US and Vietnam

[Mephisto]

I wouldn't believe it!

peptoabysmal

your link claims that 2/3 of US servicemen in Vietnam were volunteers- ie. not conscripts. Are you sure this is right?

I'm a veteran and I personally didn't know ONE SINGLE enlisted man my age that volunteered. That's why the draft was still be used to feed the green machine. The only ones volunteering were mostly officers with a career to think about (minus the President, of course).

The majority of the "volunteers" with higher enlisted rank had been in since Korea (and I don't know what percentage were originally drafted) so I'm not too sure about them.

I'd be more inclined to believe that 2/3 had NOT volunteered.

 

[crimresearch]

'Volunteering' would include everyone who joined the Navy or the Coast Guard, or the Air Force instead of waiting for their draft notice...as well as those who were offered the chance to volunteer instead of serving a prison sentence....which would be a substantial portion of Vietnam *era* service members.
The number who actually went *to* Vietnam was smaller, and I would suspect, had a higher percentage of draftees.

 

[Renfield]

Nice strawman.

I never liked Nixon and was in fact a Democrat in those days, so I didn't vote for him. The media used photos that perpetuated the image they wanted to portray of the war. Some of these images led to myths that live on until this day. If you haven't seen the movie Apocalypse Now, check it out for a full dosage of these perpetuated myths.

Was the Vietnam war a screwed up mess? No one denies this.

Victory wasn't near, we left with a peace settlement and Saigon fell two years after we left.

What image was that? Like I said, in my otherwise sarcastic post, media coverage was generally positive through much of the war. It generally got more cynical towards the end, but after nearly a decade its hard to blame them.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, then, there was the problem of "what do we do with all the boys from the baby boom?" too.

This modern coddling of young males is the root of many of Western society's ills. RTA's and youth-on-youth violence can't compensate for a proper culling, which you just don't get these days. Add to that the effective elimination of so many diseases and it's no wonder society is bathed in directionless testosterone. Fifty-odd thousand American dead in Vietnam is regarded as world-changing; the Brits took 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme, let alone what the French, German and Imperials suffered. Time was when a man who survived into his fifties could expect wife, mistress and girlfriend - finances permitting - with a deal of variation in the latter. That's what I call an ordered society. Campaign for Real War - Ban the Bomb, Bring Back the Bayonet.

The Chinese have an even worse problem. I can't help thinking something could be arranged. Maybe in Russia? It could even start over Poland just to be artiistic.

Polish Joke : Polish guy captures Polish version of leprachaun, gets three wishes. Asks that Poland be occupied by the Chinese three times. OK, but why? To occupy Poland three times, the Chinese would have to march across Russia six times.

 

[CapelDodger]

The Vietnam war has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

True enough, but there is an active Vietnam Revisionism evident over the last few years, so it's history becomes a current event. (History is, apparently, to be lumped in with the Arts, but I think we all know better.)

Ryokan : "Hadn't the South Vietnamese asked the US for support?". When you hear something like this, you have to ask what South Vietnam was and by what mandate did anybody "ask" on its behalf. When you look into that you'll find that South Vietnam was the last desperate gasp of the French effort to maintain an Eastern empire despite being beaten by the Germans and craven to the Japanese. That might lead you into the question of how France became the colonial power in Indo-China and the Vietnamese relationship with China that, let's face it, goes back a lot further than the French Connection. And has seen a China-Vietnam war more recently than a US-Vietnam war.

And so it goes, every thread leading you to other threads, not just history but economics, technology, philosophy, the whole human experience. The world of today can be understood so much better against the backdrop of centuries.

 

[CapelDodger]

Victory wasn't near, we left with a peace settlement and Saigon fell two years after we left.

Wouldn't it have been better to have the same thing happen six years earlier? Victory was never near and was never going to be near, because victory was undefined. The US was fighting part of the global War on Communism, the Vietnamese were fighting a local war about Vietnam. The Russians loved it, of course, Vietnam was Stalingrad writ large. They could bleed in enough support to keep the thing going, while their rival was pouring in everything that would fit and at enormous cost. The damage done to US society was everything the Praesidium could have hoped for. Fortunately the US system proved robust enough to get out late rather than too late.

Whether or not that will happen this time around (Iraq) is doubtful. The emergence of Vietnam Revisionism being one more signal.

 

[peptoabysmal]

True enough, but there is an active Vietnam Revisionism evident over the last few years, so it's history becomes a current event. (History is, apparently, to be lumped in with the Arts, but I think we all know better.)

Fair enough.

Ryokan : "Hadn't the South Vietnamese asked the US for support?". When you hear something like this, you have to ask what South Vietnam was and by what mandate did anybody "ask" on its behalf. When you look into that you'll find that South Vietnam was the last desperate gasp of the French effort to maintain an Eastern empire despite being beaten by the Germans and craven to the Japanese. That might lead you into the question of how France became the colonial power in Indo-China and the Vietnamese relationship with China that, let's face it, goes back a lot further than the French Connection. And has seen a China-Vietnam war more recently than a US-Vietnam war.

And so it goes, every thread leading you to other threads, not just history but economics, technology, philosophy, the whole human experience. The world of today can be understood so much better against the backdrop of centuries.

South Vietnam at the time was more like a banana republic where a new el General takes over every few years and kills off the old regime. They were more than happy to get US support and we were more than happy to "stem the tide of Communism". China was none too happy with Ho Chio Minh either, especially in regards to getting Soviet support, IIRC. What's ironic IMO is that while we were busy defending Democracy on France's behalf, France was busy turning Socialist. I don't think anyone could have deliberately concocted a better mess on so many levels.

 

[Ryokan]

[They were more than happy to get US support and we were more than happy to "stem the tide of Communism". [/B]

When you see the result of the North Vietnamese taking over, over 20 years of a communist terror regime, can you blame them for being happy for the support?

Isn't it fair to say that the US had more support in Vietnam than they had in Iraq when the invasion started?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Wouldn't it have been better to have the same thing happen six years earlier? Victory was never near and was never going to be near, because victory was undefined. The US was fighting part of the global War on Communism, the Vietnamese were fighting a local war about Vietnam. The Russians loved it, of course, Vietnam was Stalingrad writ large. They could bleed in enough support to keep the thing going, while their rival was pouring in everything that would fit and at enormous cost. The damage done to US society was everything the Praesidium could have hoped for. Fortunately the US system proved robust enough to get out late rather than too late.

Whether or not that will happen this time around (Iraq) is doubtful. The emergence of Vietnam Revisionism being one more signal.

It could have happened 6 years earlier with the same end result. And the damage you speak of is still infecting the US and much of the rest of the world as the Vietnam legacy which gets thrown at the current Iraq conflict or any other conflict that comes along. If we go back and embrace that same defeatist mentality, the end result will be far worse than Vietnam.

There is much more at stake this time. If we lack the fortitude to protect and rebuild Iraq into a viable sovereign nation, we will pay dearly for years to come. We simply can't afford to lose this one.

 

[The Fool]

When you see the result of the North Vietnamese taking over, over 20 years of a communist terror regime, can you blame them for being happy for the support?

This gives the impression that an awfull lot of people must have been bought in from the north to run things at the end of the war. The reality was that there was, from a very early time, a mirror setup of village leaders and local government infrastructure mostly "southerners" who were not involved with the "south vietnamese" military dictatorship that we were happily supporting. This alternate government was essentially running things for quite a while prior to the final collapse of the western backed regime. There was certainly a great deal of revenge taking when the civil war ended....but the description of the vietnamese nation after the end of the civil war as a "terror regime" is a little harsh imho. Many Australians go there as tourists and don't describe what they see as a terror regime.

Isn't it fair to say that the US had more support in Vietnam than they had in Iraq when the invasion started?
yes, we had a prebuilt junta to use...many thanks to France for nurturing it.

 

[Ryokan]

but the description of the vietnamese nation after the end of the civil war as a "terror regime" is a little harsh imho.

The thousands of refugees that Norway recieved in the 80's and 90's would probably disagree.

 

[The Fool]

The thousands of refugees that Norway recieved in the 80's and 90's would probably disagree.

yes, as would many of the tens of thousands of refugees Australia recieved. here certainly was persecution and revenge taking after the civil war ended but to describe it as 20 years of a terror regime is still, in my opinion, a little harsh. Vietnam has been through decade after decade after decade of tragedy and war but it is certainly no North Korea. My own impression is that the vietnamese look on thier war with much pride in thier resolve and ultimate victory and view the wartime leaders as national heroes.

 

[crimresearch]

Revenge taking seems likely after Vietnam finally achieved its independence, and harsh living conditions certainly, due in no small part to the war (remember Bomb them back to the Stone Age'?), but I'm wondering where this terror was focused.

Are there mass graves and such?

 

[CapelDodger]

South Vietnam at the time was more like a banana republic where a new el General takes over every few years and kills off the old regime.

South Vietnam was part of the French Empire from the 1860's down to the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, by which time the US was already involved in funding and supplying the French. France retained its empire after its defeat in 1940 - the same deal was offered to Britain - and despite the effective occupation of Indo-China by the Japanese. South Vietnam was not an administrative unit of the French Empre, let alone a republic of any fruit. The division - not a border - along the De-Militarized Zone was a temporary arrangement so that the French and Viet Minh could disengage while the French prepared for evacuation. The French attempted to set up a long-term puppet regime in the South, later known as South Vietnam. Its governments were installed/removed by the French and later the US, as served their purposes.

China was none too happy with Ho Chio Minh either, especially in regards to getting Soviet support, IIRC.

Ho Chi Minh was of old school Communism, learnt in Paris and Moscow, not the new school Communism of Mao. They saw Ho's Vietnam as a Soviet ally on their southern border. China also sees Vietnam as a natural sphere of Chinese interest, which it usually has been, often as part of the Middle Kingdom itself. So they supported the neo-Maoist Khmer Rouge (which the Vietnamese and Soviets didn't), and Vietnam ended up at war with both.

Had Ho been a Maoist (peasant-oriented) rather than a Marxist (proletariat-oriented) China would have been very happy with him.

What's ironic IMO is that while we were busy defending Democracy on France's behalf, France was busy turning Socialist. I don't think anyone could have deliberately concocted a better mess on so many levels.

France has been what you would judge "socialist" since 1849. France is still a democracy. (South Vietnam never was.) Your apparent irony derives, I think, from a false dichotomy between Socialism and Democracy or a false equation of Socialism with Communism (Communism is Socialist, but Socialism is not Communist).

 

[CapelDodger]

Isn't it fair to say that the US had more support in Vietnam than they had in Iraq when the invasion started?

Since nobody ever asked the population in either case it's impossible to say. I suspect there was much more Iraqi support for US intervention than Vietnamese, but that's just an opinion.

There was certainly support from the gangsters and generals the US promoted, and the rich in general. There was also support from the Catholics, who were subjected to a relentless propaganda campaign from the French, the Vatican and the CIA about how the communists would eat their babies and crucify their priests. (It didn't happen, by the way.) Catholics were also strongly identified with the Colonial administration, which was another source of concern. Many northern Catholics moved to the South after 1954, which rather distorts the picture. That mass movement was funded by the CIA via the Vatican and various Catholic organisations.

Many South Vietnamese most certainly did not support US intervention, or rule by puppet governments. That's why they went to such lengths to attack Americans and those they regarded as their tools.

 

[CapelDodger]

It could have happened 6 years earlier with the same end result.

Not with the Agent Orange contribution to the end result, or the damage that was done during those six (ten, twenty ...) extra years.

And the damage you speak of is still infecting the US and much of the rest of the world as the Vietnam legacy which gets thrown at the current Iraq conflict or any other conflict that comes along. If we go back and embrace that same defeatist mentality, the end result will be far worse than Vietnam.

The Vietnam legacy is the experience that fighting an invalid, unjustified and hopeless war is possible under the US political system. That's why there's so little trust in the Iraq War, not a "defeatist mentality". The mentality to worry about is the one that's trying to re-define the Vietnam experience as a failure to "stick it out". The implications for the current conflict are obvious.

There is much more at stake this time. If we lack the fortitude to protect and rebuild Iraq into a viable sovereign nation, we will pay dearly for years to come. We simply can't afford to lose this one.

Perhaps it will be possible to achieve those aims. If it proves not to be possible and the US "sticks it out", it will pay dearly for an indeterminate time. Getting the US involved in a war which it "cannot afford to lose" on the basis of a WMD threat that did not exist is a bloody funny reason for re-electing a President, don't you think? I'd have thought that deserved instant dismissal, and a frank discussion of the hanging option.

 

[crimresearch]

"South Vietnam was part of the French Empire from the 1860's down to the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, by which time the US was already involved in funding and supplying the French."

That would be just Vietnam, formerly Annam, period.
The creation of North and South Vietnam occured during the 1954 talks.

 

[CapelDodger]

That would be just Vietnam, formerly Annam, period.
The creation of North and South Vietnam occured during the 1954 talks.

There have been three recurring regions of Vietnam, a northern area centred on Hanoi and most likely to be part of China, a smaller region around Hue, between the mountains and the deep blue sea (very sea-faring, adventurous, anti-Chinese domination and a bit of a favourite of mine), and a southern region centred on Saigon and the Mekong delta (rice, peasants, fithy-rich torpid aristocracy). They're all rather different, but there is a commonality - for instance, there's a traditionally accepted division between Vietnamese and Cambodian. It's where the high-tide of Hindu influence met the growing influence of the Han Chinese.

Nobody really cared much about the mountain-and-forest people, who are closely related to the mountain-and-forest minorities of Southern China. They're the Kurds of the Far East - never (so far) worth eliminating.

Of course, everything that ever was Chinese is fair game to Chinese nationalists now. Vietnam is a country looking for friends, and it has a lot more going for it than Taiwan does. Time to mend fences, I think, just from a strategic point of view. When it comes to investment opportunities, there aren't many tigers that haven't roared yet. Vietnam could well be one. Fill your boots, I say. But avoid the poultry industry.

 

[peptoabysmal]

France has been what you would judge "socialist" since 1849. France is still a democracy. (South Vietnam never was.) Your apparent irony derives, I think, from a false dichotomy between Socialism and Democracy or a false equation of Socialism with Communism (Communism is Socialist, but Socialism is not Communist). [/B]

From the 1940's to the 1960's socialist and communist parties were out of favor in France. IIRC there was a rather spectacular failure of a socialist government in the 1930's which impacted politics for a while.

P.S. Parti Socialiste (the one with the stupid logo of a fist holding a rose) was founded in 1969. Coincidental?

To me, there is little difference between socialist and communist in regards to the damage they cause by impoverishing entire nations. One just does it in a slightly more brutal fashion. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

 

[Ryokan]

To me, there is little difference between socialist and communist in regards to the damage they cause by impoverishing entire nations. One just does it in a slightly more brutal fashion. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Yeah, I guess that's why Norway, who has been governed by socialists from the early 20's to the late 90's is such a crappy place to live.

Oh wait, it's not, according to the UN it's the best nation to live in on the planet.