Hindsight clarifies that Vietnam was a really bad war

[SpuriusMaximus]

I thought it was 400k in his first year and 200k east timorese died according to this website. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

IIRC, while nasty and racist, the Post Arbenz Guatemala was more authoritarian than totalitarian.

Hansmustermann,

you cannot make a country a democracy overnight, and Diem was seen as a temporary solution. Indeed he was nasty and brutal, but what could the US have done? Overthrown him and made it worse, which was exactly what they did. And given that SV was a cesspool of corruption, any elections in the 50s and 60s would have been blatantly rigged, observers or not, and the US knew that.

After Rhee was overthrown, various dictators came to power and SK wasnt democratic until the late 1980s. It was also pretty corrupt, with very little guarantee of free elections until later on.

Actually, you can make it a democracy overnight. You just hold elections. That's what democracy means. It may take longer to get rid of other problems, but democracy is _fairly_ easy.

Of course, what we really had there was the USA so scared that the people might vote for the commies, that they were actually pretty happy to keep Diem in power without elections. Which just made the whole pretense of doing it all for "democracy" just a big exercise in hypocrisy.

Besides, the whole pretense of saving those people from the commies is... well, saving them from what? What was the worst that those commies would do to them? No, I'm not saying that to argue for communism, but to show what a crap hypocrisy the whole exercise was and why it actually backfired.

The commies were going to do... what?

Take away people's rights? Diem did just that, and was hailed as the "leader of the free world" for that.

Start religious persecutions? Yep, he did that too.

Appoint political commissars all the way down to village level and keep the population in line with brutality? Done too. Diem appointed village chiefs which were outsiders, corrupt and just used brutality to enforce Diem's leadership. Purely political appointees too. So hated were these that assassinating a bunch of them actually made the population like the Viet Cong a lot more.

(And that's not counting the political commissars appointed to the _army_, with some south vietnamese generals appointed for as little as being catholic.)

Start arresting and/or executing their political opponents? Diem did just that. And again, actually got praised for it, as long as those opponents included commie sympathizers.

Start torturing and terrorizing the population to with some brutal secret police keep them in line? Well, gee, not only Diem did just that, but the USA actually trained that secret police for him.

Start packing people it doesn't like into concentration camps? Wait, Diem did that too.

Do mass deportations, Stalin style? Wait, that wasn't even Diem. The USA did that. Millions of Vietnamese were moved to villages which were supposed to be controlled and supplied by the USA, to keep them separated from those evil commies. Except they were overcrowded and barely supplied to bare subsistence level, if at all. The unhappiness and dissent there soon reached such levels that they actually became bigger supporters and recruiting grounds of the Viet Cong than the rest of Vietnam, and that even when starting from some people who were fairly pro-USA before that exercise.

We're not just talking stuff where the USA sat and watched, but was an active accomplice in. It was the US Army that rounded those people and moved them to new villages, for example.

And what I'm getting at is that it was a cure worse than what it was supposed to prevent. The Diem regime was worse than anything the commies ever did. Unsurprisingly for a regime modeled after the Nazis. You know, after _those_ guys.

And for what? If the purpose was to not give the country to the communists, it actually helped achieve the exact opposite effect. Resentment to Diem and his USA backers actually caused mass enrollment in the Viet Cong and massive pro-communist sentiments.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

HM, ever considered what happened in Eastern Europe and Russia as well as Korea and China which made Communism a bad thing?

I dont deny Diem was a Dick, but to compare the Strategic Hamlet policy with Stalin's deportations is low. Very, Very, low. For one, the mass deportations werent considered by Stalin as a security policy, rather as hatred. and Diem had completely misintrepreted the intent and methods of the Strategic Hamlets.

And besides, SV was extremely corrupt and a nation beset by constant terror attacks that would make it impossible to create a democracy. As well as that, Communists werent exactly democratic. Buy your logic, it was wrong for the US to remove hitler because he was elected.

Besides, if the VC were so popular where was that National Revolution? Why did people not revolt en masse?

As well as that, Diem was at least initially popular. He rigged an election against Bao Dai yes, but he still won by a margin accordign to the pentagon papers.

What do i get here? Whitewashing of communists and terrorists as a "people's revolution". And please show evidence that SV killed more than NV, where it was estimated that countless people were killed in purges and forced famines. Many actually hated the vietcong and whenever there was a population exchange per the 1954 agreement, more people left North Vietnam than South Vietnam.

And you also forget that Diem had been DEAD before 1964 whenever the US helped get rid of him, seeing he was a complete nincompoop.

Could Vietnam have been handled better? Yes. Did Diem's policies prove fertile ground for VC recruitment? Absolutely. But you seem to think, like bush did wrt Iraq, that democracy could come instantly and setting it up was "fairly easy".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Actually, speaking of counter-productive stuff, the bombing of Cambodia and Laos was one of the dumbest ideas ever.

Not only it involved bombing a neutral country (heck, Cambodia was actually an US _ally_ after the US had couped Sianouk), which is in direct violation of international law, but it actually pretty much created the Khmer Rouge.

Before the war, the Khmer Rouge were just a handful of extremists that nobody ever took seriously even in the rural areas and had practically zero traction in any urban centre. They simply didn't matter either way. They didn't have enough people or support either to win elections or to stage a revolt.

Couping King Norodom Sianouk already raised a lot of anti-western and anti-USA sentiment by itself, and recruiting in the name of being against that coup became a major theme for the Khmer Rouge, but still wasn't enough. The Khmer Rouge were still pretty much a non-issue.

Then came the bombing. Whole provinces actually got more tons of explosives per square mile than the front lines in World War 1. _That_ kind of bombing.

Laos for example saw two million tons of bombs dropped over its territory, during 500,000 bombing missions. That's more bombs than Germany and Japan _combined_ got during the entire course of WW2.

Cambodia saw over half a million tons of bombs (more than a _billion_ pounds of bombs) dropped over its territory between '70 and '73, again, easily three times the bombing that Japan got in WW2. It added up to 15,400 pounds of bombs per square mile, taking the surface of the whole country, but in practice only less than a quarter of the area was bombed, so it averages actually over 60,000 pounds of bombs per square mile. In some places higher. By the end of the bombing campaign, it's estimated than over 600,000 civilians had been killed.

Just because some Norther Vietnamese may have been illegally passing through Cambodia and Laos territory. Let me stress that: not because Laos or Cambodia were actually encouraging or supporting them. They didn't. They were actually pro-USA. Just because some insurgents may have passed through there.

In modern terms it's a plan as stupid as, say, bombing Turkey because some guerillas from Iraq go across the border to Turkey.

Worse yet, the bombing of Cambodia actually continued well after the end of the Vietnam war, directly contradicting earlier claims that it had only been done to protect American lives in Vietnam. Months after the Paris Agreement, which marked the official end of the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia was actually stepped _up_. From March to May 1973 actually more tons of bombs were poured over Cambodia than during the whole previous year.

And that's pretty much how the Khmer Rouge happened. You can't bomb a country that savagely, kill over half a million civillians, and expect them not to hate you. Recruitment in the Khmer Rouge sky-rocketed, especially in the zones that got bombed the worst.

Remember that these guys weren't just bombed by the USA, they were also saddled with a puppet government by the USA. Hatred against the guys that bombed them was trivial to use as hatred against the government held in power by the exact same guys. Enrolling in the Khmer Rouge and taking the fight back to the government backed by the USA seemed like a no-brainer for a heck of a lot of people.

Basically it was a move that handed Cambodia to Pol Pot on a silver platter.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, to compare the Strategic Hamlet thing to Stalin's deportations is actually very very accurate. Most people moved in the Strategic Hamlet initiative actually didn't want to be uprooted like that, and hated it. Once they found themselves in an overcrowded village that was massively undersupplied, they started hating it even more.

 

[TraneWreck]

And that's pretty much how the Khmer Rouge happened. You can't bomb a country that savagely, kill over half a million civillians, and expect them not to hate you. Recruitment in the Khmer Rouge sky-rocketed, especially in the zones that got bombed the worst.

I thought it had long since been proven that people of all nations enjoy the gentle caress of our freedom bombs.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

HM,

First off, Cambodia became fair game after North vietnamese forces were using the ho chi minh trail to supply weapons to terrorists and Franc tireurs. And to blame washington for what the Khmer rouge did is disingenuous to say the least. Sihanouk tolerated their presence and gave them free passage which clearly aligned him with the Communists.

And the US didnt coup Sihanouk. It was Lon Nol, who was afraid of Cambodian Soverignty being eroded by the NVA using it as a corridor. And it is disingenous to say "a few".

The Khmer rouge largely coerced people to join them, and people didnt join because of the bombing raids.

Carpet bombing was largely used because of lessons learned from WW2, which was inappropriate for something like the jungles of South East Asia.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As for the other stuff...

Buy your logic, it was wrong for the US to remove hitler because he was elected.

So we're back to "by your logic" strawmen? Can you actually address what was actually written, or are you that helpless without your invented BS?

(Not to mention pretty inexact, as Hitler wasn't removed by the USA, he killed himself.)

Besides, if the VC were so popular where was that National Revolution? Why did people not revolt en masse?

Now that's a silly argument if there ever was one. Do you genuinely think that 100% people will ever revolt to support whichever side they like more? Or what?

As well as that, Diem was at least initially popular. He rigged an election against Bao Dai yes, but he still won by a margin accordign to the pentagon papers.

BS. Nobody actually knows how many votes he actually got. That referendum is one of the prime examples of a rigged election, and were handled by Diem's younger brother without any other supervision or democratic checks. But, fer crying out loud, in many districts there were more votes for Diem than registered voters.

But it's not like anyone presented to the pentagon the original results and the modified ones, so really nobody knows.

There were some pentagon estimates that he would probably get over half the votes, because basically it was also the vote between republic (Diem) and monarchy (Bao Dai.) Not only a lot of people were for a more modern republic, but also the king wasn't particularly well loved either and regarded as more of a foreigner than anything else. So basically even then the thrust wasn't that Diem would be popular, but merely it was believed that he would probably win more than half the votes simply because the people were sick of their old monarch. Big difference there.

What do i get here? Whitewashing of communists and terrorists as a "people's revolution".

Yes, considering that so far you've shown that you only get whatever BS strawmen fit your canned talking points, I'm not surprised you get another strawman. I'd have been more surprised if you actually started showing even basic comprehension skills.

And please show evidence that SV killed more than NV, where it was estimated that countless people were killed in purges and forced famines.

... and more strawmen...

Many actually hated the vietcong and whenever there was a population exchange per the 1954 agreement, more people left North Vietnam than South Vietnam.

"Many" is a vague quantifier, and a red herring. Nobody said that _everyone_ loved the VC.

And you also forget that Diem had been DEAD before 1964 whenever the US helped get rid of him, seeing he was a complete nincompoop.

Only to be replaced with another puppet dictator and more rigged elections. Yeah, major improvement that one

Could Vietnam have been handled better? Yes. Did Diem's policies prove fertile ground for VC recruitment? Absolutely.

Bingo. Someone give that man a cigar. _That_ is the point.

But you seem to think, like bush did wrt Iraq, that democracy could come instantly and setting it up was "fairly easy".

Easier than actively supporting a dictatorship, training its secret police and doing its deportations, one should think, no? The problem isn't as much that setting up a democracy is hard, as that the US applied all its effort in exactly the opposite direction. They didn't even try to start a democracy, they actually worked hard to keep the dictatorship going.

Basically: It's like claiming that starting a car is hard while pushing hard on the brakes instead of the gas.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I tend to quantify nastiness in body counts which many do. It aint a strawman. For example, people consider Kim Jong Il worse than Mugabe. But diem was still a dick ill give you that.

and the pentagon papers note that Diem was still popular (at least initially)

You said setting up a democracy out of a dictatorship could be done overnight. I cited Iraq as a counterargument. It isnt as simple as holding elections, which bush learned.

As well as that, if Diem was so unpopular, where was the Popular Revolution? Why did millions not revolt en masse? Many people hated the Czar in Russia, which led to the revolution there, why not in South Vietnam?

 

[A'isha]

As well as that, if Diem was so unpopular, where was the Popular Revolution? Why did millions not revolt en masse? Many people hated the Czar in Russia, which led to the revolution there, why not in South Vietnam?

There's no logical connection between Diem's popularity (or lack thereof) and the lack of a popular revolt to overthrow him. How long did Russia suffer under the Czar before the Revolution happened? What does the lack of any such popular overthrow of, say, Stalin say about his popularity?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Stalin was LOVED by the people who were indoctrinated via a Cult of Personality.

 

[A'isha]

Stalin was LOVED by the people who were indoctrinated via a Cult of Personality.

Stalin was not kept in power by being a beloved popular figure, and I know you know that.

 

[Loss Leader]

Actually, speaking of counter-productive stuff, the bombing of Cambodia and Laos was one of the dumbest ideas ever.

I don't disagree. Assuming (for the moment) that we were right to be in Vietnam, we were right to try to stop the North from using Cambodia to get around us. However: 1) the manner in which we pursued the Cambodian campaign, as you pointed out, was disastrous; and 2) we really shouldn't have been in Vietnam to begin with.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Stalin was not kept in power by being a beloved popular figure, and I know you know that.

No, but it contributed significantly.

 

[A'isha]

No, but it contributed significantly.

Define "significantly". Because I'm pretty sure the oppressive bureaucratic Party structure, the willingness to use ruthless military force, the policy of genocide by starvation of entire populations that he saw as a threat, the periodic brutal purges, and the network of gulags, secret police, and informers had a lot more to do with it.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Define "significantly". Because I'm pretty sure the oppressive bureaucratic Party structure, the willingness to use ruthless military force, the policy of genocide by starvation of entire populations that he saw as a threat, and the network of gulags, secret police, and informers had a lot more to do with it.

The reason Stalin survived as long as the Czars was not just because of terror, but also because the people worshipped him as though he were god. Propaganda helps as much as crusing someone's windpipe. The Cult of Personality cultivated an image of Stalin as a benevolent father which many in russia adhered to. Indeed, a girl whose parents were killed by stalin cried whenever she found out he died.

And OJ, Should the US have kept out of Korea because it didnt directly involve them?

 

[A'isha]

The reason Stalin survived as long as the Czars was not just because of terror, but also because the people worshipped him as though he were god. Propaganda helps as much as crusing someone's windpipe. The Cult of Personality cultivated an image of Stalin as a benevolent father which many in russia adhered to. Indeed, a girl whose parents were killed by stalin cried whenever she found out he died.

I'd think that someone who maintained power mostly through popular support wouldn't need quite so many gulags, purges, and genocides in order to stay propped up.

And why was there then no revolt under Krushchev (especially after he denounced Stalin and dismantled his "Cult of Personality")? Or Brezhnev? Or Andropov? Or Chernenko? And why was the only "revolt" under Gorbachev carried out not by "the people", but by apparatchiks who thought Gorbachev wasn't being oppressive enough?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I said a significant part, not a vital part. You also need to consider ideology as well. Many soviet Citizens believed that Communism and the withering of the state was going to come, and indeed Khrushchev improved living standards as well. Propaganda is also needed to keep a state as repressive as Soviet Russia functioning.

 

[A'isha]

I said a significant part, not a vital part. You also need to consider ideology as well. Many soviet Citizens believed that Communism and the withering of the state was going to come, and indeed Khrushchev improved living standards as well. Propaganda is also needed to keep a state as repressive as Soviet Russia functioning.

This is close to the point that I'm trying to make here. There's a whole host of factors involved in whether or not a popular revolt against even a hated oppressor even happens. Therefore to argue that the only reason Diem wasn't overthrown by a popular revolution was because he really wasn't all that unpopular after all is making a meaningless and unsupportable assertion.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

IIRC Diem was in a MUCH worse position than Stalin. For one, there was an active insurgency that was being supported by a hostile state to the north. As well as that, his benefactors were losing patience with him BIG time. A lot of people LOATHED him. Yet why did popular revolution not take place?

 

[A'isha]

IIRC Diem was in a MUCH worse position than Stalin. For one, there was an active insurgency that was being supported by a hostile state to the north. As well as that, his benefactors were losing patience with him BIG time. A lot of people LOATHED him. Yet why did popular revolution not take place?

A) he wasn't in power long enough for a popular rebellion to gain enough momentum (how long was the czar stomping on Russians before they did something about it?), and B) he had enough enemies who were in a better position than any of (to use an example) Stalin's enemies that they were able to get to him before "the people" could (which contributed to A).