7 ms·

I have a passion for history. I love reading biographies and hanging out on history forums. As we're getting to the 50-year mark past the American involvement

I have a passion for history. I love reading biographies and hanging out on history forums. As we're getting to the 50-year mark past the American involvement in Vietnam, things are progressing in ways not anticipated at the time. Vietnam, like several other Asian countries, is embracing capitalism and entrepreneurs. Old enemies hug and pose for photographs. This seems to be a pattern, at least among American conflicts (I have not studied others very much). As the combatants grow into old age, it's not worth carrying a grudge around. Things that were worth dying and killing for 50 years ago are still important, but they're fights for young people. It becomes easier to see things from the other side. I'd argue that by simply having a huge presence of Americans in Vietnam for so many years, the two countries have become joined for the next century or so, much the same as having kids in a marriage joins the two partners together even if they can't stand one another. I also note that things may end up turning out better for Vietnam in terms of economic development than if South Vietnam had won the war -- which would have only institutionalized worse corruption than they currently have. This is all speculative, of course, but I seriously doubt anybody in the mid-70s would have guessed that this is where we'd all be 40 years later. It's been an interesting journey for both countries.

sillygeese 11y ago
> Things that were worth dying and killing for 50 years ago are still important, but they're fights for young people. So what was behind the Vietnam War that was worth dying and killing for? What would you have died and killed for, when young?
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  At the time, there was an existential struggle going on between Soviet Union and Europe/US. Vietnam war was ultimately the wrong turn in that struggle, but it was far less obviously wrong at the time.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    The so-called "domino theory" hypothesized that Communism could be modeled as a sort of ideological contagion. If one country became Communist, its neighbors were more likely to become Communist. So if left unchecked, Communism would spread throughout the world in a giant, red wave, leaving America as the last remaining bastion of freedom in the whole universe. This theory was given additional credence because apparently, the Communists believed in it, too. Well, it turns out that theory was just so much hot air.
    - vasilipupkin 11y ago
      yes. But it wasn't obvious at the time. Part of the reason it turned out to be hot air, because communists failed to execute on this strategy, at least in part because they had to fight against non communists. It was a dynamic system, not a static one
    - mafribe 11y ago
      In what sense was it hot air? Saloth Sar (better known as Pol Pot), radicalised by the French communist party, trained in Moscow, Belgrade and Beijing, took over neighbouring Cambodia, aided by the communists in Hanoi. Indeed the Cambodian Communist party was an offshoot of Viet Nam's People's Army (the armed forces of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam). The domino theory was a good one, because, as you point out yourself, it described the explicit modus operandi of the communists. Where it failed, it failed primarily because the communists received serious pushback.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        It failed because the "domino" states represented an additional support burden on the Communist core states of Russia and China, who were themselves split ideologically. The Cold War basically prevented some internal conflict within the Communist Bloc by providing an external menace and scapegoat. But it was also economic warfare, turning what would have been a shooting war into another kind of money-spending contest. Rather than building momentum, additional satellite nations just stressed the central powers economically. In theory, it would have been a self-supporting revolution, but in practice, it looked like just another overextended empire. But it's too easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight. They had no way of knowing back then the typical failure modes of Communist nations. My hypothesis is that a better anti-Communist strategy would have been for the non-Communist nations to offer generous asylum/refugee-based immigration programs to those fleeing from the threat of Communist rebels in their home countries. Aside from that, stay out of the internal politics of the Communist bloc. Sadly, this is now untestable, so nobody should give it more than a few moments of light consideration.
- user_0001 11y ago
  Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force? Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force? I think most people would see that as a valid reason to kill and die for. Hell, said aggressive, invading force even convinced their young it was worth to go kill and die to do the invading, should be a piece of cake to convince those being attacked
  - sillygeese 11y ago
    I meant that from the American perspective, but alright. > Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force? And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for? > Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force? How about just going for the dictators specifically? The Vietnamese people declaring that they will kill any dictator the US installs there might have done the trick, as opposed to dying by the millions fighting the vastly superior American military. But it's not that simple either. Think of something like North-Korea. Any sane person there sees that what's going on is totally. fucking. fucked. up. But even if someone thinks freeing people from the insanity there is worth dying for, what if his death didn't actually result in the insanity ending? .. Fear, is sadly what keeps mass-murdering tyrannical regimes in power.
    - ionised 11y ago
      > And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for? Rich old men back home.
      - sillygeese 11y ago
        Yes, or more accurately: the psychopath rulers and their cronies back home. That's what I've been getting at, as you probably gathered. In other words, ordinary people don't actually have a good reason to die and kill for X in a war, because X is always rulers and wars are always about their personal gain at the expense of countless ordinary people.
dccoolgai 11y ago
>>This seems to be a pattern, at least among American conflicts (I have not studied others very much). As the combatants grow into old age, it's not worth carrying a grudge around. If you've ever been to Serbia/Croatia/Montenegro this is evident - to the point of being a little bit weird. You see the former combatants doing business and living next to one another and it's hard to believe that less than 15 years ago they were roaming around in paramilitary groups murdering each other. Going to Belgrade as an American, I expected at least a little bit of animosity...considering you could still see strafing/bombing damage from American bombs in certain parts of the city... No one cared - and Belgrade seemed to be doing pretty well. It was bizarre. But damn beautiful place - would recommend Belgrade, St. Stephan in Montenegro (actually, don't go there...you will ruin it) and Dubrovnik.
- Maultasche 11y ago
  I was in Belgrade in 1999 about five days before the US started bombing the place. The people there were very friendly to me, even when they knew I was an American. The border guards sure scrutinized me and my passport (I had a transit visa), but they didn't give me any trouble other than that. One of my more memorable experiences was visiting Tito's mausoleum. It was very quiet and I was the only person there. I got the impression that nobody was interested in visiting Tito anymore. The elderly security guard there was very happy to seem me and he talked to me in rudimentary German, the only language we had in common. As a gift he gave me some book discussing some Yugoslavian communist party conference back in the 60s with an English translation. Nice guy. I was traveling from Sarajevo (a sad city at the time) on a bus through the Serbian part of Bosnia, and I was a little nervous about that. There were no problems though. Our bus did break down in a snowstorm and we were stuck there next to the road for about six hours, so I had plenty of time to talk to the other passengers (all Serbian as far as I could tell). They were either friendly or didn't pay attention to me, probably because most didn't speak any language I knew. A couple in front of me on that bus were telling me that they heard that the Americans were about to bomb Belgrade at any moment. There was no animosity toward me personally, though: they were friendly people. I thought that was nonsense because the news had been talking about that for months and nothing seemed to be coming out of it. It turned out that in the few weeks I'd been traveling that things had gotten much more serious. I might have reconsidered traveling through Serbia if I knew things had gotten that serious. I saw a newspaper in Greek a few days after I left the country showing Belgrade and pictures of stealth bombers. I knew then that the people I was talking to had been right. I haven't been to that region since that time, but I'd love to go again. I have lots of memories of friendly people.

sillygeese 11y ago

> Things that were worth dying and killing for 50 years ago are still important, but they're fights for young people. So what was behind the Vietnam War that was worth dying and killing for? What would you have died and killed for, when young?

vasilipupkin 11y ago
At the time, there was an existential struggle going on between Soviet Union and Europe/US. Vietnam war was ultimately the wrong turn in that struggle, but it was far less obviously wrong at the time.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The so-called "domino theory" hypothesized that Communism could be modeled as a sort of ideological contagion. If one country became Communist, its neighbors were more likely to become Communist. So if left unchecked, Communism would spread throughout the world in a giant, red wave, leaving America as the last remaining bastion of freedom in the whole universe. This theory was given additional credence because apparently, the Communists believed in it, too. Well, it turns out that theory was just so much hot air.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    yes. But it wasn't obvious at the time. Part of the reason it turned out to be hot air, because communists failed to execute on this strategy, at least in part because they had to fight against non communists. It was a dynamic system, not a static one
  - mafribe 11y ago
    In what sense was it hot air? Saloth Sar (better known as Pol Pot), radicalised by the French communist party, trained in Moscow, Belgrade and Beijing, took over neighbouring Cambodia, aided by the communists in Hanoi. Indeed the Cambodian Communist party was an offshoot of Viet Nam's People's Army (the armed forces of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam). The domino theory was a good one, because, as you point out yourself, it described the explicit modus operandi of the communists. Where it failed, it failed primarily because the communists received serious pushback.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      It failed because the "domino" states represented an additional support burden on the Communist core states of Russia and China, who were themselves split ideologically. The Cold War basically prevented some internal conflict within the Communist Bloc by providing an external menace and scapegoat. But it was also economic warfare, turning what would have been a shooting war into another kind of money-spending contest. Rather than building momentum, additional satellite nations just stressed the central powers economically. In theory, it would have been a self-supporting revolution, but in practice, it looked like just another overextended empire. But it's too easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight. They had no way of knowing back then the typical failure modes of Communist nations. My hypothesis is that a better anti-Communist strategy would have been for the non-Communist nations to offer generous asylum/refugee-based immigration programs to those fleeing from the threat of Communist rebels in their home countries. Aside from that, stay out of the internal politics of the Communist bloc. Sadly, this is now untestable, so nobody should give it more than a few moments of light consideration.
user_0001 11y ago
Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force? Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force? I think most people would see that as a valid reason to kill and die for. Hell, said aggressive, invading force even convinced their young it was worth to go kill and die to do the invading, should be a piece of cake to convince those being attacked
- sillygeese 11y ago
  I meant that from the American perspective, but alright. > Protecting your country, friends and family from an aggressive, invading force? And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for? > Ridding your country of a brutal, corrupt puppet dictatorship propped up by said aggressive, invading force? How about just going for the dictators specifically? The Vietnamese people declaring that they will kill any dictator the US installs there might have done the trick, as opposed to dying by the millions fighting the vastly superior American military. But it's not that simple either. Think of something like North-Korea. Any sane person there sees that what's going on is totally. fucking. fucked. up. But even if someone thinks freeing people from the insanity there is worth dying for, what if his death didn't actually result in the insanity ending? .. Fear, is sadly what keeps mass-murdering tyrannical regimes in power.
  - ionised 11y ago
    > And on the invaders' side? What exactly were the American soldiers dying and killing for? Rich old men back home.
    - sillygeese 11y ago
      Yes, or more accurately: the psychopath rulers and their cronies back home. That's what I've been getting at, as you probably gathered. In other words, ordinary people don't actually have a good reason to die and kill for X in a war, because X is always rulers and wars are always about their personal gain at the expense of countless ordinary people.

dccoolgai 11y ago

>>This seems to be a pattern, at least among American conflicts (I have not studied others very much). As the combatants grow into old age, it's not worth carrying a grudge around. If you've ever been to Serbia/Croatia/Montenegro this is evident - to the point of being a little bit weird. You see the former combatants doing business and living next to one another and it's hard to believe that less than 15 years ago they were roaming around in paramilitary groups murdering each other. Going to Belgrade as an American, I expected at least a little bit of animosity...considering you could still see strafing/bombing damage from American bombs in certain parts of the city... No one cared - and Belgrade seemed to be doing pretty well. It was bizarre. But damn beautiful place - would recommend Belgrade, St. Stephan in Montenegro (actually, don't go there...you will ruin it) and Dubrovnik.

Maultasche 11y ago
I was in Belgrade in 1999 about five days before the US started bombing the place. The people there were very friendly to me, even when they knew I was an American. The border guards sure scrutinized me and my passport (I had a transit visa), but they didn't give me any trouble other than that. One of my more memorable experiences was visiting Tito's mausoleum. It was very quiet and I was the only person there. I got the impression that nobody was interested in visiting Tito anymore. The elderly security guard there was very happy to seem me and he talked to me in rudimentary German, the only language we had in common. As a gift he gave me some book discussing some Yugoslavian communist party conference back in the 60s with an English translation. Nice guy. I was traveling from Sarajevo (a sad city at the time) on a bus through the Serbian part of Bosnia, and I was a little nervous about that. There were no problems though. Our bus did break down in a snowstorm and we were stuck there next to the road for about six hours, so I had plenty of time to talk to the other passengers (all Serbian as far as I could tell). They were either friendly or didn't pay attention to me, probably because most didn't speak any language I knew. A couple in front of me on that bus were telling me that they heard that the Americans were about to bomb Belgrade at any moment. There was no animosity toward me personally, though: they were friendly people. I thought that was nonsense because the news had been talking about that for months and nothing seemed to be coming out of it. It turned out that in the few weeks I'd been traveling that things had gotten much more serious. I might have reconsidered traveling through Serbia if I knew things had gotten that serious. I saw a newspaper in Greek a few days after I left the country showing Belgrade and pictures of stealth bombers. I knew then that the people I was talking to had been right. I haven't been to that region since that time, but I'd love to go again. I have lots of memories of friendly people.