Remembering Vietnam

[JakeStarkey]

fair and full disclosure.

 

[georgephillip]

Let's put an end to some of the unsupported revisionism that we are reading here.

The domino theory was true in that SVN's fall destablizied Indochina for a long time. Likewise, the domino theory was true in that once the USSR got into Eastern Europe almost fifty years went by before it left.

It is true that America's incursion into post-colonial Indochina began in 1954 under President Eisenhower with Vice-President Nixon's full and hearty endorsement. Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson were all cold warriors. Any talk about dem or pub is simply stupid.

The domino theory was part of a plan designed to exterminate the virus of independent development in Indochina. Vietnam and North Korea were bombed into antiquity while Indonesia led by General Suharto carried out massive crimes in 1965 compared by the CIA to those of Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

"The staggering mass slaughter as the New York Times described it, was reported accurately across the mainstream, and with unrestrained euphoria." Since Suharto's crimes worked to benefit of the US investor class, historical revisionism's required to maintain the myth of America's commitment to Democracy.

ZCommunications |

hes lost in a time warp and his own brand of almost incomprehensible gobbledygook.

time has proven him pretty much or horribly off, on pretty much almost everything his philosophy, if that what you call it, espoused, not that that ever would occur to him, Inever thought he really had a point anyway.

I watched the Buckley/chomsky firing line episodes, hes one of those lose play it anyway he wants academics we have been breeding here for decades.

You sound a little bitter.

"In early 1969, he (Chomsky) delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970, the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto, titled 'Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies"; in 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town,[115] and many others.[116]

"Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including from the following..."

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop hating.

 

[Ropey]

Let's put an end to some of the unsupported revisionism that we are reading here.

The domino theory was true in that SVN's fall destablizied Indochina for a long time. Likewise, the domino theory was true in that once the USSR got into Eastern Europe almost fifty years went by before it left.

It is true that America's incursion into post-colonial Indochina began in 1954 under President Eisenhower with Vice-President Nixon's full and hearty endorsement. Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson were all cold warriors. Any talk about dem or pub is simply stupid.

 

[georgephillip]

Agent Harkins??

"General Paul Harkins, the commander of U.S. forces in South Vietnam, confidently predicted victory by Christmas 1963."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and what happened in nov 1963 that changed that George....?

don't get this wrong george...

"Aftermath

"The US secretly agreed to withdraw...missiles from Italy and Turkey.

"The compromise was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of US missiles from Italy and Turkey was not made public at that time—it was a secret deal between Kennedy and Khrushchev."

Are you trying to say JFK would have won the Vietnam War in 30 days?
With or without Nikita's help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Aftermath

 

[georgephillip]

Who brought the agent orange?

monsanto

Don't forget Dow:

"Agent Orange is the code name for one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

"It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped 55 US gallon (208 litre) barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called 'Rainbow Herbicides'.[1]

"A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical.

"The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, an extremely toxic dioxin compound. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects."

Agent Orange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragon]

the domino theory threat was perfectly viable

No. It was a specific prediction that failed to come true. (That's your answer, too, Jake: it was not a prediction that Southeast Asia would be "destabilized" or any other vague, mealy-mouthed, unfalsifiable bit of fluff, but a claim that other countries in Southeast Asia would FALL. They didn't. It was WRONG.) And the Sino-Vietnamese war, being fought between two Communist countries, had nothing to do with the domino theory at all, and certainly can't be used as evidence in favor of it.

Here's why it was wrong. The domino theory treated "Communism" as if it were a hostile nation rather than the economic/political philosophy that it really was. (Or is.) So the ideas surrounding our Cold War efforts were often wrong-headedly territorial. If a nation-state bent on military aggression were to capture one territory, then it might be in a position to attack a neighboring country.

But Communism, being not a nation-state but a philosophy, had no borders, and the fact that one country was close to or bordering on another seldom made any significant difference. (Cuba, for example, is a very long way from the Soviet Union.) What did make a difference was whether or not conditions in a country were such as to make Communism attractive and gather popular support. If the government was despotic, the economy primitive and quasi-feudal, and the population largely consistent of oppressed peasants, then Communism had a lot of appeal. If the government was democratic, the economy advanced, and the population largely consistent of educated, well-paid workers and professionals, it has no significant appeal whatsoever.

This is why countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba were overthrown by Marxist insurgencies, while more advanced countries were in no danger of it at all (with one historical exception, the end of World War II, when the Soviet Union occupied territory seized from the Nazis and imposed Communist systems on them). Nearby Communist countries could make a difference only insofar as insurgent movements could be supplied across the borders, but in fact it was possible, although slightly more difficult, to supply such movements across whole oceans, and where conditions weren't right for Communism no movements would exist to be supplied.

The whole territorial conception of Communism that led to a lot of our Cold War stupidity, including the cockeyed mistake in Vietnam, was not fact-based. The reality is that while the Soviet Union arguably was a threat, as any rival great power would be, Communism as such was not. During the Cold War, there was no other country in the world more completely immune to Communist overthrow than the U.S.A.

 

[Dragon]

Actually I think the initial blame for Vietnam has to fall on Truman, not Eisenhower. It was his decision to return Indochina to French control. That's what started the whole process moving.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dragon: "That's your answer, too, Jake: it was not a prediction that Southeast Asia would be "destabilized" or any other vague, mealy-mouthed, unfalsifiable bit of fluff, but a claim that other countries in Southeast Asia would FALL. They didn't. It was WRONG."

Nope. South Vietnam fell, Cambodia fell, other states were destabilized for some time. The USSR in Eastern Europe remained for forty years plus.

"Communism" as is "Capitalism" is simply a name for describing imperialism by stronger states forcing their economic, philosophical, cultural, and political will on weaker states.

Dragon, I agree with the initial responsibility belonging to Truman.

 

[georgephillip]

When you say China or Vietnam "fell" what you're really saying is the inhabitants of those countries choose a different development path than the one selected by the US government.

The plans formulated at the end of WWII by US elites arbitrarily assumed the US would control the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British empire and as much of Eurasia as possible.

When China deviated from this path in 1949 US elites immediately supported France's decision to reconquer its former colony of Indochina. When the Vietnamese followed China's lead in pursuing their independence, Washington began talking of a "virus" that will "spread contagion" to other parts of the region.

Independence is only seen as a "virus" or a "contagion" by those pursuing Empire at the expense of Democracy.

ZCommunications |

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you say China or Vietnam "fell" what you're really saying is the inhabitants of those countries choose a different development path than the one selected by the US government.

The plans formulated at the end of WWII by US elites arbitrarily assumed the US would control the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British empire and as much of Eurasia as possible.

When China deviated from this path in 1949 US elites immediately supported France's decision to reconquer its former colony of Indochina. When the Vietnamese followed China's lead in pursuing their independence, Washington began talking of a "virus" that will "spread contagion" to other parts of the region.

Independence is only seen as a "virus" or a "contagion" by those pursuing Empire at the expense of Democracy.

ZCommunications |

I follow Noam's arguments but don't agree with his, or your, conclusion. Vietnam was a civil war between two neo-states. We took sides, we lost. If SV had won and conquered NV, independence for the Vietnamese people would have been achieved.

 

[georgephillip]

I think it's more likely we created the civil war in Vietnam when we installed Ngo Dinh Diem as South Vietnam's first "President", a tactic we employed a decade earlier in South Korea. In both cases there were massive uprisings against our choices:

"A devout Roman Catholic, Diem was fervently anti-communist, nationalist, and socially conservative. Historian Luu Doan Huynh notes, however, that 'Diem represented narrow and extremist nationalism coupled with autocracy and nepotism."[96]

"As he was a wealthy Catholic, many ordinary Vietnamese viewed Diem as part of the elite who had helped the French rule Vietnam; Diem had been interior minister in the colonial government."

Between 1955 and 1957 about 12,000 suspected Diem opponents had been killed.
By the end of 1958 around 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed.
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles conceded privately "Diem had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

1956 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem begins campaign against political dissidents.

1957 - Beginning of communist insurgency in the South

IMO, the important dates. When the plebiscite for unification that the North and UN officials wanted, but the government of the South and the US did not, failed to materialize after two years*, it started the ball rolling for a continuation of the same war they fought against the Japanese and then the French.

Two big problems with Viet Nam:

We started out by backing a decision to not have a democratic vote on reunification.

If we wanted to win, we had to invade the North.

It was a terrible mistake, politically and militarily.

*- The real meaning of the V "peace sign".

 

[georgephillip]

As I recall one of the few things left and right could agree on regarding the Vietnam War was the percentage of Vietnamese who would have to die in order to make a US "victory" possible. That number was between 80% and 90% of all human beings living in Vietnam at that time.

 

[Dragon]

Nope. South Vietnam fell, Cambodia fell

Since Cambodia fell BEFORE South Vietnam, that can hardly be called a result of our loss there, now can it?

other states were destabilized for some time.

There you go with the vague, mealy-mouthed, unfalsifiable fluff. "Destabilized?" What the fuck does that even MEAN? With concrete examples and real hard evidence, please. Otherwise you're saying nothing.

The USSR in Eastern Europe remained for forty years plus.

Yes, by sending in troops to occupy those countries. That wasn't the spread of Communism but old-fashioned territorial imperialism, and has nothing to do with the domino theory.

"Communism" as is "Capitalism" is simply a name for describing imperialism by stronger states forcing their economic, philosophical, cultural, and political will on weaker states.

No, neither of those words means that. England did not force its capitalist economy on us. We adopted it on our own. The Soviet Union didn't (and couldn't) force Communism on China. The Chinese adopted it on their own. So did the Vietnamese and the Cubans. The point being that what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe, and what the Chinese and Vietnamese and Cubans did independently of the USSR and of each other, are not the same phenomenon at all.

In support of which, note that as soon as the Soviet Union under Gorbachev stopped supporting the Communist states in Eastern Europe, those states were overthrown by their own people, one after another, plop-plop-plop. It was only the presence of Soviet troops and other forms of pressure that held them in place at all. No such overthrow has occurred in other Communist states, because they were NOT Soviet satellites.

The domino theory, to the extent it has any relevance at all, applies to classical imperialism and is a variant on the idea of appeasement. It was behind the idea of "containment" which dominated our Cold War policies. But an imperial state like the USSR can be "contained" on a territorial basis. A philosophy like Communism has to be "contained" by other means.

Dragon, I agree with the initial responsibility belonging to Truman.

We could have saved ourselves and the Vietnamese alike a world of hurt by sticking to our own anti-colonialist values and not playing politics with French vanity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, because the NVA invaded Cambodia because the USA was tied up in SV.

Destabilized? You don't know what it means? Look it up and apply it to Thailand. Don't act stupid.

I said capitalism and communism were forms of imperialism, did I not? Applies to Eastern Europe.

Yes, both terms are imperialistic. You better reconsider the western powers taking of Africa and Asia as economically driven as well as culturally. To suggest otherwise reveals a deep-seated ignorance.

We were not anti-colonialist, though, Dragon.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, because the NVA invaded Cambodia because the USA was tied up in SV.

No, it didn't. Cambodia was overthrown by its own indigenous Communist insurgency, the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia took place in 1978, three years after the fall of Saigon, and in that invasion the Khmer Rouge were overthrown.

Destabilized? You don't know what it means?

The point is that it doesn't mean anything specific. It's a way for you to claim that neighboring countries "sort of fell" when the reality is that they didn't fall. There are a great many possible elements of "destabilization" which may indicate anything or nothing. The fact remains that not one other Southeast Asian country fell after or arguably as a result of our failure to prevent the fall of South Vietnam, and that this disproves the domino theory, which SPECIFICALLY predicted that such countries would FALL. Not "be destabilized. Fall. And they did not.

I said capitalism and communism were forms of imperialism, did I not?

Yes, and as I pointed out, you were wrong.

Applies to Eastern Europe.

Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was imperialistic, but only because Soviet troops occupied those countries. Communism in China, Vietnam, and Cuba was not a result of Soviet imperialism. ONLY Communism in Eastern Europe fits that description (well, maybe in North Korea, Mongolia, and Afghanistan as well), and ONLY because Soviet troops invaded and occupied those countries.

This does not show that Communism is a form of imperialism. It only shows that the Soviets practiced imperialism, which is a different claim.

Yes, both terms are imperialistic. You better reconsider the western powers taking of Africa and Asia as economically driven as well as culturally.

Just as with Communism, that doesn't establish that capitalism is imperialistic, in the sense that wherever you see a capitalist economy it's imposed from without by an imperial power. There are a great many examples of capitalist economies evolving without any foreign country making that happen; in fact, in Africa and Asia the Western powers mostly prevented capitalist economies from evolving, keeping the colonies dependent on the mother country for manufacturing and as suppliers of raw materials.

We were not anti-colonialist, though, Dragon.

Let's just say that our anti-colonialism was less than ideally manifested in practice. Our history and national mythos and morality are anti-colonialist, or supposed to be.

 

[Pilar]

Vietnam now, is free.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. The Khmer Rouge was funded, trained, and cadred by the NVA, same same as invaded.
2. Communist imperialism, whether Soviet or Asian, is still imperialistic, despite you saying "no".
3. Western imperialism in Asia and Africa was driven by market acquisition as much as anything else.
4. I agree that we as Americans define the myths of Manifest Destiny and American Imperialism far differently than scholars trained to look at data in objective manner.

 

[georgephillip]

Vietnam now, is free.

Well, maybe not exactly free...

"The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a single-party state. Its current state constitution, which replaced the 1975 constitution in April 1992, asserts the central role of the Communist Party of Vietnam in all organs of government, politics and society.

"The General Secretary of the Communist Party performs numerous key administrative and executive functions, controlling the party's national organization and state appointments, as well as setting policy.

"Only political organizations affiliated with or endorsed by the Communist Party are permitted to contest elections in Vietnam."

Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[9thIDdoc]

Vietnam now, is free.

Wrong. South Vietnam is now occupied by North Vietnamese. That's about as far from "free" as it gets.

A simple case of invasion by communist imperialists that they are still trying to spin as something else.