Napoleon

[Coracle]

The United States "could have stayed in Vietnam indefinitely"??

Yea, surrre. I suppose that is true IF you ingnore such things as the tremendous cost of that stupid war; the fact that the U.S. greatly weakened its military in Europe and elsewhere; international political opposition; and growing and vehement opposition to the war at home which by 1968 forced a commitement to bring that idiotic needless adventure to a close.

Oh yes, Kennedy and Johnson the Liar repeatedly spoke of the phony Domino Theory and all of Southeast Asia turning "Red" if South Vietnam "fell", and that includes the Philippines and eastern Pacific. The REALITY is the after that ersatz puppet regime in Saigon collapsed the ONLY country that turned communist was Laos.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way of ignorance.

Interesting how in Vietnam they celebrate their "victory" over the Americans. Poor savages. They don't even know that they didn't win the war. Should we tell them? On the other hand, I'll let you do it.



Meanwhile, the French retreated from Vietnam. But, of course, they didn't lose the war either as they still hold Paris.

[Jon Shafer]

At least France did better than 15 years before the Vietnam overthrow.

[Alanus]

Originally posted by Trip
At least France did better than 15 years before the Vietnam overthrow.

Absolutely !

[Alanus]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
Facts are a funny thing, they get in the way of ignorance.

Its called History, read some of it.

I still remember how the US embassy in Saïgon has been evacuated. Call it the way you want, colonial wars are not glorious, whatever colonial party you defend.

Except in Civ

[FrankBullit]

Laos was the only country to become communist? I seem to remember a real milk-toast Liberal professor type named Pol Pot that lived in Cambodia. And speaking of the Phillipines, communist guerilla's still roam the jungles along with miltant Muslims attacking those that differ in opinion from them. In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

A local tyrant is generally preferable to a foreign one. Do I sense a touch of bitterness?

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
In fact, the only thing that America is guilty of losing is their long-held niave assumption that everyone else in the world would somehow want to live in a democracy! What a farcial assumption that did turn out to be. Vietnam is welcome to their totalitarianism, their poverty, their monsoons and their belief that they actually did win something. Goodbye and good luck to 'em!

The best form of government in the world is the "good Czar". This is someone who strives to make government work for all the citizens, has the ultimate power and the wisdom to know how, when and when to not, use it. The worst form of government is the "Bad Czar" he has all the same atributes as the "Good Czar", save that he is out for his own power, and doesn't care about the citizens. It is impossible to tell which Czar you have until he has been in power for a while. So, no, not everyone wants to live in a Democracy...

Having said that, Democracy is a good compromise, as it spreads power among enough people that not too much harm is likley to come about at once...

None of this address what happened in Vietnam, however. The people took a look at their choices. They were _not_ given a choice between "Dictatorship" and "Democracy". they were given a choice between "Dictator chosen by us", and "Dictator chosen by someone else". They chose to have a dictator of their own...

[FrankBullit]

This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

South Vietnam not only had no tradition of democracy it had no tradition at all being a phony manufactured state created in 1954.

The lack of democractic traditions is another reason why this massive flood of Third World immigrants into the U.S. should be of concern.

As for the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, be sure to differentiate between the professionals and volunteers in the early part of the war, and the conscripted malcontents in the last years of the U.S. involvement. A lot of them were a disgrace, but I can hardly blame them considering the political and military situation.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FrankBullit
This is the one lesson successfully learned by the U.S. through Vietnam: When people do not have a tradition of democracy to stand on, they cannot help but fall for dictatorship. Mexico and most of Latin America have been proving this out for years. The only bitterness I do have about Vietnam is that some of the finest people in America served in the military during Vietnam and have been maligned and lied about ever since. Contrary to the Hollywood cliche, the vast majority of Vietnam Vets did NOT become drug-addled homeless people, but have been among the most successful of their generation. The people of Vietnam were the ones totally unworthy of these folks' sacrafices and efforts. The irony today is that Vietnam would love nothing more than to have us back spending our money and investing into their swamp.

That's all very true. Now look at the story from a Vietnamese soldiers point of view. He lost millions of his countrymen. First, the Vietnamese fought the French* who were ruthless colonialists. Then they fought the Japanese who would enslave them. Then they fought the French*, who had tacit American support. Then the Americans installed puppet and corrupt governments in South Vietnam, finally committing troops to keep the Vietnamese from turning communist. But most Vietnamese apparently believed that that was a decision for them to make. Frankly, the U.S. was on the wrong side of history.

Ho Chi Minh was a scholar of American history. He was fully cognizant of the Declaration of Independence. He knew that the Americans -- a backwater, low-tech country -- beat the greatest power on earth to gain their independence Specifically, he knew how the Americans would hide in the wilderness, while the British were afraid to leave their barracks, and the comfort of the town. If the British did give chase, they would rarely find the Americans, and then be subject to a potentially catastrophic ambush. Ho was also aware how Washington won a very important battle by attacking on Christmas (think Tet offensive).

Of course, the U.S. soldiers paid a terrible price for the mistakes of their elders. But don't blame just the White House. Both Johnson and Nixon were reelected by landslides.



* "Napoleon" is the title of this thread. Napoleon was one such a French colonialist.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Coracle
South Vietnam not only had no tradition of democracy it had no tradition at all being a phony manufactured state created in 1954.
. . .
and the conscripted malcontents in the last years of the U.S. involvement. A lot of them were a disgrace, but I can hardly blame them considering the political and military situation.

Your first point is very apt.

but that last comment is not fair to the many thousands who went to war when their country called. Most gave their best. Many gave more than that.

[Zachriel]

Ho Chi Minh as an ally against the Japanese in WWII:

BRITANNICA
At the same time, commandos formed by Vo Nguyen Giap, under Ho's direction, began to move toward Hanoi, the Vietnamese capital, in the spring of 1945. After Japan's surrender to the Allies, they entered Hanoi on August 19. Finally, on September 2, before an enormous crowd gathered in Ba Dinh Square, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent, using words ironically reminiscent of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “All men are born equal: the Creator has given us inviolable rights, life, liberty, and happiness. . . !”

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Ho Chi Minh was a scholar of American history. He was fully cognizant of the Declaration of Independence. He knew that the Americans -- a backwater, low-tech country -- beat the greatest power on earth to gain their independence Specifically, he knew how the Americans would hide in the wilderness, while the British were afraid to leave their barracks, and the comfort of the town. If the British did give chase, they would rarely find the Americans, and then be subject to a potentially catastrophic ambush. Ho was also aware how Washington won a very important battle by attacking on Christmas (think Tet offensive).

I think you overstate the simmilarity of the American Colonies and Vietnam. First, the Colonial millita was a minor nuisence at best. It was armies on the field that gave the Colonies their edge. The Colonial armies were successfull on the field (set piece battles), and the Vietnameese armies were decimated everytime they gathered into a field force.

The most important difference, though, was that While the Vietnameese had international (Soviet and Chineese) backing, _neither_ force sent troops to attack America. The colonies, on the other wrist, had significant numbers of troops from France, and a smaller number from Spain. After the battle of Lexington, France and Spain threatened to invade england. That was what gave the win to the Colonies. By contrast, the Soviet Union did _not_ threaten to invade America if we didn't pull out of Vietnam...

Interesting parrallel with Tet/Christmas, though there was never a 1000 year history of christmas truces. Oh, one more parallell, the treaties ending both wars were called "the treaty of Paris"...

Having said that, I think you are correct with a bigger point: The US was on the wrong side of that conflict. Can you immagine if the US had agreed to back Ho against France (who would have pulled out if the US had staked Marshal plan aid to it) in exchange for a millitary base in Vietnam? And of course the differences between the US and the Soviet Union are not so small that the Vietnameese could have failed to notice them given a peacefull chance to examin both of them up close. Hell, just the difference in our technological level. This would have also set a precident: The US will be friends with anyone who is friendly to us, no matter the government. We could have avoided a lot of unpleasantness around the world had we decided that comunism isn't nearly as bad as oppression, and that the two are not inextricably intertwined. Hell, Vietnam today has a comunist government, and the people seem genuinly happy and unoppressed...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
I think you overstate the simmilarity of the American Colonies and Vietnam.

It was Ho's observation that there was a moral and strategic similarity between the two periods of history.