Hindsight clarifies that Vietnam was a really bad war

[Puppycow]

Current events hook:
Vietnam, US hold first ever defense talks

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) - Former foes Vietnam and the United States held their first ever defense talks on Tuesday, which a senior U.S. official called extremely productive and successful.

"I was struck by the open and frank discussions that we were able to have even though this is the first time that this dialogue was held," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher told a joint news conference with Vietnamese Vice Defense Minister Nguyen Chi Vinh.

The talks came as the two countries celebrate the 15th anniversary of their normalization of relations after being enemies in the Vietnam War. Last week, an American warship, the USS John S. McCain, docked in Vietnam and the two navies conducted training exercises - a sign of growing military ties.

"This dialogue ... represents the next significant, historic step in our increasingly robust defense relationship which is based on mutual trust, understanding and respect for independence and sovereignty," Scher said.

He said the two sides talked about how they could better cooperate in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, search and rescue, international peacekeeping and maritime security.

"I continued to be struck by the commonality of approach that our two countries share and the amount of cooperation that we have been able to achieve in a very short amount of time," Scher said.

A few comments about the war and subsequent history:

Hindsight clarifies that the side we were helping was the bad guys. It might have been an honest mistake, but it is true nonetheless. I mean, these were people who admired Hitler and tried to emulate him.

And the people we were fighting against didn't turn out so bad in the long run, did they? Else we wouldn't be having such good relations now, would we? Unlike with North Korea. After we left Vietnam, the North Vietnamese fought against the Khmer Rouge (unambigously bad guys) and against Mao, also a bad guy.

The war ended the Cambodian genocide from 1975–1979 under the rule of Pol Pot.

Also, Nixon was a real bastard

And before any smartass asks, no I do not hate America.

Discuss.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

First off, South Korea was also a pretty nasty state. Should the US have given them to Kim Il Sung's Democratic People's Republic by your logic? As well as that, the Pentagon papers note that contemporary (c. 1950s-60s) North Vietnam was (and i think it still is) a totalitarian state. Ever hear of the various purges the Communists did?

And the North Vietnamese did arm the Khmer Rouge and help them into power. They only removed Pol Pot because of Moscow/Beijing cajoling for influence. That, and there had been border skirmishes.

If Hitler won WW2, would Nazi Germnay have turned out so bad in the long run?

 

[HansMustermann]

I dunno, but for a country proclaiming it was doing everything for democracy, the USA sure propped some nasty dictatorships all over the place at the time.

E.g., since you mention South Korea, I'm not even talking about giving it to the North, but even FFS allowing elections. The US occupied South Korea was saddled with a dictator who didn't particularly much understand the country or cared about it. He was a former royal prince and basically acted like one. Under the pretense of "removing communism" (which the USA funded generously) he actually started removing everyone who opposed his personal rule. As late as 1960 the guy actually was arresting opposing members of the parliament (!!!), and, yes, majorly rigged "elections" so he would win. South Korea actually _revolted_ against him in 1960, which is when his rule finally ended.

Before worrying that a country might elect the communists, perhaps a good first step would have been to not give them reasons to like the communists more. You know what I mean?

In South Vietnam the story was even bleaker. Diem didn't even bother rigging elections, but flat out proclaimed that since his delegation wasn't at the Geneva convention, he doesn't have to abide by it. That included holding elections. So, natch, he's a dictator and what are you going to do about it?

And, yes, he was an overt admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, and modelled his secret police and torture techniques after the Gestapo. Literally. And yes, he was big on torture.

Meanwhile the USA was hailing him as "leader of the free world" for his fanatical anti-communism. Free world my ***.

Diem established a thoroughly corrupt government, where basically he siphoned funds and power to his own family.

Also, unlike the guy in Korea, he didn't just eliminate his political opponents. He actually proceeded to try to impose Catholicism upon Vietnam too, and used the secret police -- funded and trained by the USA -- to hunt down buddhist monks and the like.

That guy alone is a major reason why so most Vietnamese even in the South would have preferred the commies over the USA-backed "democracy". (Well, "democracy" without actual elections, freedom, or the other silly western stuff)

So, dunno, even if you don't want to give the country to the commies, FFS, at least don't give it to a wannabe Hitler imitator either. There are nuances, you know?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I dont deny that Diem was a [insert diatribe full of rule 10 breaches].

And Diem did win a referendum against Bao Dai, albeit it was rigged. The Election you are referring to was the 1955 plebiscite on the status of Vietnam. The US and Vietnam refused to participate because the North was a totalitarian state (and probably worse than South Vietnam) and would NEVER have allowed a free and fair election. Indeed, they instituted torture as official policy and had just been undergoing purges as General Giap would speak about later. However, it was Diem's brother who admired hitler IIRC.

The US did support Stalin against Hitler. Did that nullify us claims to be a defender of freedom and democracy? Heck they even whitewashed the molotov ribbentrop pact , a clear conspiracy to commit aggression, and the Katyn Dorest Massacre as well as the Gulags. As well as that, they screwed over Poland. By your logic, the us should have allowed Hitler to rampage in the Eastern Front.

Oh right, what the communists did was in the name of the revolution

 

[Zep]

On a more general note, perhaps anyone can point out any war that was a "really good" one for comparison...? All wars are "really bad".

Back to the plot!

The US and the west fought a war against Germany and the Axis powers, who were led by some of the most desperate fascist dictators in known history. One of the winning side, an ally, was also a fascist dictator of similar paranoia and predilections to the vanquished.

At the end of that outrageously awful war, the erstwhile ally became the new foe, and the victors promptly started helping revive the defeated nation's fortunes as a bulwark against them. The world in 1949 was a lot different than in 1945, barely 4 years previously.

The point? Time is what makes the difference. Vietnam is nothing like what it was in the 1960's and 70's. Diem is long gone, no-one remembers him or cares. It is long overdue to make these positive moves. Kudos to all concerned.

 

[HansMustermann]

I dont deny that Diem was a [insert diatribe full of rule 10 breaches].

And Diem did win a referendum against Bao Dai, albeit it was rigged. The Election you are referring to was the 1955 plebiscite on the status of Vietnam. The US and Vietnam refused to participate because the North was a totalitarian state (and probably worse than South Vietnam) and would NEVER have allowed a free and fair election. Indeed, they instituted torture as official policy and had just been undergoing purges as General Giap would speak about later. However, it was Diem's brother who admired hitler IIRC.

The US did support Stalin against Hitler. Did that nullify us claims to be a defender of freedom and democracy? Heck they even whitewashed the molotov ribbentrop pact , a clear conspiracy to commit aggression, and the Katyn Dorest Massacre as well as the Gulags. As well as that, they screwed over Poland. By your logic, the us should have allowed Hitler to rampage in the Eastern Front.

Oh right, what the communists did was in the name of the revolution

Just a hint: when using "by your logic" make sure I actually used that logic, and it's not just your idiotic straw man. Just something to think about.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

You were saying that the US shouldnt have supported Diem. However, unfortunately in the context of vietnam, he was the best of a really bad bunch which included the communists. I was applying Us Support of Stalin as an analogy.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In Korea this frozen energy exploded
When the US waged war of agression in UN direction
It was clear evidence of what had become of the UN
In spite of all the beautiful words, written and spoken
That the US had installed the terrorist Synghman Ree
The people in Korea should never have meddled with
As big brother says, so shall it be
Whoever is starving can torture until he feels free

*hums*

*Runs*

 

[NWO Sentryman]

(we need a WTF smiley like on Spacebattles)
Mantrid, is that you?

First off, Kim Il Sung invaded the south in a blatant conquest attempt in a conspiracy with mao and an albeit reluctant Stalin. It was because of Stalin's abstention from the UN that allowed the US to lead a multinational force under General MacArthur to stop im Il Sung.

 

[HansMustermann]

You were saying that the US shouldnt have supported Diem. However, unfortunately in the context of vietnam, he was the best of a really bad bunch which included the communists. I was applying Us Support of Stalin as an analogy.

I also pretty explicitly said that it wasn't a dichotomy between supporting Diem or giving it to the communists. There were a few million Vietnamese to choose from.

Plus, the analogy with Stalin is a piss-poor one anyway. In the case of Stalin, all that happened was accepting the help of a totalitarian country as an ally. Sometimes you don't have much choice of allies. But the USA never was in a position to help Stalin suppress the internal opposition, nor to help him suppress elections, nor to help him stay in power. Hence it's not an analogy at all with training Diem's secret police to torture buddhist monks and disidents.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What about the US giving Stalin tanks, planes weaponry etc? The US practically propped up his regime with BILLIONS of USD in aid. Had they not done so, the USSR could have fallen to the Third Reich.

As for an alternative to Diem, you canot handpick a layman off the streets to lead a country, especially one that is undergoing terrorist attacks that are being supported by the country's enemies. The US didnt have much to run on.

I guess North Vietnam is Best Vietnam.

 

[HansMustermann]

The analogy is still a crap one. With the USSR, the USA was simply helping an ally during a war against the same enemy. The USA never trained Stalin's secret police the way it trained Diem's, nor was ever in a position to dictate whether the USSR has elections or not, and sure as heck wasn't hailing Stalin as a defender of democracy.

Technically, the USA never even cared exactly which regime is on top of of the USSR, as long as it keeps fighting Germany and promises to help against Japan afterwards. It could have been the communists, fascists, the old czarist regime or anyone else. They never propped any particular government against its own population.

Basically can you address the actual problem, or are such BS strawmen the best you can do?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

what about the deportation of the Tartars, the Kalmyks and other minorities? Im pretty sure lend lease equipment was used to enable those.

And cough cough uncle joe cough cough.

eisenhower and Kennedy knew that democracy doesnt come overnight after removing a strongman. They were willing to accomodate Diem to a point where they decided to get rid of him.

 

[HansMustermann]

The real point is that the USA didn't pretend they're defending the USSR democracy from Nazism, the way they pretending to save Vietnamese democracy from the commies. The whole focus in WW2 and most of the Lend-Lease rhethoric was basically "let's give some people weapons so they can defend _us_".

So basically, what, you found a non-sequitur too?

 

[Corsair 115]

I've heard the U.S. rationale for allying with some rather unsavoury folks during the Cold War described this way:

"He may be an S.O.B. but he's our S.O.B."

In other words, what mattered more than being an S.O.B. was which side that S.O.B. supported.

 

[TraneWreck]

I've heard the U.S. rationale for allying with some rather unsavoury folks during the Cold War described this way:

"He may be an S.O.B. but he's our S.O.B."

In other words, what mattered more than being an S.O.B. was which side that S.O.B. supported.

Which inevitably turns out to be a bad idea.

Some of our "S.O.B.'s":

Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Diem...

I think the lesson is to avoid supporting SOB's.

 

[Segnosaur]

In other words, what mattered more than being an S.O.B. was which side that S.O.B. supported.

Which inevitably turns out to be a bad idea.

Outside of the ability to time travel or visit alternate dimensions, there's no way to know for sure whether supporting a right wing dictator really is worse than supporting a left wing dictator.

Some of our "S.O.B.'s":

Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Diem...

While the Pinochet government was quite abusive to its citizens, the worst came at the beginning. (And he did leave power voluntarily).

Hussein was far from "America's S.O.B.". Other than some U.S. support during its war with Iran, Hussein was closer to Russia than America.

Diem was not a good guy, but neither were the communists. We have no idea if human rights would have improved (before or after Diem's death) had the North not won, but we do know that the North engaged in some pretty brutal tactics after the war.

 

[TraneWreck]

Outside of the ability to time travel or visit alternate dimensions, there's no way to know for sure whether supporting a right wing dictator really is worse than supporting a left wing dictator.

While the Pinochet government was quite abusive to its citizens, the worst came at the beginning. (And he did leave power voluntarily).

Hussein was far from "America's S.O.B.". Other than some U.S. support during its war with Iran, Hussein was closer to Russia than America.

Diem was not a good guy, but neither were the communists. We have no idea if human rights would have improved (before or after Diem's death) had the North not won, but we do know that the North engaged in some pretty brutal tactics after the war.

Well, not to derail this into minutae, but we gave quite a lot of support to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Because Iran had recently deposed one of our other SOB's, the Shah, our support was real and substantial. Remember the smiling photos of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand.

Pinochet was REALLY bad at the beginning. I'm not sure how that makes things better or worse. We supported him from the beginning.

The worst case scenario for withholding support for Diem would have been what ended up happening: the North launches a war against the South and wins. We don't have to imagine possible alternatives. All we managed to do was participate in a fiasco that destroyed millions of lives in SE Asia and almost unraveled American society. I'm curious what benefit came from our involvement in Vietnam.

My major point, though, was that picking between two horrible sides will inevitably lead to a horrible conclusion. Unless there's a very, very necessary reason, like teaming with Stalin to defeat Hitler, history has shown that bedding with thugs will not lead to good outcomes.

Eisenhower's dealings with Nasser should serve as the model. He stopped the Europeans from invading and basically isolated Egypt. Egypt went from the leader of the pan-Arab opposition against Israel to the first country to sign a peace treaty.

We could have chosen some thug to lead the opposition against Nasser (like Eisenhower unfortunately did in Iran), but we chose to contain. The result was very positive.

I'm trying to think of a similarly positive result from backing a dictator. Perhaps someone can offer such a scenario.

 

[Loss Leader]

Also, Nixon was a real bastard

As a hard-left, lifelong Democrat, I have to admit that the real mistakes of Vietnam were hardly Nixon's. It was Kennedy who supported Diem after the provisional government canceled elections and basically declared itself a dictatorship. That, to me, was the defining moment of bad judgment in Vietnam.

Nixon's handling of the war was, if anything, fairly pragmatic. We knew the North was cutting in and out of Cambodia to avoid us. Taking the fight there was logical. Refusing to acknowledge it publicly was a little silly. But I'd say that Nixon was probably the best President who handled the war - with Ford second, Kennedy third and LBJ dead last.

 

[Loss Leader]

Outside of the ability to time travel or visit alternate dimensions, there's no way to know for sure whether supporting a right wing dictator really is worse than supporting a left wing dictator.

There is also the lesser-known third option of not supporting either of them.