4 ms·

I wish people would stop comparing US coronavirus deaths to the Vietnam war. The comparison is intended to increase the perceived gravity of coronavirus pandemi

I wish people would stop comparing US coronavirus deaths to the Vietnam war. The comparison is intended to increase the perceived gravity of coronavirus pandemic - "Remember that war 50 years ago which had massive cultural & social impact? This is just as big!" - but implying the Vietnam war's impact was based on American bodycount is just wrong at best and appalling at worst. The Vietnam war had such an impact because the US military went on such an insane spree of war crimes and civilian massacres that America permanently lost its standing as a moral authority gained in WW2. Two million Vietnamese civilians paid the ultimate price for America's geopolitical theorizing, and the disaster was prolonged for an entire decade because the country was too proud to admit it was in over its head. McNamara and then Nixon knew the war was unwinnable, but the US could not appear defeated. And so the atrocities continued. Many in the US realized all of this and became permanently disillusioned with their country. Apologies for the off-topic rant but this comparison has been making its way through a lot of circles that really should know better. If you find yourself wishing you knew more about this topic, I recommend the Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War or the book Kill Everything that Moves.

greedo 6y ago
I don't think the comparison is trying to describe the Vietnam War's impact in terms of body count, but instead to describe the pandemic's impact in terms of an enormous societal issue, which IMHO it is. People have a hard time with large numbers (remember Stalin saying one death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic). So having markers to help with comparison is normal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
peteretep 6y ago
> Two million Vietnamese civilians paid the ultimate price for America's geopolitical theorizing It was a civil war, initiated by the North, in which mostly Vietnamese killed other Vietnamese. The Americans intervening was absolutely a shit-show (and of course colonial history), but for the central point of your rant to stand, you’d need to show fewer Vietnamese would have died without American intervention, and that’s not a simple given. You should spend some time talking to American Vietnamese with families who were persecuted in the immediate aftermath of the war, or who were lucky enough to escape.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  The US didn't "intervene" what? Vietnam was colonized by France. Northern Vietnam was fighting for unification and liberation from French colonial power. The US lent their support to France in Vietnam because France was flirting with the Soviet Union in post-WW2 as the cold war took shape. France slowly withdrew as the US took on more and more of a role in the conflict, first as advisors then in active combat roles and finally as a full military force. The Vietnamese were largely supportive of Ho Chi Minh and there was supposed to have been a democratic reunification vote, which didn't happen. That's how the civil war started, and North Vietnam would have easily steamrolled the South (since they managed to steamroll both the South and the USA). Most civilian casualties came from horribly targeted anti-insurgency or massive American bombing raids. It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    You appear to be conflating the two Indochina wars, and seem to be claiming I said America didn’t intervene when I used the expression “American intervention” so I’m not sure we’re even going to be able to find a common fact base to discuss this. > It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement. The history of Communism in Asia would like a word with you.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      I'm not conflating them, it's just impossible to talk about one without the other; it was pretty much just one long war with America steadily increasing its involvement. Given that communism actually won in Vietnam, we don't even have to work with hypotheticals. There were certainly deaths but nothing to the level of the death toll American military power exacted on the populace. Regarding the word intervene what I meant is that I believe it is not a good descriptor of what the US did. Makes it sound like some kind of spontaneous humanitarian mission rather than them undemocratically propping up a failing state.
      - 6y ago
asveikau 6y ago
> The Vietnam war had such an impact because the US military went on such an insane spree of war crimes I agree with this. But, while this is before my time (my parents' generation), my understanding is US attitudes against the war were partly self interested in the short term: many boomer teenagers and 20somethings didn't want to get sent off to participate in such massacres, and much more they didn't want to die for it. Their parents didn't want them killed either. A lot of people knew somebody who had been killed. If there had been no conscription there would have been less antiwar sentiment. A similar scenario played out in the 2000s in Iraq, but without conscription.
rumanator 6y ago
> "Remember that war 50 years ago which had massive cultural & social impact? This is just as big!" - but implying the Vietnam war's impact was based on American bodycount is just wrong at best and appalling at worst. But the impact of the Vietnam war on the US was primarily due to the number of casualties, wasn't it? I mean, you wouldn't see many protests if the US government was sending college kids to southeast Asia to chill and soak in the sun, wouldn't you? Their sons arriving dead or maimed had something to do with it.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Americans by and large don't mind sacrificing their young as long as they get good value for it. With Vietnam they saw soldiers sacrificed for utterly pointless things like defending Khe Sanh or taking Hamburger Hill (both were abandoned right after victory), all while their leadership was telling them they weren't even seeking military victory. Meanwhile half the country was calling the troops babykillers (not without reason) and young people being drafted into the mess were faced with the moral choice of going to prison or running away to Canada (with the associated accusations of cowardice and shame brought on their family by idiots) or turning off their conscience and shipping off to Vietnam to kill some people posing absolutely no threat to their freedom or way of life. No matter how you look at it, it's way more complicated than boiling it down to US deaths.

greedo 6y ago

I don't think the comparison is trying to describe the Vietnam War's impact in terms of body count, but instead to describe the pandemic's impact in terms of an enormous societal issue, which IMHO it is. People have a hard time with large numbers (remember Stalin saying one death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic). So having markers to help with comparison is normal.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

peteretep 6y ago

> Two million Vietnamese civilians paid the ultimate price for America's geopolitical theorizing It was a civil war, initiated by the North, in which mostly Vietnamese killed other Vietnamese. The Americans intervening was absolutely a shit-show (and of course colonial history), but for the central point of your rant to stand, you’d need to show fewer Vietnamese would have died without American intervention, and that’s not a simple given. You should spend some time talking to American Vietnamese with families who were persecuted in the immediate aftermath of the war, or who were lucky enough to escape.

ahelwer 6y ago
The US didn't "intervene" what? Vietnam was colonized by France. Northern Vietnam was fighting for unification and liberation from French colonial power. The US lent their support to France in Vietnam because France was flirting with the Soviet Union in post-WW2 as the cold war took shape. France slowly withdrew as the US took on more and more of a role in the conflict, first as advisors then in active combat roles and finally as a full military force. The Vietnamese were largely supportive of Ho Chi Minh and there was supposed to have been a democratic reunification vote, which didn't happen. That's how the civil war started, and North Vietnam would have easily steamrolled the South (since they managed to steamroll both the South and the USA). Most civilian casualties came from horribly targeted anti-insurgency or massive American bombing raids. It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement.
- peteretep 6y ago
  You appear to be conflating the two Indochina wars, and seem to be claiming I said America didn’t intervene when I used the expression “American intervention” so I’m not sure we’re even going to be able to find a common fact base to discuss this. > It's a pretty easy argument there would have been many, many fewer civilian casualties without US involvement. The history of Communism in Asia would like a word with you.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    I'm not conflating them, it's just impossible to talk about one without the other; it was pretty much just one long war with America steadily increasing its involvement. Given that communism actually won in Vietnam, we don't even have to work with hypotheticals. There were certainly deaths but nothing to the level of the death toll American military power exacted on the populace. Regarding the word intervene what I meant is that I believe it is not a good descriptor of what the US did. Makes it sound like some kind of spontaneous humanitarian mission rather than them undemocratically propping up a failing state.
    - 6y ago

asveikau 6y ago

> The Vietnam war had such an impact because the US military went on such an insane spree of war crimes I agree with this. But, while this is before my time (my parents' generation), my understanding is US attitudes against the war were partly self interested in the short term: many boomer teenagers and 20somethings didn't want to get sent off to participate in such massacres, and much more they didn't want to die for it. Their parents didn't want them killed either. A lot of people knew somebody who had been killed. If there had been no conscription there would have been less antiwar sentiment. A similar scenario played out in the 2000s in Iraq, but without conscription.

rumanator 6y ago

> "Remember that war 50 years ago which had massive cultural & social impact? This is just as big!" - but implying the Vietnam war's impact was based on American bodycount is just wrong at best and appalling at worst. But the impact of the Vietnam war on the US was primarily due to the number of casualties, wasn't it? I mean, you wouldn't see many protests if the US government was sending college kids to southeast Asia to chill and soak in the sun, wouldn't you? Their sons arriving dead or maimed had something to do with it.

ahelwer 6y ago
Americans by and large don't mind sacrificing their young as long as they get good value for it. With Vietnam they saw soldiers sacrificed for utterly pointless things like defending Khe Sanh or taking Hamburger Hill (both were abandoned right after victory), all while their leadership was telling them they weren't even seeking military victory. Meanwhile half the country was calling the troops babykillers (not without reason) and young people being drafted into the mess were faced with the moral choice of going to prison or running away to Canada (with the associated accusations of cowardice and shame brought on their family by idiots) or turning off their conscience and shipping off to Vietnam to kill some people posing absolutely no threat to their freedom or way of life. No matter how you look at it, it's way more complicated than boiling it down to US deaths.