Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We lost the war, but we did wipe out a great deal of Communists and at the end of the day, that is a good thing. Today, Vietnam is moving more towards a free market economy with more political freedom and once the few remaining hard core communists die off, Vietnam will be a much better country.
I would have sided with anyone that would promise a better life for my family and myself. In both Cuba and Vietnam, that meant hundreds of thousands of middle class families fleeing the country once the communist took power. For the poor, Ho and Fidel promissed prosperity, and failed. The poor remained poor, the only difference is they also made the rich poor except for the small group of leaders of the countries. Ho (or his followers after his death) and Fidel however retained power with all the brutal means at their disposal so as to quench any possible additional reveloution once the poor realized the Townsend cry of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
But it's ironic that Vietnam didn't improve due to revolution, but evolution. Ho is dead and his revolution died a decade or so after him, Fidel lives on - and so does Cuba's poverty. North Korea and Cuba are the only remnants left on this planet of the failed communist model. Once Fidel dies, lets hope that Cuba can evolve as well. North Korea, well I guess they will remain to live as a stone age country with nukes.
I didn't ask you what, in retrospect, you now think would have been the most advantageous thing to have done knowing what you know now, given all the benefits of an American-style education and plenty of erudite scholars to analyze the outcome for you with the advantage of hindsight. I asked what, had you been an illiterate rice paddy planter with your children dying with a 50% infant mortality rate, with little knowledge of the outside world (except the dreaded French), would you have done.
I don't know where you get your strange ideas about Cuba. By nearly every global measure of wellbeing, the average Cuban is better of than his counterpart in several free-market Latin American countries. Yes, their public transportation and public utilites range from non-existent to shoddy, but they are decently fed and housed, with good medical care and education for everyone. Which a lot of people in dire poverty in dozens of capitalist countries would only dream to emulate. Go to almost any capitalist country in Africa, and then go to Cuba, and come back and report to us on poverty. The poorest people in Cuba are several times as well off as even the median in Africa. And living in less fear for their own safety.
I didn't ask you what, in retrospect, you now think would have been the most advantageous thing to have done knowing what you know now, given all the benefits of an American-style education and plenty of erudite scholars to analyze the outcome for you. I asked what, had you been an illiterate rice paddy planter with your children dying with a 50% infant mortality rate, with little knowledge of the outside world (except the dreaded French), would you have done.
I did in my first sentence. Given the situation I may have indeed taken up arms against my imperialistic oppressors. But the situation was not the same for all the poor vietnamese, some sided with their Republic of Vietnam government. Some actually were won over with the attempts at "the hearts in minds" of the population. Maybe I saw a flash of the oppurtunity that could be, maybe I was fed and clothed by Americans.
But most likely, I would have been too busy working in rice paddies and feeding my family, was too cynical to beleive anyone could improve my way of life, and didn't care who was in charge and would be pissed at both sides for disrupting my life with war..and lets face it, the VietCong and the north brought war to them, to the south. They were the agressors and the one who brought war. Who knows.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
You and Jane Fonda I guess.
The Vietnamese communist government of today is not the Vietnames communist government of the mid-70s. You can hardly compare the two - after the south was overrun, hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese left the country in bathtubs (many drowned) to escape certain execution, hundreds of thousands more were sent to "re-education camps" to face torture, starvation, and brainwashing, the Peoples Republic of Vietnam underwent another decade of wars with it's neighbors, and the economy collapsed under the burden of the communist economic policies.
Then came the free trade reforms in the late 80's and the removal of the old guard/Ho Chi Mihn cronies. In a sense, capitalism did win the war in the end. It only took 3 decades. You can hardly label the government as communist anymore.
But, read a bit about vietnam re-education camps before you say something like "they didn't seem to bad". Bet you wear a Che tshirt as well (because nothing says "hip" like commemerating a massmurderer).
That's true, Vietnam seems like one of the most capitalist countries I've been to, same with China. It seems it's only 'Communism' in terms of government control of people's lives, but I wonder how communist it really is in terms of the economic system of the country. I guess Ho and the communists aren't as innocent as I once believed, but I still see the war as another example of American self-serving, imperialist, anti-communist designs. I'm not a communist myself, although I do tend towards the socialist model of a free-market economy, but I do think the Americans should have just let the Vietnamese sort it out. If I had to choose a 'side' I suppose I sympathised more with the Viet Minh, although it's true they used force to gain the support of the people.
Che had some admirable principles but I don't admire what he did. I think a lot of people who wear his T-shirts do so to appear cool, and really like others have said it's the antithesis of all he believed in. I suppose one good thing Vietnam did after the war was to defeat the regime of Pol Pot (albeit after the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge invaded southern Vietnam). Maybe it's because you don't hear about communist atrocities in Vietnam as much as those in the Soviet Union and China.
While both sides were responsible for many atrocities, and the war itself was a total waste and a travesty, I think I probably side more with the North Vietnamese Communists/Vietcong whatever. The Vietnamese socialist government doesn't seem too bad, although I'm not sure what it's like to actually live there (I've only visited), at least not as bad as what Mao and the Communists in China did. I'm not really a Communist but I think it was paranoia about their own situation/the reds that America went into Vietnam. What they did to the country/people is criminal, as well as their own American citizens, and the fact that they basically left the country in ruins.
I'm not American, although Australian troops also fought in Vietnam, but I'm glad the Viet Minh 'won' the war, or the Americans didn't succeed in getting their puppet government into power. The fact they hypocritically supported the French colonialists also shows they didn't really care about giving the Vietnamese people freedom.
So you're telling me that in the early 60's, less than 20 years after the US Marines saved Australia from being overrun by the Japanese you would have sided with the Vietcong over America?
I highly doubt it and I would be certain you wouldn't have voiced your Vietcong support very loudly among your Australian peers.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
So you're telling me that in the early 60's, less than 20 years after the US Marines saved Australia from being overrun by the Japanese you would have sided with the Vietcong over America?
I highly doubt it and I would be certain you wouldn't have voiced your Vietcong support very loudly among your Australian peers.
Well like in America public opinion turned against the War. We too had national service and a draft to send troops to Vietnam, although numbers per capita weren't as high per capita. I am grateful for America's help in WW2 but that doesn't mean I would have supported everything they did, wrong or right.
I guess Ho and the communists aren't as innocent as I once believed, but I still see the war as another example of American self-serving, imperialist, anti-communist designs.
I don't see the Vietnam War as "American self-serving, imperialist," but agree with the anti-communist. The U.S. was so caught up with the anti-communist ideology that nothing else mattered. Kennedy, Johnson and many others firmly believed in the domino theory and neither wanted to be the president who lost the first domino. There was nothing self serving or imperialist about it. The U.S. did not want to replace the French and would not have got involved in Vietnam except for the belief in the domino theory.
As is often said, 'the first casualty of war is truth.' Most Americans bought into President Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incident story as the casus belli for the Vietnam war. As time wore on many Americans became disaffected toward the war, especially after such notables as Walter Cronkite began to question its validity and direction.
Richard Nixon came into office in 1969 with a promise for a quick end to the war, albeit "peace with honor." However, Nixon escalated the war with saturation bombings of North Vietnam and Cambodia. Besides the massive public protests, the killing of four students and wounding of nine others at Kent State made a strong impact on public opinion.
To answer the OP's question, I doubt that many Americans sided then or today with North Vietnam. Most just wanted a resolution to a senseless and seemingly endless conflict that took too many lives on both sides.
Well like in America public opinion turned against the War. We too had national service and a draft to send troops to Vietnam, although numbers per capita weren't as high per capita. I am grateful for America's help in WW2 but that doesn't mean I would have supported everything they did, wrong or right.
I always believed that only people who had volunteered for service should be sent to Vietnam. That would have deflated the anti-war movement just as it does now. The first thing would have been to pay enlistees twice what conscripts got. Second would have been to stop promotions above E-4 outside of Vietnam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
