5 ms·

The people of North Vietnam beat the people of South Vietnam, with heavy American (and Chinese and Russian) intervention. There were "baddies" on every side: h

by _9xrb 4y ago

The people of North Vietnam beat the people of South Vietnam, with heavy American (and Chinese and Russian) intervention. There were "baddies" on every side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF The communist single-party government of Vietnam refuses to acknowledge the Hue Massacre, and persecutes Vietnamese who speak out about it: >The Vietnamese government still does not acknowledge that a massacre took place and does not allow any public dissent from this position. War is complicated. The Vietnam War is extremely complicated. It is good that America can face up to the crimes committed in that war by its soldiers. I hope one day the Communist Party of Vietnam can do the same.

emptyparadise 4y ago
Please be careful with this line of thought as it can slide into whataboutism really quickly.
Aloha 4y ago
It'll take all the warriors from that war dying, that's the first step. You're right about Vietnam tho, it was a very complex war. They thought they were fighting for freedom, we thought we were fighting communism. Perhaps if South Vietnam was less corrupt.. wishful thinking. In the end - no one comes away with clean hands from war. No one.
sofixa 4y ago
There were "baddies" on every side, but one side was the morally "rightest" - the ones fighting for their freedom and independence (aka North Vietnam, the communists). All the rest were colonial powers trying to force a corrupt puppet state which had nothing positive going for it other than being against the communists. So, motives-wise for war crimes, I'd take "freedom (not individual, for the country and peoples) and independence" over any of the reasons why France, the US or China were there. Still war crimes, still needed to be tried, but nobody did that anyways in that war, so all else being equal the motives "win".
drewcoo 4y ago
"baddies on all sides" gets a downvote from me. At the very most favorable view of that sentiment, it's true. Completely true. In the least favorable light, this post is trying to play down something else without evidence. Thus it's some trolling lie.
- _9xrb 4y ago
  Downplaying the conflict's moral depth without evidence is what you did, and why I posted my comment. I happen to know Vietnamese who fled to America as refugees after the war. They don't feel that Americans and South Vietnam were "the baddies", or that communists who invaded the South in the first place and violently suppress(ed) knowledge of things like the Hue Massacre are "the good guys." Many Vietnamese remain divided on these issues. It's complicated. That's the point. If you view attempts at nuance as "trolling lies," you might be a great fit for one-party government.
refurb 4y ago
I’m not sure why HN always falls into black and white thinking. Maybe engineers aren’t good at seeing gray. But your point is true. There are good and bad people on each side of every war. People love to talk about how the South Vietnam government was never democratic and heavily corrupt but never seem to consider the state of the country today in that same light.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  There are good and bad people on each side of every war. This "fact" doesn't justify those wars.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I don't follow the logic. Where did someone argue it did justify those wars?
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      Should USA have gone to war against Vietnam?
      - refurb 4y ago
        Who are you talking to?
        jessaustin 4y ago
        War is terrible. Thus, even "good people" in a voluntary unjustified war on the other side of the planet do terrible things. Emphasizing some unprovable triviality like "I'm sure there were some NVA soldiers who fired several shots at USA troops who wanted to surrender" is just a distraction from the only relevant point. The NVA wouldn't have fired those shots if we hadn't invaded. Whatever they did wrong was LBJ's fault. (Sure, it seems unfair to blame him for going to war, when refusing to do so was the reason his predecessor was killed, but life ain't fair.) The massacre discussed here wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded. None of the bloodshed, whether "good" or "bad", would have happened. "Shades of gray" has no place in a discussion of a developing nation resisting a violent invasion from people they've never threatened on the other side of the planet. When you parrot this lukewarm on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand bullshit, you distract from the basic point: the worst actions of the Vietnamese during USA's invasion of Vietnam were entirely USA's fault. I'm surprised I have to explain this on a forum frequented by adults. Then again, in this thread we see the goofy idea that there are "good people" and "bad people"...

by _9xrb 4y ago

emptyparadise 4y ago

Please be careful with this line of thought as it can slide into whataboutism really quickly.

Aloha 4y ago

It'll take all the warriors from that war dying, that's the first step. You're right about Vietnam tho, it was a very complex war. They thought they were fighting for freedom, we thought we were fighting communism. Perhaps if South Vietnam was less corrupt.. wishful thinking. In the end - no one comes away with clean hands from war. No one.

sofixa 4y ago

There were "baddies" on every side, but one side was the morally "rightest" - the ones fighting for their freedom and independence (aka North Vietnam, the communists). All the rest were colonial powers trying to force a corrupt puppet state which had nothing positive going for it other than being against the communists. So, motives-wise for war crimes, I'd take "freedom (not individual, for the country and peoples) and independence" over any of the reasons why France, the US or China were there. Still war crimes, still needed to be tried, but nobody did that anyways in that war, so all else being equal the motives "win".

drewcoo 4y ago

"baddies on all sides" gets a downvote from me. At the very most favorable view of that sentiment, it's true. Completely true. In the least favorable light, this post is trying to play down something else without evidence. Thus it's some trolling lie.

_9xrb 4y ago
Downplaying the conflict's moral depth without evidence is what you did, and why I posted my comment. I happen to know Vietnamese who fled to America as refugees after the war. They don't feel that Americans and South Vietnam were "the baddies", or that communists who invaded the South in the first place and violently suppress(ed) knowledge of things like the Hue Massacre are "the good guys." Many Vietnamese remain divided on these issues. It's complicated. That's the point. If you view attempts at nuance as "trolling lies," you might be a great fit for one-party government.

refurb 4y ago

I’m not sure why HN always falls into black and white thinking. Maybe engineers aren’t good at seeing gray. But your point is true. There are good and bad people on each side of every war. People love to talk about how the South Vietnam government was never democratic and heavily corrupt but never seem to consider the state of the country today in that same light.

jessaustin 4y ago
There are good and bad people on each side of every war. This "fact" doesn't justify those wars.
- refurb 4y ago
  I don't follow the logic. Where did someone argue it did justify those wars?
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Should USA have gone to war against Vietnam?
    - refurb 4y ago
      Who are you talking to?
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        War is terrible. Thus, even "good people" in a voluntary unjustified war on the other side of the planet do terrible things. Emphasizing some unprovable triviality like "I'm sure there were some NVA soldiers who fired several shots at USA troops who wanted to surrender" is just a distraction from the only relevant point. The NVA wouldn't have fired those shots if we hadn't invaded. Whatever they did wrong was LBJ's fault. (Sure, it seems unfair to blame him for going to war, when refusing to do so was the reason his predecessor was killed, but life ain't fair.) The massacre discussed here wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded. None of the bloodshed, whether "good" or "bad", would have happened. "Shades of gray" has no place in a discussion of a developing nation resisting a violent invasion from people they've never threatened on the other side of the planet. When you parrot this lukewarm on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand bullshit, you distract from the basic point: the worst actions of the Vietnamese during USA's invasion of Vietnam were entirely USA's fault. I'm surprised I have to explain this on a forum frequented by adults. Then again, in this thread we see the goofy idea that there are "good people" and "bad people"...