOL, you think I'm a proponent of the tea party? Well f*ck are you wide of the mark. Seriously, stop reading indymedia & whatever rag the SWP are handing out this week; you'll live longer for it.

The South Vietnamese government was a puppet government set up by the US. It had no legitmacy. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as leader. Vietnam is one country not 2. To say that the Vietnamese had no right to be in Vietnam is tea party propaganda.

You should stick to salivating over the local blueshirt councillor. Maybe you'll get a medical card out of it.

Lemming · 15-08-2012 10:13pm

Canvasser wrote: »

The South Vietnamese government was a puppet government set up by the US.

Which one? There were several after the French withdrew from the region. You fail to realise that the North was engaged in open hostility long before 1965, or 1963 for that matter either.

It had no legitmacy. The Vietnamese people wanted a united Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as leader. Vietnam is one country not 2. To say that the Vietnamese had no right to be in Vietnam is tea party propaganda.

The Vietnamese people? Which people exactly? How many people exactly? Stop throwing hyperbole about like it's fact. Because it's not. Further, French-Indochina fractured into four distinct entities; two of which where North & South Vietnam respectively. "Vietnam" as you term it only existed after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Your arguments are deeply spurious and full of rhetoric & hyperbole, and you're just twisting words to try and suit your own pathetic agenda. As Noam Chomsky said during a lecture I was fortunate enough to have attended: "Facts matter, even when you don't like what they have to say".

You should stick to salivating over the local blueshirt councillor. Maybe you'll get a medical card out of it.

ты пидор

Manic Moran · 16-08-2012 3:09am

I am not a revisionist, you are just a tea party propagandist. You're like a dog sniffing Nixon's crotch.

[Mod]Well, that didn't take long.

Two weeks, now.[/Mod]

Chuck Stone · 16-08-2012 3:52am

Lemming wrote: »

Which one? There were several after the French withdrew from the region.

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

The US did not want a united Vietnam under a nationalist/communist regime and the Vietnamese, on the whole, wanted the US to **** off home. Just like they did every other imperial power that had been meddling with it before then.

BlaasForRafa · 16-08-2012 8:08pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

The US did not want a united Vietnam under a nationalist/communist regime and the Vietnamese, on the whole, wanted the US to **** off home. Just like they did every other imperial power that had been meddling with it before then.

Do you really think that the Communists would engage in a free and fair election? After what the Communists of eastern europe did post WW2 I'd doubt it.

The USSR and China were imperialist powers meddling in Vietnam as well or are you just another one of those that plays the "Evil USA" card at every opportunity?

Both the West and the East had axes to grind in Vietnam, to view it otherwise is just taking a pretty myopic view of things.

Chuck Stone · 16-08-2012 8:17pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The USSR and China were imperialist powers meddling in Vietnam as well

Source?

or are you just another one of those that plays the "Evil USA" card at every opportunity?

Misrepresentation.

If you want an echo chamber why don't you make a private forum for back-slapping?

Lemming · 16-08-2012 9:10pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There were to be fair elections in Vietnam, agreed in the Geneva accords of 1954, with the intention of uniting Veitnam. South Vietnamese allies of the US scuttled these elections at the behest of the US.

You are referring to the Diem government; named after the Prime Minister who seized power by declaring himself for high office. He was deeply unpopular, not just because he was suspected as being somebody's puppet, but because he was viewed as deeply corrupt. There were also a series of short-lived assembled governments following that, and of course the Van Theiu "government" which lasted from 1967 through to 1975.

The US using the CIA began a destabilisation campaign in a somewhat successful attempt to polarize the country. The CIA frightened up to one million people out of the north using propaganda and other methods.

You'll also need to consider that the Vietnamese were quite nationalistic courtesy of the French-Indochina war, and the communist bloc seized upon that, and meddled in affairs which "they had no right to". The US played counter balance with that, and hence (in part, as it's a very simplistic explanation) was formed South & North Vietnam.

The US did not want a united Vietnam under a nationalist/communist regime and the Vietnamese, on the whole, wanted the US to **** off home. Just like they did every other imperial power that had been meddling with it before then.

And the Soviets/Chinese did not want Vietnam united under a flag of democracy. Did the Vietnamese want to be left alone to run their own country? Absolutely; they fought for it! But they were then exploited by both sides of the cold war; with the communists trying to muscle in on nationalist fervour as per their expansionist attempts across S.E. Asia throughout the 1950s, 60s, & 70s, followed by the USSR's spectacular fall after Afghanistan in the late 1980s which put paid to all of that.

Cork boy 55 · 29-08-2012 4:33pm

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*

By R.J. Rummel

COM.TAB1.GIF

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Canvasser · 07-09-2012 6:16pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

HOW MANY PEOPLE DID
COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?*

By R.J. Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Stick to reading the Beano and leave the politcs alone.

Manic Moran · 10-09-2012 6:08am

Oh, I see. A ban from one subforum (eg Politics of War) doesn't apply to other subfora (Cold War). I shall see about fixing this.

You still have ten days to serve... fixing it for ten days in the interim.

Canvasser · 21-09-2012 4:05pm

I was recently reading about North Korean involvement in the Vietnam War. The DPRK sent pilots, advisers and anti-aircraft gunners to help the fight against American imperialism. Korean pilots claim to have shot down 26 imperialist aircraft. Fair play to them.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/nkidp-e-dossier-no-2-north-korean-pilots-the-skies-over-vietnam

tdv123 · 06-02-2014 8:40pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I did say they(USA troops) should be congratulated, My point is many other armies would have been far more brutal if they had been
put in a protracted Guerilla war of attrition in the country side like that
For example the south Koreans commited over a dozen My Lai massacres
despite having a much smaller force in revenge for ambushs and such.

The allied armies(Philippines New Zealand Thailand Australia South Korea USA) where invited by SV to defend it against a communist war of aggression.
The Army of the Republic of South Vietnam lost about 266,000 killed from 1959 through 1974.

A free and fair election would have been impossible in a chaotic post -imperial country filed with armed communist insurgents and economy in dire states and most of the farmers uneducated and/or illiterate.
The(communist) machine would have won by terror, fraud and lying and that would have been the last ever held.

Once the Vietminese had a certain degree of education, stability and peace and prosperity they would have rejected communism out of hand
but of course the North decided the drown the South in blood instead

Vietminese civilians deaths where 843,000 (Mid range estimate)
the 2 million figure is communist lies. Communists lie.
In a free society people have to tell the truth in communist countries they lie.
Lieing to the population is the main pilar of such societies.

of those
The NLF killed 164,000 civilians in South Vietnam 1968-1974(mid range estimate)

Then their is the Deaths Caused by North Vietnamese Communist Power Consolidation and their final 1975 blitzkreig on the southern people
There are estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi. as many as 2 million to sent camps. 3 million international refugees fled the ****-hole many dying at sea.

Not to mention the Vast war crimes commited in Cambodia and Laos
The communist's where noting more than violent, bullying scum
who devasted the region in a brutal war of agression, terror and opression
Thats the reality of Indo-china war. and threw away million troops to do it.
Was it worth it?

They where the real puppets of the Mao and Mosow.

Most of the vast amount bombs dropped(USA) where dropped on jungle bases, trails, roads, bridges not urban residental areas etc.
North Vietminese civilian causalties from aerial bombing are estimated at
50,000 to 182,000. Again due to restrictive nature of aerial bombing over north. More casualties in Laos and Cambodia of course the USA would not have to bomb the communist supply routes and bases there if the NLF had not invaded these countries in first place.

How in gods name can you get any more brutal than 2 million dead civilians? I think the only people who killed more than that were the Nazi's. Yea thanks US troops for not being nazi's.

DavidRamsay99 · 03-02-2015 2:46pm

johngalway wrote: »

Prompted by the fantastic documentary series posted in another thread I done a little more reading on the Vietnam war, mostly the American involvement therein.

Had they foregone the "body count" strategy and went for a conventional territorial hold, I wonder would they have fared better?

I realise a lot of the country is mountainous jungle, or other difficult places like the Delta.

Having watched one episode where great effort was made to capture a hill, which would then be deserted and the VC/NVA would stroll back up it unchallenged.

Was not holding territory a mistake, or was it impossible? Widening the war early into Laos and Cambodia may have been no bad thing, as areas of those countries seemed to have been under North Vietnamese control in a practical sense given the Ho Chi Minh trail, and the amount of fighters and supplies that were distributed by it.

What are peoples thoughts on all of this, was the war ever winnable?

The U.S. military smashed the Viet Cong and decimated the North Vietnamese Army in battle after battle after battle. The Vietnamization policy of gradually turning over responsibility for operations to the Vietnamese military was working as American troop numbers were reduced and eventually all combat troops were removed by 1973.
The reason South Vietnam collapsed so dramatically in 1975 is that the Democrat dominated Capitol Hill had cut funding.

After the Korean War the military junta in South Vietnam and their army were propped up for decades until democratic reforms were introduced.
There were enormous American forces in Western Europe and West Germany and Berlin throughout the Cold War.
So there was no excuse for cutting funding to South Vietnam and betraying millions who were later herded into concentration camps or took to the seas in boats.

When America withdrew the Chinese and Russians rebuilt the North Vietnamese Army and the final push on Saigon was launched.

Like Pilate, America washed their hands of the South Vietnamese.

History has repeated itself in Iraq with ISIS allowed to sweep through the Middle East like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia forty years ago.

Savage93 · 03-02-2015 8:42pm

Canvasser wrote: »

You're absolutely right. The French and Americans were not "imperialists" they were humanitarians trying to spread freedom and democracy. The American airforce dropped humanitarian bombs on Vietnamese cities and liberated the communist held forests with Agent Orange. If the French and Americans had been left in Vietnam it would be the richest country in Asia today! There was no poverty when the French and American humanitarians ran Vietnam. Of course the South Vietnamese politicians were not US "puppets", they were democratically elected and loved by the Vietnamese people. They were entirely independent of the US and not influenced by them whatsoever.

You're absolutely right about Vietnam today too. The young Vietnamese are ashamed by the actions of their parents and grandparents in defeating the American Empire errr I mean American humanitarians and liberators. In fact most Vietnamese today think the My Lai massacre was a positive thing and was necessary to defeat the baby eating communists. Only American owned sweat shops can save the Vietnamese today from the Chinese.

PS I hope that post was a bit more modern and suited to the way the youth think today.

Is that you Claire Daly??????

James74 · 27-07-2015 6:10pm

The op on this thread referenced a Vietnam documentary, but I can't find the post that it referred to. Anybody remember what that documentary was? Or does anybody have any recommendations for any other Vietnam War documentary, either one-offs or series? Thanks folks.

James74 · 07-08-2015 1:33am

Just to update my own post about recommendations for a Vietnam War documentary, just finished watching the PBS series "Vietnam a Television History". Well presented, unflinching, often disturbing look at everything from the origins and history leading up to the war, the military manourvers on all sides, and the political and social fallout in the aftermath.

It's often a tough watch, presenting the war in all it horrific brutality, but I highly recommend it nevertheless.

Lemming · 10-08-2015 11:59pm

I've got a DVD collection (x8 discs) called "Vietnam" by Green Umbrella publishing. Been a while since I watched it but it spans from 1954 and the build-up to US involvement. Some of the content does address the Communist side of things, but footage is not as available (as one would imagine of the technology of the time) so stock footage gets used more than once as you'll notice.

The discs are in order:

Into the quagmire 1954-1964
Nex stop is Vietnam 1964-1966
America's war 1966-1667
The bloody slog towards Tet 1968
The fading light 1969-1970
Dust off 1970-1975
Prisoners Of War
An assassin's view

Jawgap · 08-04-2016 8:18pm

Due for release next year.....

The Vietnam War

The Vietnam War, a film by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, is a
ten part, 18 and a half hour documentary film series
that sheds new light on the military, political, cultural, social, and
human dimensions of a tragedy of epic proportions that took the lives
of 58,000 Americans and as many as three million Vietnamese, polarized
American society as nothing has since the Civil War, fundamentally
challenged Americans’ faith in our leaders, our government, and many
of our most respected institutions, and called into question the
belief in our own exceptionalism.

The film will be structured chronologically, built around interviews
and personal stories of nearly 100 American and Vietnamese witnesses —
veterans as well as civilians — who lived through the war. Their
intimate, personal “bottom up” testimony will be interwoven throughout
with a parallel “top down” political and military narrative that
reveals American and Vietnamese decision makers’ goals, decisions,
strategies, public pronouncements, and private concerns. With
unprecedented access to both individuals and archives in Vietnam, as
well as to provocative and revelatory recent scholarship and rarely
seen archival material from around the globe, this film will present a
groundbreaking 360-degree narrative of the war, telling the story from
all sides, as it has never before been told, and hopefully inspiring a
new conversation about this divisive period in our history.

Keplar240B · 20-07-2016 2:30am

Operation Linebacker 2
Massive B-52 raid over Hanoi, December 1972. Aircraft interphone with mission livemap and subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ihI7VU2OY

Stars and Stripes · 02-02-2017 8:47pm

All the way with LBJ, How many kids did you kill today.

Snickers Man · 20-02-2017 12:16pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Communists lie.
In a free society people have to tell the truth in communist countries they lie.
Lieing to the population is the main pilar of such societies.

Fake news! Fake news!

The Vietnam War

Comments