5 ms·

> 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 Vi

> 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.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > 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. Have you ever heard of the Khmer rouge in Cambodja, and how north Vietnam played a fundamental role establishing it?
      - pinkfoot 6y ago
        You also have to factor in how much the US bombing of Cambodia led to the conditions ripe for the Khmer Rouge. IIRC Cambodia is the most bombed country in history.
        rumanator 6y ago
        You are jokig, right? I mean, the Vietnam and China-backed communist regime of neighboring Cambodja, who murdered millions implementing the same political reforms that killed millions in communist China, is only guilty of crimes against humanity because the US bombed them? Is that your argument?
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        And yet it was Vietnam that overthrew the Khmer Rouge, which was supported by China and the US. The ideology of the Khmer Rouge was very different from that of the Viet Minh. It was an ideology that demonized industry, cities and workers - all very much the opposite of the ideology of the Viet Minh (and of most of the Communist Party of China). It's not for nothing that the Khmer Rouge ideology has been called "Stone-Age Communism."
mirimir 6y ago
> It was a civil war, initiated by the North, in which mostly Vietnamese killed other Vietnamese. No. It was initiated by the South, when it refused (with US support) to participate in a national UN-monitored election, which Ho Chi Minh would likely have won. Edit: Statement of Eisenhower, from Wikipedia:[0] > I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bảo Đại. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bảo Đại was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
- peteretep 6y ago
  > No. It was initiated by the South, when it refused (with US support) to participate in a national UN-monitored election Hostilities were initiated by the North in the form of a guerrilla war.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    Some years before the war started, the factions that became the North (majority) and South (minority) participated in negotiations at Geneva. The deal stipulated national elections, with interim partition (North and South) after a delay to allow migration. But the South faction, realizing that it would lose, declined to participate. And that's what precipitated the conflict. It's crucial to keep in mind that it was the North faction that had been fighting for independence from France. And that the South Faction comprised largely the colonial bureaucracy and Catholics.

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.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > 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. Have you ever heard of the Khmer rouge in Cambodja, and how north Vietnam played a fundamental role establishing it?
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      You also have to factor in how much the US bombing of Cambodia led to the conditions ripe for the Khmer Rouge. IIRC Cambodia is the most bombed country in history.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        You are jokig, right? I mean, the Vietnam and China-backed communist regime of neighboring Cambodja, who murdered millions implementing the same political reforms that killed millions in communist China, is only guilty of crimes against humanity because the US bombed them? Is that your argument?
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        And yet it was Vietnam that overthrew the Khmer Rouge, which was supported by China and the US. The ideology of the Khmer Rouge was very different from that of the Viet Minh. It was an ideology that demonized industry, cities and workers - all very much the opposite of the ideology of the Viet Minh (and of most of the Communist Party of China). It's not for nothing that the Khmer Rouge ideology has been called "Stone-Age Communism."

mirimir 6y ago

> It was a civil war, initiated by the North, in which mostly Vietnamese killed other Vietnamese. No. It was initiated by the South, when it refused (with US support) to participate in a national UN-monitored election, which Ho Chi Minh would likely have won. Edit: Statement of Eisenhower, from Wikipedia:[0] > I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly eighty percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bảo Đại. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bảo Đại was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

peteretep 6y ago
> No. It was initiated by the South, when it refused (with US support) to participate in a national UN-monitored election Hostilities were initiated by the North in the form of a guerrilla war.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Some years before the war started, the factions that became the North (majority) and South (minority) participated in negotiations at Geneva. The deal stipulated national elections, with interim partition (North and South) after a delay to allow migration. But the South faction, realizing that it would lose, declined to participate. And that's what precipitated the conflict. It's crucial to keep in mind that it was the North faction that had been fighting for independence from France. And that the South Faction comprised largely the colonial bureaucracy and Catholics.