5 ms·

I really dislike the characterization of Vietnam as US "Imperialism" when it was more a proxy war between US and USSR and/or futile involvement in another count

by gedy 8y ago

I really dislike the characterization of Vietnam as US "Imperialism" when it was more a proxy war between US and USSR and/or futile involvement in another countries civil war. Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Hiding behind "nationalism" was a PR move by revolutionary leadership, and not the real/main driver for it

knuththetruth 8y ago
The country devolved into civil war after the US deposed and had executed the country’s leader, who they had previously corruptly installed, but I guess found insufficiently compliant. If it’s not “imperialism” to fix elections, then overthrow and murder the people you help elected, pushing the country into horrific violence (which you then exacerbate), I’d like to know what rises to the level of your definition of the term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup
- buttcoinslol 8y ago
  The country was undergoing decolonization following WWII and got caught in the middle of two nuclear powers who couldn't openly fight each other without risking a nuclear exchange. It's a miracle that Vietnam isn't split in two like Korea. I'm not trying to rationalize the conduct of the US, there's plenty of blood on our hands when it comes to removing/installing foreign leaders, but this was a very complex situation with many players that lasted for over 30 years following the end of WWII. It's disingenuous to reduce it to 'American imperialism'.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I don’t think “American imperialism” has to be a reduction. American imperialism is one part of a complex picture.
- buy1get0 8y ago
  to be fair, you should mention what North Vietnamese government did AFTER the war: concentration camps, "New Economic Zones" that forced land from South Vietnamese, and the resulting boat people...
  - gedy 8y ago
    And in the North before any American military involvement. Hence the 1 million plus refugees from the North to South. Most of whom greatly desired to not be under communism, which was clearly the aggressor.
- cageface 8y ago
  Even today the Vietnamese are very divided about that period of their history. It's a complex issue without clear heroes or villains. If you spend much time in the country now you'll find it hard to argue that the current government is really prioritizing the needs of the people.
- gedy 8y ago
  The country was in a state of civil war from the late 1940s, and North Vietnam was the sight of much intra-Vietnamese bloodshed due to revolution, land "reform" etc, without France or US involvement in the matter. In any case, your example may be undemocratic, poor judgement, etc, but that's not the same as "imperialism".
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    This is just shifting goalposts to justify the horror of the US war machine, whose interventions since Vietnam have followed the same disastrous pattern. And quite the minimizing elision to call this “poor judgement.” Staging coups and killing leaders, not imperialism. Engaging in false flag attacks so you can maintain control of a foreign country, not imperialism. Covering up civilian massacres and lying about how many of your troops are dying to maintain support for the war at home, not imperialism. And so on and so on and so on. Again, what to your mind constitutes imperialism if these actions do not?
    - Fins 8y ago
      Would you consider Soviet troops and materiel in North Vietnam as imperialism then as well?
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        Absolutely. The USSR was an imperialist State Capitalist regime.
        Fins 8y ago
        Indeed. It is actually quite refreshing to see someone consistent on that point.
sbmthakur 8y ago
Yes, but only from the global perspective. For an average Vietnamese rice farmer, who doesn't give two hoots about the global proxy war, it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US." No, this is simply not true. South Vietnamese did not generally like the notion of the North Vietnamese Communists either. The North was invading the South, the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Vietnam is more nuanced than most terms can capture.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    >the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. The fledgling government was only “fledgling” because the CIA installed and then helped destabilize an unpopular, anti-democratic government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup >And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Japan was a democracy prior to the war, with universal male suffrage beginning in the late 1920s. It devolved into fascism through a series of internal coups. It’s great that suffrage was extended to women post war. What wasn’t so great was when the US government absolved, rehabilitated, and financed the former fascists and more or less handed the country back over to them to stop talking the rise of any legitimate, democratic left-wing rule of the country. And this was despite the fact that many leftists in Japan had fought, been imprisoned, and died trying to stop the war and atrocities by the fascists. Amazingly, this effort was led by the CIA-backed war criminal, Nobusuke Kishii under the guise of stopping the “socialist threat” to Japan (quite rich since he and his pals dragged the country into a war that caused untold devastation and destruction). https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi In South Korea, the US backed Syngman Rhee, another fascist who killed tens of thousands of people he perceived to be his left-wing opponents. This unchecked political violence legitimized the cause of Kim Il-Sung and threw the country into a devastating civil war that has been terrible for everyone on the peninsula for the past 70 years. And in spite of all of this, the US continued to back right-wing dictators in South Korea until they were pushed out by a popular uprising in the 1980s (the true origin of South Korean democracy, not the sham the US installed). If you want to understand the reality of US imperialism, I suggest you not blindly accept popular narratives about what the US did postwar, especially in SE Asia. There are plenty of history texts written on the subject.
mirimir 8y ago
> Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Actually, the communists won a free election, and US-supported extremists ignored it. Edit: OK, I misremembered. The 1956 election didn't happen, because South Vietnam refused to participate. And I've read that they refused because they feared that they'd lose.
- gedy 8y ago
  Maybe because those "extremists" saw what the communists were doing to their own people before this "free election"
  - mirimir 8y ago
    No, they were pretty clearly fascists, from what I've read. A key issue here is how difficult it is to apply evidence from what actually happened to what might have happened. I mean, sure, the North Vietnamese did lots of horrible stuff, both during the war, and after they won. But the issue is that "the North Vietnamese" wasn't some static thing. There was selection, based on what went down. And for sure, some horrible stuff went down. Who's to say what would have happened if Ho Chi Minh had become president of Vietnam in 1956.
bjourne 8y ago
In the same vein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just a proxy war between two super powers and not an example of imperialism? Many, many people appreciated the USSR fighting back against the theocratic takeover by Talibans.
mikeash 8y ago
The war in Vietnam was a direct continuation of the French attempt to hold on to their former colony. It turned into a proxy war, but I think the imperialism label sticks quite well here.

by gedy 8y ago

knuththetruth 8y ago

The country devolved into civil war after the US deposed and had executed the country’s leader, who they had previously corruptly installed, but I guess found insufficiently compliant. If it’s not “imperialism” to fix elections, then overthrow and murder the people you help elected, pushing the country into horrific violence (which you then exacerbate), I’d like to know what rises to the level of your definition of the term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup

buttcoinslol 8y ago
The country was undergoing decolonization following WWII and got caught in the middle of two nuclear powers who couldn't openly fight each other without risking a nuclear exchange. It's a miracle that Vietnam isn't split in two like Korea. I'm not trying to rationalize the conduct of the US, there's plenty of blood on our hands when it comes to removing/installing foreign leaders, but this was a very complex situation with many players that lasted for over 30 years following the end of WWII. It's disingenuous to reduce it to 'American imperialism'.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I don’t think “American imperialism” has to be a reduction. American imperialism is one part of a complex picture.
buy1get0 8y ago
to be fair, you should mention what North Vietnamese government did AFTER the war: concentration camps, "New Economic Zones" that forced land from South Vietnamese, and the resulting boat people...
- gedy 8y ago
  And in the North before any American military involvement. Hence the 1 million plus refugees from the North to South. Most of whom greatly desired to not be under communism, which was clearly the aggressor.
cageface 8y ago
Even today the Vietnamese are very divided about that period of their history. It's a complex issue without clear heroes or villains. If you spend much time in the country now you'll find it hard to argue that the current government is really prioritizing the needs of the people.
gedy 8y ago
The country was in a state of civil war from the late 1940s, and North Vietnam was the sight of much intra-Vietnamese bloodshed due to revolution, land "reform" etc, without France or US involvement in the matter. In any case, your example may be undemocratic, poor judgement, etc, but that's not the same as "imperialism".
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  This is just shifting goalposts to justify the horror of the US war machine, whose interventions since Vietnam have followed the same disastrous pattern. And quite the minimizing elision to call this “poor judgement.” Staging coups and killing leaders, not imperialism. Engaging in false flag attacks so you can maintain control of a foreign country, not imperialism. Covering up civilian massacres and lying about how many of your troops are dying to maintain support for the war at home, not imperialism. And so on and so on and so on. Again, what to your mind constitutes imperialism if these actions do not?
  - Fins 8y ago
    Would you consider Soviet troops and materiel in North Vietnam as imperialism then as well?
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      Absolutely. The USSR was an imperialist State Capitalist regime.
      - Fins 8y ago
        Indeed. It is actually quite refreshing to see someone consistent on that point.

sbmthakur 8y ago

Yes, but only from the global perspective. For an average Vietnamese rice farmer, who doesn't give two hoots about the global proxy war, it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"it had become a war for survival and the aggressor was clearly the US." No, this is simply not true. South Vietnamese did not generally like the notion of the North Vietnamese Communists either. The North was invading the South, the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Vietnam is more nuanced than most terms can capture.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  >the US was upholding a fledgling government in the South, in that context it's pretty hard to label the US as 'aggressor'. The fledgling government was only “fledgling” because the CIA installed and then helped destabilize an unpopular, anti-democratic government. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup >And I also agree that 'Imperialism' is a stretch because US actions in Japan, South Korea etc. aren't even remotely related to classical Imperialism. Heck, the US gave Japan a constitution, democracy, and even made sure that women had the right to vote, despite Japanese objection! Japan was a democracy prior to the war, with universal male suffrage beginning in the late 1920s. It devolved into fascism through a series of internal coups. It’s great that suffrage was extended to women post war. What wasn’t so great was when the US government absolved, rehabilitated, and financed the former fascists and more or less handed the country back over to them to stop talking the rise of any legitimate, democratic left-wing rule of the country. And this was despite the fact that many leftists in Japan had fought, been imprisoned, and died trying to stop the war and atrocities by the fascists. Amazingly, this effort was led by the CIA-backed war criminal, Nobusuke Kishii under the guise of stopping the “socialist threat” to Japan (quite rich since he and his pals dragged the country into a war that caused untold devastation and destruction). https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi In South Korea, the US backed Syngman Rhee, another fascist who killed tens of thousands of people he perceived to be his left-wing opponents. This unchecked political violence legitimized the cause of Kim Il-Sung and threw the country into a devastating civil war that has been terrible for everyone on the peninsula for the past 70 years. And in spite of all of this, the US continued to back right-wing dictators in South Korea until they were pushed out by a popular uprising in the 1980s (the true origin of South Korean democracy, not the sham the US installed). If you want to understand the reality of US imperialism, I suggest you not blindly accept popular narratives about what the US did postwar, especially in SE Asia. There are plenty of history texts written on the subject.

mirimir 8y ago

> Many, many people appreciated the US fighting back against a communist takeover. Actually, the communists won a free election, and US-supported extremists ignored it. Edit: OK, I misremembered. The 1956 election didn't happen, because South Vietnam refused to participate. And I've read that they refused because they feared that they'd lose.

gedy 8y ago
Maybe because those "extremists" saw what the communists were doing to their own people before this "free election"
- mirimir 8y ago
  No, they were pretty clearly fascists, from what I've read. A key issue here is how difficult it is to apply evidence from what actually happened to what might have happened. I mean, sure, the North Vietnamese did lots of horrible stuff, both during the war, and after they won. But the issue is that "the North Vietnamese" wasn't some static thing. There was selection, based on what went down. And for sure, some horrible stuff went down. Who's to say what would have happened if Ho Chi Minh had become president of Vietnam in 1956.

bjourne 8y ago

In the same vein, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was just a proxy war between two super powers and not an example of imperialism? Many, many people appreciated the USSR fighting back against the theocratic takeover by Talibans.

mikeash 8y ago

The war in Vietnam was a direct continuation of the French attempt to hold on to their former colony. It turned into a proxy war, but I think the imperialism label sticks quite well here.